Re: Logic

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 19:35:06 BST

  • Next message: John Wilkins: "Re: Logic"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA13651 (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 19:31:30 +0100
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:35:06 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Message-ID: <3B601C8A.5688.F12860@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <006501c115ff$f6dff240$7986b2d1@teddace>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On 26 Jul 2001, at 11:22, Dace wrote:

    > 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.
    >
    Delta streambeds which progressively canalize the myriad streams
    of life (particular species) make a lot of sense where there are
    banks (an environment of challenges and opportunities, including
    other species).
    >
    > 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 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 - 19:35:39 BST