Re: Logic

From: Dace (
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 00:52:30 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Logic"

    Received: by id AAA11995 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:55:05 +0100
    Message-ID: <008901c11564$edfedba0$60dab3d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:52:30 -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
    Precedence: bulk

    > Dawkins' 'The Blind Watchmaker' takes this as its central idea, that
    > creationists assume the evolution requires a designer, requires someone to
    > set the process going. He refutes it ably and in a lot of detail.

    Machines are made by intelligent beings. Why wouldn't this also be the case
    for bio-machines? And who else besides the cosmic mechanic would be
    responsible for crafting the various models of life? Creationism is the
    original form of mechanistic philosophy, and it remains the strong form.
    Neo-Darwinism is the result of severe compromises with the necessities of
    evolution, and the resulting mountain of improbabilities makes it the weak
    form of the theory. As long as mechanism is the only show in town,
    creationism will be the logical choice. This doesn't make it true, of
    course. Both forms of the theory are false.

    > I'm curious here, are you suggesting that creationism is more plausible
    > evolution, or simply that a mechanistic description of evolution is no
    > plausible than creationism?

    Mechanism is far more compatible with creationism than evolution. The point
    of evolution is that the species are not molded externally. Their forms
    arise from within, over time. Darwin's genius was to salvage the Creator by
    naturalizing him. Though God is blinded (and thus needs a lot longer to
    create the forms of life) he still has two hands to work with-- the right
    hand of natural selection and the left hand of material spontaneity (i.e.
    random, genetic mutation). Like many powerful memes, God doesn't go easily.
    Darwinism is basically God in drag. Dress him up like Mother Nature and
    then pretend we've gotten rid of him. As long as we accept external
    creation-- whether supernatural or natural-- as opposed to self-creation,
    we're still in the thrall of Authority.

    > What view of evolution, in your view, is plausible?

    When our hominid ancestors developed a method of scavenging for meat in the
    hottest part of the day (after most animals have retreated to the shade)
    they soon began developing sweat glands and losing their hair. The
    phylogenetic shift occurred in tandem with the behavioral shift. This is
    the norm, and it suggests that our own actions help determine our evolution.
    We shape ourselves. If we'd had to wait around for a couple million years
    for a random mutation to give us the necessary glands under our skin, we'd
    still be waiting. Since we can't pass on acquired characteristics directly
    to our offspring, there must be a kind of nonmaterial, species memory which
    evolves in accord with the shifting behavior of individual organisms. This
    is akin to Aristotle's notion that the form of the organism is determined by
    the species, not through machine-like processes arising from the nuclei of
    our cells.

    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 26 2001 - 00:59:14 BST