Re: Religious Thought and Lamarckism

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sat Dec 22 2001 - 20:51:38 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Fw: Religious Thought and Lamarckism"

    Received: by id UAA05346 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:51:03 GMT
    Message-ID: <000c01c18b2a$9419f160$8506bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <> <000d01c18a49$ede15da0$6187b2d1@teddace>
    Subject: Re: Religious Thought and Lamarckism
    Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:51:38 +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
    Precedence: bulk

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

    > > >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
    > 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
    > solves the problem. But we've still got a blueprint from which the body
    > 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.



    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 : Sat Dec 22 2001 - 20:57:27 GMT