The dirty little secret is that Dawkins doesn't think you should test on aniamls and is one of the people trying to get the great apes categorised as having the same standing as people.

He is on the side of those who are a threat to scientific reasearch.

Homo habilis

Homo erectus

Homo neanderthalensis

Enjoy.[/quote]
First, I'd teach them English, some manners, and how to bathe. Then, I'd ask [i]them[/i] if they'd like to submit to experimentation, and decide based on their answers.

"1. The silly statements being attributed to Dawkins by the inquisitors here bear almost no resemblance to the ideas being discussed by Dawkins."

So you claim.

"2. Be that as is may, Krauze, your question betrays a distinct double standard, as it is clear here that ID supporters are most definitely entitled to make all manner of silly, stupid, outrageous statement, without fear of criticism or even comment."

So you claim.

"Which puts you in some peril, Krauze, as any hint of agreement
with Dawkins on this blog inevitably brings with it an irrational tirade from MikeGene."

So you claim.

Krauze, noting that your earlier comments regarding "Meet my cousin, the chimpanzee" … totally misrepresent the article,"

So you claim.

"I'd answer that speciesist prejudices, the idea that humans are distinct from other animals, do indeed prevent such an experiment."

Undoubtedly speciesism lays behind some (most?) of the resistance to such an experiment. But my question was this: "Is speciesist prejudices the only thing that prevents us from attempting to breed a chimpanzee/human hybrid?"

If the notion that humans are distinct from other animals dissappeared tomorrow, would we carry out Dawkins' experiment? Should we?

"Do you, Krauze, think that the essay by Dawkins raises interesting questions regarding this standard?"

Interest is in the eye of the beholder. If one likes to engage in fact-free speculation, I suppose one would find Dawkins' questions interesting.

"Or are you of the opinion that the intersection of biology and ethics is something that is better left unexplored?"

No, I am not.

"Also, do you agree with the following?

"Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be regarded as though they are cast in stone.""

Considering that my ethical principles aren't based upon accidental caprice, I have no problem noting my agreement with this statement.

The silly statements being attributed to Dawkins by the inquisitors here bear almost no resemblance to the ideas being discussed by Dawkins.

That's funny. When 120 faculty members make noise about not wanting to be associated with Gonzalez, Art considers it an appropriate line of inquiry. But when three guys on an obscure blog begin to question why Dawkins refuses to defend science against terrorists, we're suddenly "the inquisitors." And as for bearing "almost no resemblance to the ideas being discussed," that's an odd complaint coming from someone who imposes stereotypical spin on almost everything an ID proponent would say.

But yes, by all means, let's look more closely at Dawkins' "interesting" questions. Let's see what it teaches us. I'll do so with another blog.

Do you, Krauze, think that the essay by Dawkins raises interesting questions regarding this standard?

Singer does a better job at this. What's more interesting is where Dawkins' metaphysics is leading him. He can't quite bring himself to condemn terrorists who attack science, but he does like to ponder animal experimentation if it could be used to create needless societal chaos for "the discontinuous mind." Dawkins really needs to address the issue of animal experimentation, because it's not clear if he has truly shed his "discontinuous mind." But since he won't, why don't you take his place, Art? I asked you, "Do you support the animal rights agenda of preventing the construction of this new science lab?" Is there a reason you'd rather not answer?

Or are you of the opinion that the intersection of biology and ethics is something that is better left unexplored?

Of course not. Yet, since biology is not the source of ethics, we would need to explore the ethical source that you bring to the table.

as any hint of agreement with Dawkins on this blog inevitably brings with it an irrational tirade from MikeGene.

I think you are hallucinating again. Rather than simply lash out at me, do you think you can defend this accusation? It's the least you can do given that you obviously weren't able to address the questions I put to you.

But here is a suggestion- instead of experimenting on other species why don't we just use criminals on death row or those in for life? That would be the best way to pay their debt to society.

IOW leave the critters alone and pick on someone your own size"¦

(yes, I am a vegetarian)

Whew! Thanks for the parenthetical clarification, Joe G. I was worried that we had a cannibal in our midst :-).

(Insert your favorite Soylent Green wisecrack here.)

Hi Art,
I agree with Mike; no one's "burning poor old Richard at the stake". Do you think Dawkins is entitled to make silly statements without having them criticized in public forums?

Two brief comments:

1. The silly statements being attributed to Dawkins by the inquisitors here bear almost no resemblance to the ideas being discussed by Dawkins.

2. Be that as is may, Krauze, your question betrays a distinct double standard, as it is clear here that ID supporters are most definitely entitled to make all manner of silly, stupid, outrageous statement, without fear of criticism or even comment.

My answer is the same for all of your examples: I don't know.

Thanks for the reply, Krauze. That's my answer in a nutshell as well.

Of course, this answer is the one I suspect that Dawkins wishes to elicit from the reader of "Meet my cousin, the chimpanzee". Which puts you in some peril, Krauze, as any hint of agreement with Dawkins on this blog inevitably brings with it an irrational tirade from MikeGene.

Now, I've provided you with my answer to your question, as well as my justification. Would you be willing to answer this question of mine: Is speciesist prejudices the only thing that prevents us from attempting to breed a chimpanzee/human hybrid?

Krauze, noting that your earlier comments regarding "Meet my cousin, the chimpanzee":

"Check out this article in which he criticizes the bigotry of speciesism that prevents the cross-breeding of a human and a chimpanzee."

totally misrepresent the article, I'd answer that speciesist prejudices, the idea that humans are distinct from other animals, do indeed prevent such an experiment. Do you, Krauze, think that the essay by Dawkins raises interesting questions regarding this standard? Or are you of the opinion that the intersection of biology and ethics is something that is better left unexplored?

Also, do you agree with the following?

"Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be regarded as though they are cast in stone."

Homo neanderthalensis

As with all species what we did would most likely depend on how many there were (are). I am sure we would first attempt to get to know and understand the "new" (to us) species. I am also sure that such a discovery would send evolutionists reeling as what they expected to see would again be refuted by reality.

But here is a suggestion- instead of experimenting on other species why don't we just use criminals on death row or those in for life? That would be the best way to pay their debt to society.

IOW leave the critters alone and pick on someone your own size…

(yes, I am a vegetarian)

I agree with Mike; no one's "burning poor old Richard at the stake". Do you think Dawkins is entitled to make silly statements without having them criticized in public forums?

"Suppose you discover a colony of any of the following in the last deep dark wild place on earth. Do you put these in a zoo, or do you treat them more like people than like, say, lions or tigers or chimps? Please answer for each, if you would. Justification for your answers would be nice, as well."

My answer is the same for all of your examples: I don't know. At the moment, our data about these species is fragmentary, being limited to bones and, in some cases, artifacts. If your scenarios ever became reality, we'd obviously have access to much more information, including direct observation of their behavior, responses, and neuro-anatomy. At that point, we'd have a firmer basis for answering your question.

Now, I've provided you with my answer to your question, as well as my justification. Would you be willing to answer this question of mine: Is speciesist prejudices the only thing that prevents us from attempting to breed a chimpanzee/ human hybrid?