Re: Logic

From: Dace (edace@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 19:22:34 BST

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: Logic"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA13625 (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 19:24:52 +0100
    Message-ID: <006501c115ff$f6dff240$7986b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <20010726005926.AAA17991@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.108]>
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 11:22:34 -0700
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Hi Wade

    > >The point
    > >of evolution is that the species are not molded externally. Their forms
    > >arise from within, over time.
    >
    > Sorry, but no. The point of Darwin is that nothing remains the same,
    > regardless of internal similarity, because the environment is a shifting
    > sand that organisms either adapt to, or perish.

    Darwin is only one take on evolution. That we weren't molded by a Creator
    opens up the possibility of self-creation. This opening has been squandered
    in our effort to naturalize the process of deterministic creation.

    > Evolution is not logical from a design viewpoint. It does not separate
    > the wheat from the chaff.

    Certainly an intelligent designer could have created a much more rational
    plan for the human body. But instead of dropping the idea of blueprints
    altogether, we insist that the blueprints have evolved blindly through a
    process of natural selection and genetic mutation. Call it a "blueprints"
    meme, if you will. We still haven't really given up on the notion of
    design. This is why creationism retains its power. We're perpetuating
    creationist thinking unconsciously even as we try to stamp it out
    consciously.

    My basic point is that it's not logical to retain a mechanistic approach in
    the light of evolution. Mechanism makes far more sense when there's a
    mechanic. Blueprints make a lot more sense when there's a designer.

    Ted Dace

    ===============================================================
    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 - 19:29:00 BST