From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2003 - 21:33:45 BST
Hi
Here's a link to a radio programme
about how appalingly church-like the scientific community can at,
Church of Reason perhaps:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/aheadoftheirtime.shtml
regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 8:58 PM
Subject: MD Evolution
> 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
>
>
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 - 21:37:56 BST