From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Nov 13 2004 - 18:24:38 GMT
Ian,
> I'm more than happy to distinguish
> "evolution"
> from
> evolution "solely" by chance and natural "selection"
>
> (Though I find the choices of the words "solely"and "selection"
> pejorative, - just looking for an argument.)
I put the "solely" in because that is the materialist claim. I am aware
that you are not a materialist in the Dawkins or Monod mode. Why should
"selection" be pejorative? One isn't likely to deny that some features
survive and others don't, according to their functionality in a given
environment.
>
> In fact when I say "evolution" all I mean is ...
> Evolution by any "natural (real, believable, true) processes".
> (physical, biological, sociological and intellectual, whatever processes)
> Something changes in one generation (for whatever reason), and is
> Preserved or re-inforced in a subsequent generation (by whatever
mechanism).
>
> It's credible, testable and falsifiable (in part) against lots of
evidence,
> and consistent with everyday experience, even thoughtful, analytical
> everyday experience. I just do not need a fairy story to believe it.
>
> This is at least the tenth time round this loop in my short two years on
> MoQ.
It keeps coming around (as far as I am concerned) because we disagree on a
prior philosophical point, not because I believe in a fairy story. That
point is that an examination of consciousness led me to the conclusion that
the spatio-temporal is a product of consciousness, while you consider
consciousness to be another spatio-temporal process. Is that a fair
summation? If so, then from my point of view, "intellectual" should be
distinguished from "natural", as that latter term is conventionally used by
SOMites, though in a post-SOM philosophy, they would be reunited at all
levels (as they were in much pre-SOM philosophy), in a similar way that
Quality is reunited at all levels in the MOQ. To me, the idea that
consciousness became real at some point in time is the fairy story that
most needs to be overcome. That is why we argue.
- Scott
>
> Ian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:45 AM
> Subject: Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
>
>
> > Ian,
> >
> > No one on this list, as far back as I can remember, has denied
evolution.
> >
> > If you don't want to argue about it, I would refrain from remarks about
> > "people who want to believe some fairy story or other". Some, like
myself,
> > do not consider evolution solely through chance and natural selection to
> be
> > a very promising theory, but I have no great desire to argue about it. I
> > will respond, though, when it is put forth as a given, and I will also
> > respond when people, such as yourself, do not distinguish between
> > "evolution" and "evolution solely through chance and natural selection".
> >
> > - 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 13 2004 - 18:34:44 GMT