Re: The evolution of "evolution"

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sun 09 Oct 2005 - 18:03:55 GMT

  • Next message: Joel.M Dimech: "Re: The evolution of "evolution""

    ----- Original Message ----- From: Dace <>

    <With its dependence on accident
    > in place of adaptation, neo-Darwinism is inherently implausible, and this
    > why a majority of Americans think creationism ought to be taught alongside
    > evolution. It's not that creationism is so great but simply that
    > "evolution" is being conflated with neo-Darwinism, a theory so absurd that
    > anything seems preferable.

    << No Ted, it is NOT that Darwinism is implausible that Americans think there must be a devine beginning for man! Oh! come on ! The history of the US provides the evidence for the shifting towards creatonism_ religious thought, in any absolute sense ! And creatonism preferable !? Darwinism has nothing to do with it, only America regards God as a fact, just as only the stupid can fail to recognize the importance of the theory_ no matter which side you are on ! ( Even Bush proclaims God himself told him to start the war against terrorism ! In 2005 !!!!!)

    There is here a paradox. Men desires the opportunities to develop, to be free, to be economical independable, but they are also gregarious and require to be guided. The orginal American ( religious) idealism which seeked to compensate an inner dissociation ( remerber why the first ' Americans' crossed the great channel
    [ they were even more progressive than the dominant form of those days] by clinging to an absolute idea, whether it was to regard the development of man or the decline of other species, both were part of a devine intervention. The issue, once again, is one of individualism, moreover, of how this tendency works towards further differentiation of the society. Individualism is part for what the US stands for, but it achieved a particular effect_ namely, American individuals stand solely before their GOD, there is no insitute like priests or church to give the guidelines, all boils down to oneself !

    Catholicism in Europe still brings out the collective mentality which influences the ways of our social intercourses. I think you lack a great deal of social cohesion back there in the States, and frankly I don 't think the population is mentally strong enough to make it as pure individuals. That is why GOd is allround and has to be ! Without it, American individualism ' collapses! The more then extented individualistic differentiation within the social system of the US neglects a fundamental aspect of our own nature, namely we are social beings, we need one other to go about ! The consequence damage of lacking a kind of social cohesion went far beyond society itself and the individuals concerned. All thought and action suffered_ where was no help to overcome poverty and frustration, no ways for integration or inner human relations; where there were no concepts seen to explain one's wealth, no paths set alight for the continuing development of their state and of themselves_ American individuals turned upwards, asked for a devine intervention and thanked GOD_ furthering the tradition of their ancestors !

    << Darwin didn 't made a mistake, the misconception of how society must be; the lack of understanding what being an individual is all about and founding social cohesion within the same breath perverted American thought and action. Nothing is easier than to undergo obsession by an idea and to use it as a substitute for anything else ! It is, I find, possible to talk about Darwinian inherently, although the outlines are open for interpretation. People do share mutal interests, genetic driven and organisms adapt and pass on the adaptations to their kids. What do we inherent from our parents besides their furniture and the colour of your eyes !? It is not that your parents liked reggae and Bob Marley and you Deathmetal that there ain 't some inherently linkage. The fact we must retain is that both are ' alternative ' styles. Where I like Brel and my kids Coldplay, different you say !? No, both can seen as cultural correct for the times we were living in and thus representative as a plausible inherently principle.

    It is a wonder that my mother liked Tiroler music and my sister finds satisfaction in watching Star Academy and listening to Britney Spears ! Ain 't that the same
    ' amu- sant- intertainment ' tendency !? Has this been understood as a transmission of a trait to the offspring !? Is there a gene/ meme implicated !? Who knowns ! My dad liked James Bond, his grandson is fond of the Playstationgame Doom, can the transmission of acquired characteristics be recognized as the mechanism
    !? My own love for the Stones isn 't something I can give to my kids. But I can make sure that they choose the music of the Stones of their own proper area. Where I stand for Jagger and Co, my kids appear to be open for U2 and Bono. And with this I transmit cultural tendencies/ representatives.

    Is there then no room for the elements of nurture and friends !? Yes, there is, but I think I do choose indirect the friends where my kids hang out with, just because I have chosen the school and the kind of education programs they will follow. But that only counts for just 1/4 of the resemblances between parents and their kids. The rest is all up to cultural socialisation. Parents and kids talk about music, TV- programs or movies while they eat together or share the same car. The direct influence of the parents remains. Thus although individual forms of taste differ, parents and kids do fit the same cultural pattern. Exceptions do exist, the transmission of cultural correctness is the strongest in households where both parents hang on the same tendencies. And such matters can be well applied for music or for believing in a theory about natural selection or creatonism. But the latter IS implausible, where in Darwinism, when the theory might be wrong or parts of, we can adjust. Creatonism is radical, always Gods ways is right. A path that leads to the Truth, up to a point where men isn 't alienated from its own being. Where he/ she could live happy together. This story isn 't pragmatic, but absolute. And of those stories we have enough. And that knew Nietzsche.....way back..... allready !



    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 09 Oct 2005 - 18:13:06 GMT