Yes it does. All philosophies have moral lessons. The rules that govern the survival and extinction of species can be derived from evolution.

Not always, though I'll admit to being a bit of an exception to the rule, having tried Atheism, Shamanism, Shintoism, Islam, Wicca, and Buddhism before *almost* returning to my Catholic roots (I worship Catholic but still think the Sixth Patriarch had some truths Jesus Christ, despite being God, somehow failed to see, especially the absurdity of human beings thinking they know anything at all).

But as a generalization, for the majority I'd have to say you are correct. I've been called a heretic to suggest that the parables of Christ make more sense as Zen Koans.

Mod parent way up. A very good description of why you shouldn't confuse the model with reality.

I wish more people would accept the moral lessons of evolution! They'd be pro-life and anti-homosexual (because whatever else abortion and gay marriage are, they are most certainly not multi-generational survival traits).

The only thing NOT an opinion in science, IF you actually follow the scientific method, is the certainty that all evidence is biased by the ignorance of the individual putting it forth.

NEVER confuse the model with reality.

My brand new Lenovo Win8 machine is Silver.

Windows 8 + http//ninite.com + selecting Open Office & Clasic Start -> computer usable by anybody who is used to XP, Vista, or Windows 7.

But it should be pointed out that they WILL be punished- just not by another human being. And not in any afterlife either. Such risky behavior contains its own punishment, if not physical then certainly emotional. There is no escaping the fact that sex is indeed addictive behavior- and at the end of any given sexual relationship, comes the neurological chemical withdrawal.

If the sex was procreative- well, that withdrawal is lessened considerably by the existence of the resulting offspring and the emotion that comes from that addition to the relationship.

Then of course there is the physical side of such risky behavior. STDs are the most prominent, but most types of non-procreative sex have a host of other health issues associated with them.

You can't escape punishment merely by the government not punishing you. Punishment *always* comes for risky behavior. Just as if you play Russian Roulette long enough, you will lose and end up with a bullet in the brainpan.

I'd prefer to avoid risky behavior with both sex AND the bullet. I don't play Russian Roulette for the same reason I'm not promiscuous.

Maybe THIS era is. But science and technology doesn't progress steadily. It jumps in fits and starts.

I can identify a rough 700 year cycle to it. Rough because it varies from 2 to 15 centuries between the peaks and troughs, but the average is about 7 centuries.

We are just completing a peak. The dark ages are coming. They will be typified, I believe, by growing worship of science and a resulting denial of the main tenant of all rational religion, that no scientific or theological model made by a finite human brain can possibly be 100% correct. But sometime between 2200 and 3500 A.D. there *will* be another renaissance, and we WILL see changes in paradigm and growth anew.

To the deaf community, is why. Sufficiently quiet miniaturized internal-to-ear-canal speakers work for anybody else, and are much cheaper to manufacture (given that I can get a set for $1 on the "cheap Chinese stuff" store shelf)

When you notice that almost all non-procreative sexual behavior has no survival-of-the-fitest value whatsoever (and in most cases, is just a waste of calories, but in some cases, can actually kill you).

He's far more rational than any atheist I've ever met. The only people who don't think so are bigots who have never bothered to read his stuff on it's own merits.

All that post revealed is something about ONE divorce. The problem of divorce *causing*, or *exasperating* mental illness in the children is the meta problem that needs to be addressed.

Our post-sexual-revolution culture has failed. Maybe it is time to go back to *enforced* fatherhood duties?

How is science coherent in a framework before constants, measurement, and natural laws? If there are no scientific principles to discover, how do you discover scientific principles?