I’m not as ‘highly evolved’ as you but I do agree it is for the best. Eating meat in itself isn’t bad but given our numbers and impact on the environment, you are at least more responsible and a better steward of the planet than I. Animals killing animals is the way of things but for a thinking, planning critter like us it would be better to do as you do. (I am weak.)
Now I can’t remember if I watched the whole thing. There are a number of videos that have been cited I’d like to get to. Thanks for the quotes.
Well, we all do what we can.
Indeed. I’m an ex-vegan, so I have put a lot of thought into my food choices. Sustainable hunting makes no animal captive, requires the genetic enslavement of no organism, requires no monopoly of soil, sun or water and has no significant impact upon wildlife populations. There is a lot to like about it, but out of political expediency, authoritarian vegans make it the prime target of their actism, and not, say, KFC. That bugs me, a lot.
For those with the access and the skills I have no problem with that so long as it is sustainable as you say. Where predation has been suppressed controlled human hunting can spare prey species from needless starvation.
Well, no guns for me. I think this country has plenty of guns. Maybe too many.
@jstump,Thank you for the podcast.
I learned at least two things from the dialog.
- Jane Goodall was trained as an ethologist. That is very interesting because I see then Richard Dawkins received his initial degree in the area of ethology. I cannot think of any two persons who have a more different approaches to biology. Dawkins studies biology to justify an ideology, his next degree was in philosophy(!), while Goodall studies chimps by observing chimps. Little wonder that Dawkins labeled fauna as selfish “survival machines” while Goodall found chimps to be sentient beings, who are able to care for others.
BioLogos at times seems to defend Dawkins. We can defend the science of Dawkins from unjust criticism, but I would not defend his ideological approach to science, which is unscientific. Jane Goodall is a good antidote.
- I learned that @jstump is in fairly close communication with Francis Collins. I have said before that the name that Dr. Collins choose for BioLogos is excellent. It points to the confluence of the Spiritual Jesus Christ; the Philosophical - the Logos; and the Scientific - the Creation, in John 1:1-3, 14.
My question that I would like you to ask Dr. Collins is Why does he and BioLogos completely ignore the Logos when talking about faith and evolution? Particularly when talking to Christians we must emphasis that our faith is based on reconciliation and truth.
Don’t you mean ethologist?
Thank you, @beaglelady, for the correction.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.