[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Your parents took their ideas for child training from someplace other than the Darwinian model. "

There IS no evolutionary model for child rearing. It doesn't say anything about morals, or what one aught to do. It says what IS, period. Just like every other theory in science. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. And, since most evolutionists are also Christians, your *all or nothing* stance is ludicrous anyway.

"Don't argue from the consequences? That's exactly what evolution tries to do. It sees a consequence of time in "nature" and tries to imagine its source over spans of time it makes up itself."

Now you're just being deliberately dense. You are arguing that the consequences (imagined by you) of evolution are enough to dismiss it. That's nonsense, and a logical fallacy. The extra-scientific consequences of ANY theory have NO bearing on the scientific validity of any theory.

[highball]

There IS no evolutionary model for child rearing. It doesn't say anything about morals, or what one aught to do. It says what IS, period. Just like every other theory in science. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.

This seems to be the heart of it.

Creationists seem to be constantly looking for a Theory of Everything. There's this constant confusion about the roles that various elements in life play.

The Bible is an excellent guide to being a better human being, so naturally it must be an excellent biology textbook, right? It must be an accurate history textbook, right?

[Free Baptist]

"There IS no evolutionary model for child rearing. It doesn't say anything about morals, or what one aught to do. It says what IS, period. Just like every other theory in science. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. And, since most evolutionists are also Christians, your *all or nothing* stance is ludicrous anyway."

There is no model deliberately created...or is there?! The religion of Darwinianism is called Humanism (although you may claim not to adhere to it). It is the worship of man by man. It does have a model of child-rearing, which is being worked out in the social experimentation in the government education system as well as in the US Military (e.g.) as they send mothers with children in the USA into combat zones)and other public institutions. It was the model of the child care agencies and preschools I worked around when I had a contract with the US Dept. of Manpower Planning and was trying to train CETA workers through a "Human Resource Development" Corporation (1980).

[Diamond]

There IS no evolutionary model for child rearing. It doesn't say anything about morals, or what one aught to do. It says what IS, period. Just like every other theory in science. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.

Isn't morality also part of what is? If so, then it must have evolved, but if that's the case why then wouldn't evolutionary theory have anything to say about it? How can one account for it, though, in evolutionary terms? Why is there any "ought" at all if evolution has nothing to say about it?

Cordially,