From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Oct 10 2004 - 16:10:05 BST
Ian
Not so sure that natural selection does that much for
me when it comes to explaining biological SQ.
Sure some SQ is going to get wiped out and be
unable to reproduce itself. But as an explanation it is
very dependent on variety to select from. What caues
variety: little differences or big mutations. To me this is
opening a crack for DQ and failing to address what is
really happening in evolution and hiding it under the notion
of little variations. Seems to me that little variations should
either make complexity hopelessly unlikely and always breaking
down, or is not creative enough to be the vital power that
produces the evolutionary abundance. As the evolutionists know
there could be no such thing as a blind/intentionless watchmaker
and that a means for retaining good patterns is required and DNA
does not really hack it. Life exhibits all kinds of purposive behaviour,
DNA is just one artefact amoung many.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: MD On Faith
> David,
> Agreed - which is why I do indeed criticise Dawkins for being a hide-bound
> SOMist.
> There are neo-Darwinists and there are neo-neo-Darwinists (aka MoQites)
>
> It's the scientific wrapping that's wrong, not the essence of the
Darwinian
> metaphor, which is in fact infinitely mote interesting beyond biology in
the
> social / intellectual / cultural realms.
> Ian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Morey" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 8:10 PM
> Subject: Re: MD On Faith
>
>
> > Ian
> >
> > I cannot imagine a dispute with the reality of evolution,
> > but you never know, on the other hand,
> > how anyone who knows of the MOQ,
> > can consider neo-Darwinist attempts
> > to tell the story of evolution in pseudo-mechanist
> > terms, anything other than SOM house-bound and unconvincing
> > I also find hard to imagine.
> >
> > DM
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: MD On Faith
> >
> >
> > > What - I'm no Dawkins fan, but Scott, surely there are still not
people
> > > trying to suggest Darwinian evolution is not a credible fit with the
> > > objective science. I've been round this cycle several times already
even
> > in
> > > my time on this board. Science is great in its place, and biology is a
> > good
> > > place for it.
> > > Ian
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
> > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 6:19 AM
> > > Subject: RE: MD On Faith
> > >
> > >
> > > > Mark et al,
> > > >
> > > > > msh says:
> > > > > Yep. And people who spend a lot of energy downplaying the value
of
> > > > > science, math, and logic are to me always suspect. Robert Duvall,
> > > > > the great American actor, was once asked what he thought about
movie
> > > > > critics. He said: "Show me a critic and I'll show you a
failure."
> > > > > His meaning is clear, and applies to critics of science, math and
> > > > > logic. I think it's time to start checking college transcripts.
> > > >
> > > > Couldn't agree more about those who downplay the value of science,
> math,
> > > > and logic, but no one in this thread has. Though I think it is
> > overstated,
> > > > Platt's point is that scientists also operate within a faith
> structure.
> > > >
> > > > Dawkins is not defending science so much as promoting scientific
> > > > materialism. Gathering the evidence for evolution is science.
Claiming
> > > that
> > > > evolution has happened solely through chance and natural selection
is
> > > > metaphysics.
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > > > Mail Archives:
> > > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > > > Nov '02 Onward -
> > > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > > Mail Archives:
> > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > > Nov '02 Onward -
> > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archives:
> > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 10 2004 - 16:40:50 BST