What a moron you are, Robin. Darwin is not a 'materialist',
but is a 'naturalist'. Maintain the distinction between the
two.
There is no such thing as 'neo-darwinism'. Darwin's
discovery is not an "ism". Science is a methodology, a tool
to understand the empirical laws of nature.
In fact there is no contradiction between Darwin and
vedanta. They are on two parallel tracks.
You pepper your points with "accusations" about the motives
of Curtis. This is one trick you have been playing all
alont since you came here.
Darwin is *not* a materialist. Darwin was a scientist and a
naturalist.
You don't seem to understand the process of science itself.
Unlike religion, Science has self-correcting mechanisms.
It's an open ended structure were new data is added theories
constantly refined.
Darwin never wanted his theory to become a dogma. He
himself once said that 'if you come up with something better
then discard it'. Paleontaology, genetics, bio-chemistry,
study of ecosystems all have added credence to Darwin's
theory. Renowned biologist Theodonius Dobzhansky states,
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution."
Modern biology is evolutionary biology and if you take away
evolution, there is no biology.
You are in the same boat with that other moron Barry who
also thinks of science as an "ism".
--- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote:
>
>
> How to Know Reality's Point of View: Robin's Response to Curtis, Part 2 of 3
>
> (continued from Part 1)
>
> <Snip>
>
> ROBIN2: I am sure there have been a hundred books written
> by professional philosophers in the last twenty years to
> the effect: *Why Materialism Cannot Possibly Be True*. One
> of the most distinguished philosophers in the world--by
> every consensus--who is an avowed atheist--has a book
> coming out this month (Thomas Nagel again) titled *Mind
> and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception
> of Nature Is Almost Certainly False*.
>
> Did you notice that subtitle, Curtis? Some think Nagel the
> greatest living philosopher--and he is an atheist as you
> are. And he has just smashed to pieces your assumption
> about reality and philosophy and nothingness.
>
> CURTIS2: No he hasn't, that is a book title. He isn't
> going to overturn Darwin's evolutionary thoery with a
> book. And I might agree with him depending on how he
> defines his terms concerning materialism. He has to make
> his case.
>
> ROBIN3: He is saying that your basic assumptions--about
> what is real, what materialism can explain and what it
> cannot explain, the limits of Neo-Darwinism, the origin
> and nature of consciousness--ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE.
> Did you hear that, Curtis? The book comes out here in
> Canada on October 15. I will be reading that book. And I
> can assure you that what I say here will be most certainly
> proven to be true. Shall we bet on it, Curtis? Nagel is
> not going to say that God exists--he cannot bear that that
> could be true. But he is going to demonstrate that the
> models for understanding human beings, consciousness, and
> reality promulgated by Patricia and Paul Churchland are
> "most certainly false". You will not become a convert to
> the Nagel view; I doubt any Neo-Darwinian Materialist will
> be--they will say that Nagel has betrayed the cause of
> evolution and science and neuroscience. This will HAVE to
> be your verdict too, Curtis. But who knows? Maybe if you
> write to him as you have written to me--and you would be
> forced to if his ideas are as interesting and provocative
> as mine are:)--he might rewrite his book, because that is
> exactly what he should do if he hears from you the way I
> am hearing from you, Curtis. Thomas Nagel's book will most
> certainly challenge the hysterical metaphysic of your
> first person ontology, Curtis.
>
> <snip>
>
> (continued in Part 3)
>
