> Krimel said to Willblake2: > This seems a fairly shallow view of evolution especially for someone with > a Ph.D in biology. Evolution is, at least in my view, one of the most > beautiful ideas ever conceived in the mind of man. It is a thread that > runs through all of the disciplines of science. It has had profound impact > on history, philosophy and art. Of course it is not all about struggle and > those who have used it to justify manifest destiny and social Darwinism > have long ago been discredited.
> dmb says: > Yea, I'm with Krimel on this one. Thankfully for the scientific principle of Conditionalism, there are plenty of people with solid intellectual credentials who question the mainstream theory of evolution. Pirsig for one. Physicist Paul Davies for another, as follows: "The universe looks as if it is unfolding according to some plan or blueprint. The input is the cosmic initial conditions, and the output is organized complexity, or depth. The essential feature is that something of value emerges as the result of processing according to some ingenious pre- existing set of rules. These rules look as if they are the product of intelligent design. My own inclination is to suppose that qualities such as ingenuity, economy, beauty, and so on have a genuine transcendent reality -- they are not merely the product of human experience -- and that these qualities are reflected in the structure of the natural world." As for social Darwinism being discredited, it depends, as with some many controversies, on one's definition, as Wikipedia points out: "As Social Darwinism has many definitions,it is hard for some to be either for or against it; some of the definitions oppose the others. John Halliday & Iain McLean state that "Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to `survival of the fittest´ entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A `social Darwinist´ could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist." As I say to UTOE, my tabby, "There's more than one way to skin a cat." Platt I love it Platt! In terms of an intelligence, it is my understanding that Pirsig describes intelligence as ability to manipulate. If every living thing is the result of natural selection, we are talking about a highly manipulative system which directs what we, and everything else looks like, acts like, and feels like, though methods beyond our understanding. Our intelligence is nothing compared to that degree of intelligence! And to further torment the atheists, when we reach the dynamic bounds of that selection process, that is, are limited by it, we actually conform to the shape dictated by it. We are currently, in fact, filling the mold provided by natural selection at this time. Every shape that is cast has a mold which is a direct image of that shape. If you want to call that defining force God, then we are truly made in the image of God. Willblake2 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
