Fw: Religious Thought and Lamarckism

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Sat Dec 22 2001 - 20:58:51 GMT

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

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA05401 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:58:33 GMT
    Message-ID: <002701c18b2b$99d7dd00$db9ebed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: "memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: Fw: Religious Thought and Lamarckism
    Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:58:51 +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
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Dace <edace@earthlink.net>
    > > > >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
    > > > 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
    > > identical even if they're produced through radically different means. A
    > car
    > > is still a car whether it was made by an assembly plant or by hand. And
    > > design is still a design whether it was created intentionally or by
    > > mutation.
    > > We're trying to have it both ways. After recognizing the impossibility
    > > design in natural evolution, we eliminate the designer and imagine that
    > this
    > > solves the problem. But we've still got a blueprint from which the body
    > is
    > > 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.
    > Regards,
    > Kenneth

    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: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 22 2001 - 21:11:57 GMT