Re: Intelligent Design vs. Darwin

[John M <***>]

Friends:

why do we waste our mental efforts (better than time)
on obsolete cpomparisons? Do we still discuss the
difference of Flat Earth vs. heliocentrism, when we
have an expanding universe(?) to doubt about? 
Darwin opened up the medieval eyes visualizing some
development of features within the carbon-water based
observables on (above) the surface (incl surf,-waters)
of our terrestrial planet, the classwical biosphere. 
He was a genius who dared deduce conclusions on
species and their - as he coined - evolution, based on
what we can see (in model-myopia). 
Then came the more advanced "post Darwinians" and
tried to think furter. Then came the even more advance
thinkers in hierarchy (Stan Salthe) and
complex-thinking individuals (can I point to one?) who
put the question into wider framwork and wider
(total?) interconnection. Like "natural systems" 
Then came the religious obsolescence and discussed the
ideas of scientific advancement - so dangerous for the
faithful soul - in arguing against Darwin's
(primitive)novelty to return to the bible. Ssince it
is not acceptable to big masse, they invented the ID -
the 'intelligent design' indeed a creationism without
spelling "god".
All that to prevent people from thinking in today's
terms away from the age-old emotional teachings
(memes) of the religious. 

This and more I started to write and I am slow. While
it was sitting in my 'drafts' folder, the list went on
(and on) and Judith merged into literary delights
within the topic, Jamie seconding her. So what I had
above became oboslete as the topic itself.

To save the day (my day) here is an outline how I feel
about the situation (and in second feeling I don't
believe it is far from RR's thinking that was):
I call the history of our universe "evolution" in all
its deterministic grandeur. Deterministic I mean as to
the origantion, not the ways being determined: they
occur as (easiest and most efficiently continuable)
the   
responses to changes within the totality. Nothing
happens without being entailed: a determinism with
lots of freedom, since unrestricted entailments
combine into the change that occurs. Also the parallel
processes are influencing the outcome of such (hard to
anticipate) next changes. 
OK, so here we are in the midst of a changing world. 
There are aspects we may include into our diverse
models (biology etc) and the process is going on. Some
changes result in dead ends, some not. 
Darwin picked a tiny corner and used it for a giant
step of enlightenment (maybe larger than the "step" on
the Moon was). Then the world went on in its epistemic
enrichment - not in the direction of some ID. 

Natural selection? was OK in Darwin's religion-based
times. Who selects? by what rules? 
Fitness? the dynosaur was extremely "fit" when it
became extinct. 
Adaptaion? who decides? upon what rules? consciously? 
Utility? who's? and for what? 

So I submit these lines in the hope that it will be
read and forgotten. 

I still yearn for an acceptable general identification
of life beyond the 2 criteria of RR I found best so
far (MR). Which is descriptive of the best details in
the course of life, not describing the process. 
Same goes for "being alive". 

John

,

--- James N Rose <***>
wrote:

> David,
> 
> darwin gave us a 'heads up' on life as an action
> zone.
> sometimes the challenges we encounter may not be of
> our liking, but they're in our zone, like it or not.
> 
> And, some persist there  - like it or not.
> If they are detrimental in the short run, then 
> avoidance is a high percentage option.  If
> the challenge is hardy with a staying power on
> its own, then avoidance may not be the best 
> option.
> 
> We are the medicine, having to re-adapt to 
> the virus's adaptation to our initial dosing.
> 
> Darwin gave the first strong dose and the 
> ill-thinking survived; got stronger.  
> 
> The next doses have to be better developed;
> anticipate responsive adaptation.  Seek an
> option that includes progressive rather than
> regressive transformation.
> 
> [I like to be in-the-ring rather than a spectator,
> when it comes to such things.  I have a -strong-
> spiritual impulse.  I value ideals and eternals.
> But as much as I love stories .. I love clarity
> and non-illusion that much more.   It's important
> to find the right emerged-imagery to take humanity
> into the future ... a future not self hypnotized
> by mythologies]
> 
> Hope you find a fight more your liking.
> 
> 
> Jamie
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > David Macy wrote:
> > 
> > Hey Jamie,
> > 
> >     This feels like a moment of Zen.  I'm not sure
> if 
> > I'm making myself understood or if I am
> misunderstanding you.
> > The only thing that I am really saying is that if
> the fight 
> > is Intelligent Design vs. Darwin then I want to go
> see another
> > fight.
> > 
> > David
>