Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA13288 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:27:02 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.151] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Logic Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:24:02 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F67b9pPFR6sKBEr8pkp0000463c@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2001 14:24:02.0769 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E690410:01C115DE] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Logic
>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:52:30 -0700
>
> > Dawkins' 'The Blind Watchmaker' takes this as its central idea, that
> > creationists assume the evolution requires a designer, requires someone
>to
> > set the process going. He refutes it ably and in a lot of detail.
>
>Machines are made by intelligent beings. Why wouldn't this also be the
>case
>for bio-machines? And who else besides the cosmic mechanic would be
>responsible for crafting the various models of life? Creationism is the
>original form of mechanistic philosophy, and it remains the strong form.
>Neo-Darwinism is the result of severe compromises with the necessities of
>evolution, and the resulting mountain of improbabilities makes it the weak
>form of the theory. As long as mechanism is the only show in town,
>creationism will be the logical choice. This doesn't make it true, of
>course. Both forms of the theory are false.
>
> > I'm curious here, are you suggesting that creationism is more plausible
>that
> > evolution, or simply that a mechanistic description of evolution is no
>more
> > plausible than creationism?
>
>Mechanism is far more compatible with creationism than evolution. The
>point
>of evolution is that the species are not molded externally. Their forms
>arise from within, over time. Darwin's genius was to salvage the Creator
>by
>naturalizing him. Though God is blinded (and thus needs a lot longer to
>create the forms of life) he still has two hands to work with-- the right
>hand of natural selection and the left hand of material spontaneity (i.e.
>random, genetic mutation). Like many powerful memes, God doesn't go
>easily.
>Darwinism is basically God in drag. Dress him up like Mother Nature and
>then pretend we've gotten rid of him. As long as we accept external
>creation-- whether supernatural or natural-- as opposed to self-creation,
>we're still in the thrall of Authority.
>
> > What view of evolution, in your view, is plausible?
>
>When our hominid ancestors developed a method of scavenging for meat in the
>hottest part of the day (after most animals have retreated to the shade)
>they soon began developing sweat glands and losing their hair. The
>phylogenetic shift occurred in tandem with the behavioral shift. This is
>the norm, and it suggests that our own actions help determine our
>evolution.
>We shape ourselves. If we'd had to wait around for a couple million years
>for a random mutation to give us the necessary glands under our skin, we'd
>still be waiting. Since we can't pass on acquired characteristics directly
>to our offspring, there must be a kind of nonmaterial, species memory which
>evolves in accord with the shifting behavior of individual organisms. This
>is akin to Aristotle's notion that the form of the organism is determined
>by
>the species, not through machine-like processes arising from the nuclei of
>our cells.
>
>
Are you familiar with Rupert Sheldrake? It sounds like you are hinting at
morphic resonance and formative causation.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
===============================================================
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 : Thu Jul 26 2001 - 15:31:10 BST