From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 20:14:04 BST
Hi David,
First let me apoligize to all for clogging up their emails. I fired off an
immediate response and then went chasing after my son. Now that he is taking a
nap, I can get back to you in detail.
You said: "The Darwin chapters are of course nearer the end becasue there are a
lot of theorists that laid the ground for Darwin,"
Andy: Well, I guess it matters what book we are going to write. I thought we
were talking about evolution and not all of the history of science.
You said: "and I am fairly sure about the history of science as that's what I
did at uni."
Andy: I guess I should just shut up then. Sorry..uh, Sir David.
You said: "All science is provisional, Darwin will be replaced one day, if you
can't imagine that you are not trying very hard."
Andy: As I said Darwin has already been replaced. Darwinism is still around
and there seems to be some question around here of what should fall under this
heading. I think evolution and Darwinism are pretty much the same thing. My
problem is the suggestion from many, for a seemingly endless list of reasons,
that Darwin should be erased from the annals of history. That his influece was
either inconsequential or harmful. You seem to be suggesting both. I disagree.
You said: "I am probably not arguing with you accept for the strange absolutist
language you use."
Andy: That is funny, but I thought it was you who was using the strange
absolutist language. You know like pointing to absolute answers in Heidegger or
Burke or Kant, rather than offer up some points of your own. However, if you
ever get the feeling that I am using absolutist language, I really do apologize.
I am one of those contributers who is absolutely sure there are no absolutes. :)
You said: "You could say we would have no Darwin without Malthus."
Andy: I hope I never implied that Darwin emerged in a vacuum. Of course he had
influences. And Malthus is certainly one of the most important ones. Malthus
never proposed a theory of evolution however. Let's give credit where credit is
due. If we could pick one individual it is obvious it would be Darwin who is
mainly responsible for the theory of evolution that we use today.
You said: "I am in the evolution is obvious, & Darwin is a very unconvincing
explanation for the complexity of life forms, camp,"
Andy: I don't want to belong to any camp and I don't know what you mean here.
Does evolution offer a convincing explanation of the complexity of lifeforms?
Then I would say that Darwin does also.
You said: "if you're not, never mind, but keep reading the science journals to
see where we are going."
Andy: Give me a clue. Where will we find your name? Which journal? Is this
suppose to give legitamacy to your arguments? This is just about as good as
"see the collected works of Heidegger." I am impressed with the resume you have
given us, but I still think you can do better with your posts.
Thanks,
Andy
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 Sep 06 2003 - 20:14:58 BST