Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA20270 (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 19:53:46 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000603131644.022db2d0@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 13:27:05 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: Re: Fwd: [COMPLEX-M] "Intelligent Design" lobby Congressagainst Darwinism Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_173370951==_.ALT" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 10:22 PM 6/2/00 +0100, Chuck wrote:
<snip>
>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.
Chuck,
Different sects have different fertility rates.
See for example "Counting Flocks and Lost Sheep: Trends in Religious
Preference Since World War II" By Tom W. Smith National Opinion Research
Center, University of Chicago, GSS Social Change Report No. 26 February,
1988 Revised January, 1991.
A quote from that paper reads: "the general pattern is that more
fundamentalist denominations tend to have higher fertility than
moderate-to-liberal denominations." Now fundamentalism does not correspond
exactly to evangelical Christianity, but this does illustrate a correlation
between variety of faith and fertility rate that is consistent with the
broad statement I made above.
>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).
<snip>
My involvement in this line of research did not result from reading
Dawkins, and I do not treat religion as if it were "really" about whether
or not God exists. My main connection to Dawkins is that Hofstadter
convinced me to use Dawkins's term "meme" about 10 years after I started
work on evolutionary epidemiology of ideas. People who happen to use the
term "meme" cannot all be seen simply as "followers of Dawkins."
Besides not having the time to translate all of my work into population
studies terminology, I also do not have time to offer listserver discussion
as a substitute for reading beyond page 3 of my book, or for reading my
more technical papers. Part of the utility of publishing things is to avoid
having to re-express and re-explain the same material over and over to each
new person who writes either privately or on the listserver. I don't read
everything that comes over the list server either. The only reason I even
have time to stay subscribed is that my mail program automatically routes
everything from memetics@mmu.ac.uk into its own separate file.
You started by asking a reasonable question about the Amish, and I answered
that question. However, my answer has led to a proliferation of new
objections. Experience has taught me that if I answer such proliferating
objections, I just get a new generation of further proliferating objections
without limit. What emerges is a volume of vociferosity with people fleeing
in terror, and nothing accomplished. My delay in answering your question
about the Amish resulted from circumstances that caused me to fall behind
on correspondence. However, now that the pattern of proliferating
objections is emerging, I will have to deliberately refrain from answering
new objections. Anyone interested in seeing how or if I answer various
objections raised can read my book and my more technical papers. Many
objections have already been addressed in one way or another in my existing
work, but I certainly cannot claim to have answered all possible objections
in advance.
I fully expect that if you cannot read my work without seeing everything
compared to or expressed in terms of population studies and various other
social sciences as you may prefer, then you will stop at every third page
or every other page of everything I have written. That, however, only means
that your comments on my work can only be based on a very limited reading
of my work. You are, of course, still free to express disagreements with me
based on just 3 pages of my book or based on however much of my work that
you choose to read.
--Aaron Lynch
===============================================================
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 - 19:54:23 BST