From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Thu Oct 14 2004 - 14:48:08 BST
David,
"Seems (to you) hopelessly unlikely"
But plenty of evidence in millions of words since Darwin.
(DNA is highly overrated as you say.)
"Life exhibits all kinds of purposive behaviour"
Sure does, that would be an important part of any definition of life for me.
That life exhibits purpose is quite different from any suggestion that there
is a purpose behind the existence of life or that life exists for a purpose.
Lives exist for their purposes.
(BTW - this is ancient history for me, I'm bored with debates about the
reality of Darwinian biological evolution - yes it's largely untestable /
unfalsifiable, and plenty of scope for people to pick arguments with detail
if they're so inclined. But it's a fact of life, that's science for you, get
over it. What I'm intersted in is the evolution metaphor applied to social,
cultural, intellectual life - memetics, complex systems with change and
feedback, much more interesting, and much more amenable to being
pragmatically influenced by our thoughts and actions in the world.)
What really winds me up though, my Catch-22, is when people of faith indulge
in apparently scientific dialectic / syllogisms to point out lack of
scientific evidence to support a "theory" which might refute their faith,
and conclude that their faith must therefore be right. The reason it winds
me up is that, without DQ, there are precious few other ways to argue
successfully in this world.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Morey" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: MD On Faith
> 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
>
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 : Thu Oct 14 2004 - 16:07:37 BST