From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 13:54:55 BST
Hi David,
Ok. So for the most part we agree. But I still want to quibble with you.
You said: "The 'annoying ' reference is that it is annoying that Darwinism
is the best theory we have in orthodox science, that we want
to discuss the way evolution effects life but we are stuck with
an inadequate theory when we try to do so."
Andy: Well, You want to do some things and biologists want to do other things.
I don't have any attachment to Darwinism, I just don't understand why everyone
gets so emotional about it. Pick any theory in science and we can work around
the edges looking for faults. In fact this is the role of science. I don't see
how Darwinism or evolution is any different from relativity, QUantum mechanics,
or any theory you want to choose. None of them are airtight, none of them
answer the specific question you want answered, so all of them can be described
as inadequate by some perspective. WHy is everyone so wigged out about
Darwinism? I want to suggest that it is not Darwinism that is the source of
your annoyance, but rather the annoyance resides in you. Charles Bukowski says,
"Only the boring get bored." Could we also say, "Only the annoying get
annoyed." I am not calling you annoying, I am saying you have misplaced the
source for your annoyance.
You said: "The problem I suspect is that we are prepared to talk about human
beings acting with purpose but for metaphysical reasons we do not seem to think
that purpose plays a role anywhere else in nature."
Andy: Purpose in nature to me sounds too much like design. That might be my
problem. But, I just don't know how there can be a purpose in nature without
going outside nature. To some ultimate view. ANd I don't want to do that.
That seems like a much bigger problem.
You said: "The point about Sheldrake is that he proposes a way in which we can
begin to see how purpose and dynamic driven reality might find its way into
laying down static patterns in a way more likely to produce evolution than the
information passed in genes."
Andy: I found Sheldrake fascinating when I read his work. I have his book.
But I was waiting for biologists to also find his work exciting. Perhaps his
day is yet to come. But so far biologist have not found his ideas very useful.
In fact, they seem to have systematically refuted his every point. I think
philosophers find Sheldrake more interesting than Darwin. But what should this
say about philosophers?
You said: "Genes according to neo-Darwiniam orthodoxy do not record information
from the environment in any direct way, they only mutate randomly and then pass
on those genes that happen to survive."
Andy: Genes do much more than this from my understanding. I think both of us
have a very superficial understanding of how genes, mutations and natural
selection works. But, biologists, obviously find neo-Darwinism very useful for
the work they do. This is a strong enough endorsement for the orthodoxy for me.
Why should philosophers and historians of science dictate what theory
biologists should use because we are confused by the non-biological questions we
are asking?
You said: "Sheldrake asks if there is a mechanism for passing on onformation
form one generation to the next about the structure of the organism at a higher
level than genes."
Andy: And Sheldrake should be commended for asking that question.
You said: "At the present time it is not possible to answer this question due to
our limited understanding of ontogenesis and morphogenesis."
Andy: Are you sure about this? And if you are, what does this mean to
biologists and the work they are doing? Does this throw a kink in their work?
Is it going to cause the whole Darwinist world view to come crashing down? I
really don't think so. Darwinism has weathered much stronger criticisms and
attacks than this over its century and a half existence. Like I said, I think
the most amazing aspect of Darwinism is how many of Charles Darwin's original
ideas have managed to remain intact through all the years of criticisms.
Particularly when it seems he was just going upon conjecture without having the
evidence of genes, dna, or everything we have subsequently found in the fossil
records. You want to talk about wasps being amazing, and I agree, but I find
this pretty damn amazing too.
You said: "PS I do not use the word truth, I prefer to ask plauisible
explanation, and a lot of the problem I have with science (apart from loving it)
is that it is always talking as if closure is around the corner,"
Andy: I agree that this is a problem when some scienctists talk like this.
However, I don't think all scientists talk like this. I am not even sure if a
majority of them do.
You said: "and that the current state of knowledge makes it quite hard to
believe in something that does exist, i.e. actual human beings of everyday
experience."
Andy: You lost me here. I am unsure what you are saying. Can you rephrase?
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 : Sun Sep 07 2003 - 14:00:42 BST