Animal Rights And Humanity's Might
Heads up. This is going to sound odd, because I'm arguing for evolutionists today. Yep. Of course in the end, I own a completely different set of beliefs and evolution crumbles anyway, so no surprise there I guess.
It all started with thinking about animal rights, yeah... see here's how it goes: humans have rights, we're no different than animals, so animals should have the same rights as humans. I have a problem with that. Forthwith is my attempt at discussion about animal rights from an evolutionary point of view. Would love comments on how it turns out.
Seems to me, that the very fact that humans control animals could be seen as evidence for evolution. Why give animals rights, when we are clearly more highly developed? They shouldn't even have survived when we as humans surpassed them. A good many of them didn't. Humans now give animals the right to exist as a species. That isn't individual rights, but it's better than the alternative of total extinction. By what's been said, the fact that humans have decided, and learned, to domesticate and control animals, is arguably evidence for both evolution and creation.
This is because humans can write books, and music. Paint what can be called art. Build sophisticated machinery that requires specific processing, like steel, and rubber. I am not won over by someone showing me an ape using a rock to smash something open. Even a baby can figure that out. Similarly, birds sing. Dogs attempt to bow-wow the blues; neither can actually write music.
So it's easy to see how humans are more highly developed. My argument from an evolutionary standpoint is simply this: By the rule of natural selection, animals should have died out because they are not as evolved as humans, but because we are more highly evolved, we use that to our advantage by controlling animals.
That is my conclusion, but I ask myself, does it make sense? Yes, and no. The two halves make sense, but they are contradictory. The first declares that animals should have died out, but they didn't, which would imply that we are no better than them. Yet the second half says that we are better, and while saying how that is used, omits to explain how we got there without first eliminating animals with less chance for survival.
Yes, there are ways to smart-talk and info-dump your way around this. For humans have learned to domesticate animals before they were eliminated through natural selection, because there were so many around. Or some such argument. In the end, although it was fun trying to work from a perspective I am in conflict with, evolution breaks down at the fundamental level, the beginning. However much literature I read, or persuasive oratory I hear, that is about how evolution works now, (which is totally unconvincing) evolution cannot explain the intricacy of humans. I say humans because it is relative to the subject matter, although everything else works too.
Genesis 1:27-28 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" (emphasis added)
We have rights over animals, because we are made in the image of God. He has given us dominion over them, not to abuse and destroy them, but to rule over them. To use them to create increase in the world. Love animals, but love humans more, and love God the most. Thanks for reading.
It all started with thinking about animal rights, yeah... see here's how it goes: humans have rights, we're no different than animals, so animals should have the same rights as humans. I have a problem with that. Forthwith is my attempt at discussion about animal rights from an evolutionary point of view. Would love comments on how it turns out.
Seems to me, that the very fact that humans control animals could be seen as evidence for evolution. Why give animals rights, when we are clearly more highly developed? They shouldn't even have survived when we as humans surpassed them. A good many of them didn't. Humans now give animals the right to exist as a species. That isn't individual rights, but it's better than the alternative of total extinction. By what's been said, the fact that humans have decided, and learned, to domesticate and control animals, is arguably evidence for both evolution and creation.
This is because humans can write books, and music. Paint what can be called art. Build sophisticated machinery that requires specific processing, like steel, and rubber. I am not won over by someone showing me an ape using a rock to smash something open. Even a baby can figure that out. Similarly, birds sing. Dogs attempt to bow-wow the blues; neither can actually write music.
So it's easy to see how humans are more highly developed. My argument from an evolutionary standpoint is simply this: By the rule of natural selection, animals should have died out because they are not as evolved as humans, but because we are more highly evolved, we use that to our advantage by controlling animals.
That is my conclusion, but I ask myself, does it make sense? Yes, and no. The two halves make sense, but they are contradictory. The first declares that animals should have died out, but they didn't, which would imply that we are no better than them. Yet the second half says that we are better, and while saying how that is used, omits to explain how we got there without first eliminating animals with less chance for survival.
Yes, there are ways to smart-talk and info-dump your way around this. For humans have learned to domesticate animals before they were eliminated through natural selection, because there were so many around. Or some such argument. In the end, although it was fun trying to work from a perspective I am in conflict with, evolution breaks down at the fundamental level, the beginning. However much literature I read, or persuasive oratory I hear, that is about how evolution works now, (which is totally unconvincing) evolution cannot explain the intricacy of humans. I say humans because it is relative to the subject matter, although everything else works too.
Genesis 1:27-28 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" (emphasis added)
We have rights over animals, because we are made in the image of God. He has given us dominion over them, not to abuse and destroy them, but to rule over them. To use them to create increase in the world. Love animals, but love humans more, and love God the most. Thanks for reading.
Comments
Post a Comment