From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 16 2004 - 12:01:17 BST
Hi Ian
Don't think we are far apart really as I love my science,
but I like to think of myself as more strict than most
and more careful to about what has and what has not got
evidential back up. I think that Darwinism and quantum theory
are both weak theories (in terms of evidence) that prevent us from getting
on with
good and imaginative research in these areas. The evolutionary metaphor
is no doubt essential to understanding, but how it works at different levels
is rather key to me,
as a science student maybe I am a bit more interested in the detail than you
are.
Big sweep is also key though, you need to move from big sweep to detail to
test
your thinking and always be ready to realise you have been getting it wrong.
regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: MD On Faith
> 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
>
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 : Sat Oct 16 2004 - 13:45:53 BST