Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA05401 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:58:33 GMT Message-ID: <002701c18b2b$99d7dd00$db9ebed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: "memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: Fw: Religious Thought and Lamarckism Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:58:51 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dace <edace@earthlink.net>
>
> > > >Is this a reason why Lamarckism seems to pop up in cultural evolution
> !?
> > > Cultural evolution is inherently lamarckian in process. Memes _can_
> > > change in situ, and do, whereas genes need the whole offspring thing
to
> > > happen.
> > >
> > > The illusion of design in nature is just that.
> > Not according to neo-Darwinian theory. Disposing of the designer does
> > nothing, by itself, to eliminate the design. Identical objects are
still
> > identical even if they're produced through radically different means. A
> car
> > is still a car whether it was made by an assembly plant or by hand. And
a
> > design is still a design whether it was created intentionally or by
random
> > mutation.
> > We're trying to have it both ways. After recognizing the impossibility
of
> > design in natural evolution, we eliminate the designer and imagine that
> this
> > solves the problem. But we've still got a blueprint from which the body
> is
> > formed. Nothing has really changed. It's a sleight-of-hand. While one
> > hand conspicuously disposes of the design, the other hand furtively
> > reinstates it in a more subtle form.
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> Thanks for this !
> That is just the difference in point of view !
> We dispose ourselves from the guiding hand of God and reinstate the
> designer- thing as a process of selection.
>
> But we don 't live solely in a biological world but far out more in a
> political one. The latter, in how many ways we try to deny this, runs
> our lives_ the memetic influence is huge.
> The former is just a supportative model, it is the world which allows
> the memes to exist. Both work together as one.
>
> Lamarckism is applied in the political context as compatible with
> socialism. Darwinism is applied in the more strict liberal sense. But
> nowadays, Darwinian capitalism is threated by scepsis and anti- glo-
> balism. The democratic socialist- movement or liberal- socialists tend
> away from the hard Darwinian view and go to a more Lamarckian based
> model. In that case, ' culture ' becomes more Lamarckian- orientated.
> That is the position I defend.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kenneth
>
===============================================================
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 Dec 22 2001 - 21:11:57 GMT