|
Hmmm....I see your points, some of them I may even come close to agreeing. I have dispute the science has no laws part though I think. I mean physics is nothing if not ruled by laws of it's science. Biology, well, I think it also has a rigid course of laws, or I guess you could call them rules, I mean, it's pretty unmovable that when you cut open a person they will bleed if alive. The heart pumps the blood, that is a pretty basic biological rule that I don't see changing any time soon.....As for the bastardization of Darwinism being the essence of survival of the fittest...I think it's a matter of semantics as far as survival of the fittest or the most adaptable, I would find them to be one in the same, if they are the more adaptable does that not make them the fittest and most probable to survive their given environment? And why bring politics into science, regardless the desire science can't change the fact of what is just because someone doesn't like it or wants to make it different. I mean I don't like the fact that I way 202lbs. I can't change the state of gravity to make myself lighter....that may be a poor analogy but was the first thing that popped into my mind. Bottom line I think though, there is a "natural law" it is the way of unaltered things. Actually it is the way of altered things as well seeing as the reaction you get from the alteration is derived based according to "natural laws". As for "natural rights"? I really can't see how that's even remotely possible. There is no one making something a certain way, what is is what is....the only way of manipulation of those natural laws would be by divine intervention or a means beyond or ability to understand.
|