Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA06280 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 23 Dec 2001 09:47:32 GMT Message-ID: <001301c18b97$0b379880$02a4bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: "memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: Fw: Religious Thought and Lamarckism Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 10:48:13 +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 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 09:59:30 GMT