MD Evolution

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 20:58:08 BST

  • Next message: johnny moral: "MD Bozeman?"

    Andy, David and all:

    David said to Andy:
    And once again, its a theory, it is not very convincing, and a lot of
    research is done in a Darwinian framework only because no one has come up
    with a better idea. We constantly get fed the aspects of Darwinism that are
    plausible,.. a more rounded view would also discuss its limitations.

    dmb joins in:
    Its not so true in the common usage, but in the scientific community,
    "theory" is a pretty strong word. In fact, it seems to me that the very
    definition of the word implies a high degree of certainty and wide
    acceptance by those who are in a position to evaluate the evidence. Further,
    I'd suggest that the theory of evolution is not just an idea, but is the
    central organizing principle in all the biological sciences. I can't defend
    those who would feed you a one-sided story and I agree that its important to
    discuss its limitations and such, but I think any decent scientist would say
    the same. You'll get the dogmatic type in any field, but that's not about
    science so much as its about people. Science itself is supposed to be open,
    is designed to be open to new and contrary evidence, but it also has a way
    of keeping out the crackpots too and that's a good thing. I mean, I disagree
    with the suggestion that science is run by unprincipled tyrannts or
    whatever. I think most scientists love science.

    David continued:
    It is also very important to put science in its SOM context. It is SOM
    based, consequently it has great difficulty with approach the
    characteristics split off from reality and dumped into the subject. ...Above
    all I think SOM is derived from a fear of Becoming/contingency that is built
    up by theistic thinking and the idea of God as the master of contingency,
    that is taken up
    in the notion of the self/subject into science, that becomes a dualism
    without the subject, that produces scientific materism, that is a view of
    reality with one of your eyes shut.

    dmb says:
    God as the master of contingency? Theistic thinking produces scientific
    materialism? Wish I knew exactly HOW to disagree with that. Hmmm. I agree
    that it is "important to put science in its SOM context", especially when
    discussing evolution, but I'd paint a different picture. As I understand it,
    this is where theistic thinking and scientific materialism are at odds in a
    very conspicuous way. You know, the Scopes monkey trial and all that. (One
    would have thought the case was decided by now but, culturally speaking, it
    seems the jury is still out.) In a SOM context, biological evolution is
    usually framed in cold, mechanistic terms such as survival of the fittest or
    random genetic mutations. Clearly this offends thesistic thinkers insofar as
    human origins are no longer attributed to a divine creator, but to natural
    forces. Pirsig not only attacks the scientific materialism from a
    non-thesistic perspective, he puts the two rivals into a larger evolutionary
    context. There we can see that science and religion are not just offering
    two rival creation stories, but are products of two different levels. I
    don't mean to suggest that anybody is making a case for creationism instead
    of darwinism, but the defenders of religion and the critics of scientific
    materialism have at least one thing in common; they both assert that natural
    selection and such is not enough to explain things.

    More specifically, I think Pirsig's sexual encounter with Lila and the
    related discussions of sexual selection process are meant to illustrate that
    natural selection is really all about DQ. Lila, for reasons that not reasons
    at all, chooses those that seems worthy of projection into the future. Its
    not too hard to imagine that all sexual reproduction works something like
    that. And when you've experienced that choosing or being chosen in that way,
    it doesn't seem kind so random or ruthless.

    Thanks,
    dmb

    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 - 21:00:42 BST