Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA16368 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 3 Jun 2000 03:24:39 +0100 Message-ID: <393825A1.BEB87D3@mediaone.net> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 22:22:42 +0100 From: Chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Fwd: [COMPLEX-M] "Intelligent Design" lobby Congressagainst Darwinism References: <4.3.1.0.20000601214043.00d499d0@popmail.mcs.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------83ECA678476B3BD22D2A27D1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Aaron Lynch wrote:
> Thank you for forwarding this material, Ilfryn.
>
> I also spoke about evolution in the Seattle area last month--at a less
> public event--and addressed some of the Darwinian processes that
> ironically gave rise to the Congressional hearings and the other
> anti-Darwinian actions taken at state and local levels in the USA. My
> talk, titled "Human Destiny and the Evolutionary Epidemiology of
> Ideas," was given at the May 18-19 Cultural Evolution Workshop of the
> Foundation for the Future's Center for Human Evolution in Bellevue,
> WA.
>
> The section where I discussed certain forces in the evolutionary
> epidemiology of ideas that give rise to growing anti-Darwinism reads
> as follows:
>
> "...In the area of religious belief, ideas that cause adherents to
> have more children, or to engage in more evangelism, or to shut out
> alternative ideas tend to gain population over time. Having children
> and evangelizing are examples of transmissivity, while shutting out
> alternative ideas confers longevity of belief. One consequence of the
> cultural evolution forces favoring large family sizes is
> overpopulation and consequent environmental degradation around the
> world.
I am not aware of any correlation between evangelical Christianity and
family size. I actually doubt there is one. After all, the American
family size is below replacement level, and fully 1/3 of all Americans
claim to be born again Christians. So just because the religion is
growing in size, that doesn't mean that it is responsible for more
fertility.
Your reasoning on this issues recalls for me my own arguments against
your point of view back in the late 1960s. The term meme did not exist,
of course, but a great deal of power was given to the sheer force of
ideas - which memics today would call memes. Back then Margaret Mead
proposed at the annual conference of the American Anthopological
Association that the number of birth control memes should be increased
so that it becomes a craze that people will follow. I publically opposed
her at the time, insisting that fertility rates were responses to
particular economic contexts and would not respond to memic campaigns.
She refused after that to ever speak to me again. I had the last laugh,
though. Some NGOs tried her advice -- and wasted a lot of money. The
third world is now reducing its population growth rates simply because
they are moving into cities and their medical care is improving. As we
say in the US since the Bush presidential campaign, "It's the economy,
stupid." :) (that is, he failed to understand that he had to talk about
economic issues to win)
> Among the consequences are interference with the teaching of evolution
> theory. Decreased availability of abortion and contraception is has
> also apparently started to happen, especially for the poor. The
> widespread reading of the Book of Revelation has also led to dark
> paranoia about other countries and international organizations such as
> the United Nations. Such factors may threaten the prospects for peace
> and international cooperation. ...."
All of this is a bit of a reach, don't you think? As for ascribing
anything to religion by itself, the Irish have an apt aying: "Religion
doesn't kill people; people do."
> Religion and Science Revisited
> Numerous thinkers have suggested that modern scientific knowledge
> would push all religion toward extinction. Yet old religions continue
> to defy such forecasts. Moreover, new and vigorous religious movements
> continually form. Many once thought that the theory of evolution by
> natural selection would spell the end of religious myths. Yet the very
> phenomenon of evolution by natural selection easily propels religions
> past the minor challenges raised by scientific ideas. Even
> evolutionism loses popular ground to divine creationism in modern
> times.
I have written extensively lin this listserv as to why. You are making
the same mistake that Dawkins makes by assuming that religion is just
about the truth of material reality - like it's **really** about whether
or not God exists. This view of religion verges on mere anti-religious
propoganda. (For the record, I am atheist).
>
> Memetic analysis of religion illuminates a stark contrast between
> religious and scientific thought: religious thought generally holds
> that certain special beliefs are divinely created.
Do you really think this is an exclusive of memic analysis?
> Memetic science contends that great religions evolve from a vast
> accumulation of observable, mundane, human actions.
That's a very general statement -- so general that I can't imagine what
it means.
****Strenuously*** yours,
Chuck
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 03 2000 - 03:25:16 BST