[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Case]

[Case]
> Oops I let this one get away to fast. I would be delighted to hear you
> answer to the question below but I really miss hearing why you think it is
> going to be "better" for the dominate life form on earth to be a shellfish
> or a cockroach?

[Platt]
What makes you think that?

[Case]
Ok you are claiming that evolution "strives" for "betterness". You gave the
example of the big rock killing the dinosaurs and our rise to take their
place. 

Now forget about AL Gore's chart showing that the CO2 content of the
atmosphere today is twice as high as it has ever been in the past 600,000
years. He could be just saying that because he likes giving the same slide
show over and over. But let's say another big rock falls out of the sky.
There are lots of them out there. If one, say a mile across, landed in the
Pacific Ocean it would splash all the water out. It would leave a big hole
and lots of people would have a really bad day. Evolution would have to
start over. That is what "punctuated equilibrium" means.

Now what makes you think that if that happened, evolution would get to work
making something "better" than we have now? Better for whom? Now cockroaches
and shellfish have already been through this a couple of times already and
they don't seem to mind but is that your idea of "better"?

[Case]
> Could you explain your understanding of the word "theory"? 

[Platt]
An explanation of quality intellectual realities.

[Case]
It is not just an explanation. It is a TESTABLE explanation. In fact the
Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Relativity are Theories with a capital
T because they have been tested and tested and retested. They have been
mulled over, dissected, modify and tested again. They earned the capital T.
They have with stood the Test of Time.

Your definition is more like a hunch.

[Case]
> I mean your response below is fine. I think George Bush is a sock puppet
for the Anti-Christ, so there.

[Platt]
Now you got it. Make an unsupported claim and expect one back.

[Case]
You called my guy a charlatan. I called yours a sock puppet. I would be
really interested in why you would call Gore a charlatan. 

I am happy to tell you why I think Bush is the second or third most evil man
to hold the oval office: 
He caused us to invade a sovereign nation on the basis of out right lies. 
He and his father used nuclear weapons on the battlefield. 
He is forcing medieval peoples to accept a way of life that is abhorrent to
them. 
He is refusing to seriously address ecological problems that threaten the
lives of our children and grandchildren. 
He is borrowing money that will burden the future of our progeny. (Although
given the reason before that I guess this one makes sense.)
His has appointed people to our supreme court who have already begun making
rulings that will seriously damage this republic for years to come.
While prosecuting a seemingly personal war against Iraq he has ignored
genocides in other parts of the world 
He has done nothing to address the threat nuclear weapons from the former
Soviet Union falling into the hands of God knows who.
He promoted fear to erode the civil liberties of our people.

I don't know, those are just off the top of my head I may have missed
something.

Now why is Gore a charlatan?