Rog,
You say:
>
> BTW, one additional moral concern that you should know is that the MOQ
> explains that men are more evolved than animals, which are more evolved than
> plants. Biologically speaking, this is not correct in modern evolutionary
> theory. Every species alive today is considered equally evolved. The MOQ is
> using nontraditional definitions of "evolved." I don't see a problem with
> this if it is clearly recognized and explained.
You're definitely right about modern evolutionary theory, and it's more or
less the 'Ronald Regan' point I made earlier. Well, while I go back and
read some more Prisig, could you perhaps say just a bit more (for the
puzzled) to clearly explain how the MOQ's non-traditional concept of
'evolved' differs from both modern (non-evaluative) evolutionary theory and
the 'survival of the fittest' travesty of biology, and in what sense it
remains a notion of evolution? Is it best to think of our difference from
plants in terms of Evolution, or standing towards Quality?
Pzeph
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
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 - 16:00:51 BST