In a message dated 7/25/02 6:22:46 AM GMT Daylight Time,
beasley@austarnet.com.au writes:
> Hullo All,
>
> I have skimmed the Evolution/Creation 'debate' and would like to respond to
> the claim that evolution is a matter of faith for scientists. Others have
> already responded to the 'it's just a theory' argument with some cogent
> comments on what is entailed by theory, but I want to look at what makes a
> theory acceptable (not proven, whatever that could mean) to science and
> scientists.
>
> Here is how Susan Blackmore, author of 'The Meme Machine', speaks.
>
> "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is, to my mind, the most
> beautiful in all of science. It is beautiful because it is so simple and
> yet
> its results are so complex. It is counter-intuitive and hard to grasp but
> once you have seen it the world is transformed before your eyes. There is
> no
> longer any need for a grand designer to explain all the complexity of the
> living world. There is just a stark and mindless procedure by which we have
> all come about - beautiful but scary."
>
> "Evolution by natural selection is very, very simple but not at all obvious
> ... if there is a replicator that makes imperfect copies of itself only
> some
> of which survive, then evolution simply must occur." (pp 10 - 11)
>
> In this short passage Blackmore uses the word beautiful no less than three
> times. She also refers to simplicity three times. She points to the
> explanatory power of the theory, which explains so much despite its
> simplicity. And she makes the point that while it is simple, it is not
> necessarily simple to grasp. So to really understand evolution demands some
> input of time and energy.
>
> Enough. If you cannot see the link with quality then nothing I say will
> change that.
>
> John B
>
Hi John,
I agree.
The exciting aspect of Blackmore's interpretation is its value centre? I am
not sure if she intended this, but it has, one might be tempted to say,
inevitably sneaked in?
I began this thread because the intellectual beauty individuals like
Blackmore refer to is, in the MOQ an indication of high quality static
patterning.
Creationism is high quality social patterning.
The common ground between the two levels of evolution is Quality itself?
Disturbingly, the higher level of morality is being eroded in the US by a
persistent drive towards social quality as an antidote to biological excess
and value free scientific realism?
The more i hear about the shocking depth to which this movement is drifting,
the more i find it difficult to believe it is actually happening?
What to be done?
Surely a raising of educational standards?
All the best,
Squonk.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:28 BST