Re: Logic

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 15:24:02 BST

  • Next message: Philip Jonkers: "Re: Logic"

    Received: by id PAA13288 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:27:02 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:24:02 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2001 14:24:02.0769 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E690410:01C115DE]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: "Dace" <>
    >To: <>
    >Subject: Re: Logic
    >Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:52:30 -0700
    > > Dawkins' 'The Blind Watchmaker' takes this as its central idea, that
    > > creationists assume the evolution requires a designer, requires someone
    > > 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
    >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
    >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
    >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
    >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
    >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
    >the species, not through machine-like processes arising from the nuclei of
    >our cells.
    Are you familiar with Rupert Sheldrake? It sounds like you are hinting at
    morphic resonance and formative causation.

    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    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 - 15:31:10 BST