Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution? (can anything exist without evolution?)

Ahh but don't you see it evolved out of all the memes swimming about
in your head. You had no part in the creative process ;-)

LOL.

Seriously, this whole like of reasoning from Bernie is one of the most
ridiculous I've ever seen. It reduces the word "evolution" to a
virtually meaningless concept. I've no doubt that Dawkins would NOT
state there was an evolutionary relationship between the VW and the
pig. He would make the clear distinction between the VW as "Designed"
and the pig as "Designoid" (ie evolved, but looking as though it was
designed). I think Dawkins introduced the term "Designoid" in his
Royal Institution Christmas Lectures in 1991. The VW is NOT designoid
it is designed.

Iain

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:45 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> This sentence did not evolve. I typed it essentially all at once and de
> novo.
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Gregory said:
>> "Once one asks questions such as 'when is something not a mimic?' or 'what
>> are examples of things that don't evolve?' they will see the limitations and
>> boundaries of the concept/percept in question."
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think there are any examples what-so-ever of anything that has not
>> evolved. If you can think of just one, give an example, and I think I can
>> explain to you how it evolved.
>>
>>
>>
>> …Bernie
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Gregory Arago
>> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 12:03 AM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu; gordon brown
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Darwin only biological evolution?
>>
>>
>>
>> "...actually the only evolution we can attribute directly to Darwin is
>> biological." - Gordon Brown
>>
>>
>>
>> Upon reading Darwin's "Descent of Man," such a statement as the above
>> becomes less tenable. In fact, Darwin in it wrote about morals, values and
>> reason, about psychology, anthropology and ethics. One can argue, of course,
>> that Darwin didn't take the word 'evolution' out of thin air, i.e. he didn't
>> coin the word - it has a past as well. One could credit or debit Darwin with
>> importing 'evolution' into biology or for giving systematic shape to biology
>> in which the term 'evolution' came to have a significant use. Or one could
>> suggest that Darwin wrote about human beings more like a zoologist than an
>> anthropologist. As far as I remember, Darwin didn't even use the term
>> 'evolution' very often in "On the Origin of Species...in the Struggle for
>> Life." What one cannot do, however, is divorce the person (qua scientist)
>> entirely from his very real non-biological thoughts, which are part of his
>> worldview on display in his writings; one cannot (better to say should
>> not) dehumanise Charles Darwin in order to paint him as biology's genius.
>> Not even Darwin's evolution is biology-only.
>>
>>
>>
>> Likewise, picking and choosing from Dawkins by accepting his
>> concept/percept of 'memes' is ridiculous. What it shows is that the person
>> who wants Dawkins' 'memes' but not his agnosticism/atheism simply doesn't
>> understand the connection between the two. Rejecting 'memetics' in
>> philosophy and social-humanitarian thought is common because the term 'meme'
>> is absurd. However, one might ask the same thing about 'evolution,' which
>> has in fact been rejected by a good many, while being accepted by others
>> (witness Gordon suggesting that language and knowledge 'evolve'). Once one
>> asks questions such as 'when is something not a mimic?' or 'what are
>> examples of things that don't evolve?' they will see the limitations and
>> boundaries of the concept/percept in question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does Gordon have any evidence to back up the following statement?:
>>
>> "each of these has a theory that was developed mostly independently of the
>> others, and it is difficult to find major features that all of them have in
>> common beyond that they involve evolution."
>>
>>
>>
>> For example, was Herbert Spencer's evolutionary theory 'developed mostly
>> independently' of Darwin's or do they somehow overlap and borrow from each
>> other? Or how about Karl Marx's?
>>
>>
>>
>> I would contend that 'change-over-time' is a major feature common to them
>> all; that to take away 'change' is to be left with no evolution. Would
>> anyone on the ASA list disagree with this?
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your
>> favourite sites. Download it now!
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.