On 06/12/2007, at 8:45 AM, hkhenson wrote: > At 01:00 PM 12/5/2007, Nick Arnett wrote: >> >> It's great food for thought, but I'd still like to escape the >> circularity. >> Is it just politically incorrect to consider non-Darwinian >> explanations?
One can consider them. But one has to actually show how they're better than current explanations. >> > > Not at all. I just don't know any that can't be mapped to biology/ > evolution. Yep. > > >> And I mean *scientific* non-Darwinian explanations, not the non- >> thinking >> kind that some folks seem to think is all that fits in one's head >> if one >> chooses to have faith. >> >> For example, how does the anthropic principle (which I suspect the >> math of >> complexity hints at) fit into this discussion? > > It doesn't. Wrong level. Indeed. The anthropic principle is, IMO, a huge red herring and the ultimate in hubris. It makes the assumption that this universe is suited for life. Really? Given the size of the observed universe, and the miniscule bit of it that observably has life, I'd say this universe is, to a high degree of precision, very hostile indeed to life. > > >> Intuitively, I'm tempted to >> believe that if Darwinism was all there is, we wouldn't be here to >> observe >> the universe. But how can one prove the anthropic principle >> without a few >> other universes available as examples? Again, "Darwinism". Eesh. It's like calling orbital mechanics "Newtonism" or electrics "Edisonism". It's a really loaded term, and evolutionary studies have moved on 150 years from Darwin's foundations. >> > > Really understanding biology (and natural selection) depends on > understanding the level below it, chemistry. Not so much, but it can give one some extra insights. > The existing elements > are dependant on physics processes in stars (which is where the > anthropic principle comes in). But evolution is emergent. As far as > I know, *nothing* in biology makes any sense without invoking > evolution. Yep. Dobzhansky's classic 1973 essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is as relevant today. Full text here: http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml > The same is true (I think) if you want to understand > levels that depend on biology such as psychology and sociology. Less strongly so, but the consensus is stronger than it was 10 years ago. I think a lot of the problems come when people conflate "evolution" with "Darwinism" and mean a strict gradualism with strict natural selection as the only mechanism - this is a poor caricature of the breadth and depth of modern evolutionary theory in all its guises. Emergent phenomena may or may not wind up joining the synthesis - I suspect that it will - but it's not a theory in competition to evolution, it's complementary. Charlie _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
