No, I am not asserting that people who work on evolution think that there is
a divine purpose to it; I was asserting that they don't.
What lies behind the puzzle is not teleological, but physical; the reason
that I termed it behind the puzzle pieces, is that there are generalizable
principles of physical or biological conduct, and that it is an
understanding of these generalizable principles that lets us understand the
really important stuff about our world. So, gravity pulls things toward to
center of a mass, but this does not mean that gravity has such a 'purpose' -
it is simply want it does. Understanding that gravity is a general
phenomenon and can be described quite specifically (e.g. at the surface of
the earth, gravity provides for a specific acceleration) then enables us to
understand lots of different things. We do fall into the linguistic trap of
using language that implies purpose, e.g. gravity 'wants' to pull things -
but easy as it is, this is, linguistically, a serious mischaracterization,
and one that leads people into a teleological PoV.
So, students evolution are intensely interested in what lies behind the
puzzle pieces....and in the process of pursuing this interest have found no
reason to adopt a teleological PoV. James Gleick's book on CHAOS may be of
considerable interest to you.
Now, memes. Of course memes can't be seen under a microscope and never will.
Memes are linguistic constructs - expressed ideas - that people use and pass
on to each other. That they are not physical things (though some memeticians
do assert that the meme lies in its carrier artifact - I am not one of them)
is no diminishment of the utility of the concept, or its reality. You will
never examine a tone under a microscope (though you might the traces of its
sound wave captured in some medium), but you would surely not argue that
tones do not exist.
Lawry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On
Behalf Of Platt Holden
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:56 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: RE: MD Creationism.
Hi Lawry, Rog:
But Lawry, are you asserting that people who work on evolution think
there IS something divine or DQ "behind the puzzle?" If so, that's news
to me. On the contrary, most loudly and persistently claim there's
nothing "behind" the puzzle, especially anything remotely resembling
the supernatural. They also claim that Darwinian evolution explains
"everything" about biological change, and some are now even claiming it
also explains everything about social change. Look at the buzz about
memes, even though no one has ever seen one under a microscope or
in a brain scan, or ever will. Finally, if you read the SA article Rog
referred us to, one of the "proofs" cited is that "serious scientific
publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent." This is prima
facie evidence that science automatically censors anyone who
questions the reigning doctrine. I call it the "no infidels allowed effect."
Further, it's an example of Rog's "unsupported leap of logic" because it
invokes the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy, i.e., just because
everybody-in-the-know says so doesn't make it so. I didn't mean to
imply that science is narrowminded about everything. I agree that
science is open minded about almost everything EXCEPT theological--
or MOQ--explanations.
Platt
> But Platt, that is NOT how people who work on evolution think: they see
> what they do as first seeking pieces of the evolutionary puzzle - the
> history of how species emerged and developed over time - and then trying
to
> see how they fit, in order to discern the patterns that lie behind the
> observable evidence. None of them that I know claim, 1) that they have
all
> the pieces, 2) that they know the full extent of the puzzle, 3) that the
> puzzle 'explains' everything', or 4) that nothing lies behind the puzzle.
> You may be interested in a fascinating little book: THE MAP THAT CHANGED
> THE WORLD, by Simon Winchester. And then there is Stephen Gould's
wonderful
> and readable tome, THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY, for those who do
> really want to understand how evolutionary theory emerged and how, as
> theory, it works.
>
> Best regards,
> Lawry
> -----------------
> PLATT:
> One thing you can say about Darwinian evolution: most
> scientists (not all) are sure there's nothing divine--or DQ--about it. In
> fact, they define themselves by their certainty. You see how this works--
> limit the universe to what you think you can explain, then claim that's
the
> universe. With such narrow mindedness in charge, no wonder society is in
> trouble.
>
> Platt
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
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 - 16:02:29 BST