From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 21:42:35 BST
Hi
Well evolution means that life forms have changed over time. Pretty sure
they have evolved from more simple to
complex, and that species have dies out and others have
emerged.
Darwinism=a mechanism to account for this evolution.
And I am with Karl Poepper when he says that it is clearly not a testable
scientific hypothesis, but has proved to be a useful research programme.
When I say read the science journals I mean that I am
less optimistic than you that science has come to a
theoretical dead end with Darwin.
I think the success of Darwinism is simply the success
of accepting that we need to explains biology in the context of evolution.
Yes, Darwinism has greatly added to our knowledge. Yes, Darwin was a great
scientist
and the book that ends with Darwin for a few chapters
is about the idea of evolution that was around for a some time before
Darwin. But we are not too aware of the work in Germany in the English
speaking world -never mind. But, like a number of other people, I am not
convinced by random mutations and naural selection.
Sure natural selection will eliminate species and individuals. But random
mutations?! RANDOM!
Which a couple of wild life programmes. The complexity
of bio-chemistry and life is staggering. Ever done any
engineering and tried to get the stuff to work? Now
imagine that you only do it by putting the parts in a box shaking them and
trying again if they are no good.
Go ahead I'll give you five million years to try.
In the future they will laugh that we thought this a few
hundred years after we thought the earth was flat.
Fine, you find Darwinism convincing. I do not.
PS I am obviously not a fundmentalist.
How could Darwinism ever produce animal instincts?
How do genes produce behaviour?
I think this is a confusion of levels.
That Darwinists try to explain such things show that they are very confused.
A wasp knows how to paralyse a caterpiller without killing it so its young
can grow inside it and feed off
of it. Random mutations?! The wasp seems to have
precision knowledge of the nervous system of the
caterpiller. I do not believe in design as a useful
explanation either. Not just so confident that we have
really got to grips with what is going on here.
Most people cannot think out of the Darwinism box
because there is no other game in town. Don't mean
its right. There are a number of well known problems
with neo-Darwinism but there a very few suggestions
as to how they can be addressed. You should read
Peter Bowler's book on the history of the idea of evolution,
it is very interesting to see what people thought
before Darwin in the same way as it is good to go
back to the Greeks to look at a non-Christian perspective.
My disbelief about our current understanding of biology is similar to what
the cosmolgists
feel about the laws of physics when they refer to the anthropicprinciple.
I would also recommend Prigogine's The End Of Certainty as putting a big
question mark over how the different levels of complex systems are
not fully dependent on the lower ones. If this is the case how can genes
cause their structure, if they don't how can the selection of genes
explain evolution? As R Sheldrake says, genes make enzymes,
do enzymes build bodies? We really do not know as much as some
people imply. Most of Darwinism is 'plausible speculation' by their
own admission. It is annoying. We know evolution must have taken
place but we cannot come up with a good explanation for it.
See the book by the anthropologist Jeremy Narby for a possible
was in which information is passed from the environment to genes,
rather than by slection only. He comes up with his strange suggestion
by asking certain S.American tribes how they got such amazing
knowledge of the properties of plants. Darwin, yes great, had its day,
I am more interested in what are the possible future developments
in natural science. You should also read some of Robert M Young
as he is a world authority on the history of Darwinism, here's his site:
http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/index.html
regards
Davdi Morey
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
> 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
>
>
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 - 21:46:34 BST