Re: Design

From: Dace (
Date: Thu Aug 23 2001 - 19:33:16 BST

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: Song of Myself"

    Received: by id TAA29180 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:35:04 +0100
    Message-ID: <002d01c12c02$16bb1280$a586b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <[]>
    Subject: Re: Design
    Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:33:16 -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

    > On 08/21/01 14:23, Dace said this-
    > >That the design comes about blindly and unconsciously through mutation
    > >natural selection doesn't make it any less of a design.
    > In fact, it makes it _not_ a design at all. And that is the point.
    > - Wade

    I'm using the term in the sense of "a preliminary sketch or outline showing
    the main features of something to be executed" or "an underlying scheme that
    governs functioning, developing, or unfolding" (Webster's). What makes
    neo-Darwinism so attractive is that it keeps the design while disposing of
    the designer. This way, we can imagine we've had some sort of radical break
    from our superstitious past while covertly maintaining the same comforting
    belief. It's the old *somewhere-something's-in-charge* meme.


    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 Aug 23 2001 - 19:39:37 BST