Quoting Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> 
> > >       [gav]
> > > > > the neo-darwinian materialist view of
> > evolution is
> > > > > narrow and soulless. 
> > > > > the christian fundamentalist view of creation
> > and
> > > > > intelligent design are scientifically flawed.
> > > > > the 'debate' goes nowhere.
> > > 
> > >      [Platt previously] 
> > > > Right. Science hasn't a clue of how order
> > emerges from disorder, or meaning from chaos.
> 
>      [SA previously] 
> > >      Platt, don't you also mean christian
> > > fundamentalist view doesn't have a clue about what
> > > order is/science.
> 
>      [Platt] 
> > I don't know about Christian fundamentalists, but
> the MOQ explains
> > how order emerges from disorder and meaning from
> chaos by 
> > attributing the cause (or preference) to the intent
> and creative
> > force of DQ to make things better.
> 
>      Platt, I just see your previous response as bias.
>  You only mention how science is skewed, and you left
> out how christian fundamentalism is skewed.  

All philosophies and religions are biased and skewed, some worse than others.

      Beside the point, if you notice my post to you in
> another thread where it is not science, but the
> scientific philosophy now in use to understand science
> in which doesn't provide a clear view of what science
> is and can do.

Sorry, I have no idea what that means.

      Of course, I agree with you that the MoQ explains
> how order emerges from disorder, and to use DQ as the
> creative force is a good generalized analogue.  Why
> knock science when it seems you just knock the
> philosophy used to understand science, which today
> logical positivism is declared the best philosophy
> guiding science today.  Science is just experiments
> and collective input and data.  Philosophy is the
> guiding system, the view in current science.  Remove
> this SOM philosophy with MoQ, and science will make
> more sense.

Again, I don't follow you. It's the view of current science I find
lacking in explanatory power, like attributing what can't be explained
to "emergence" and "chance."






-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
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/

Reply via email to