Re: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society)

From: j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Jul 31 2008 - 11:00:24 EDT

Moorad wrote: "I am reluctant to call anything in spacetime as
evolving since it would suggest or imply that evolution has something
to say about it, which it does not. Of course, we can exercise our
free wills and make things happen but I would not call that evolving."

The phrase "evolution has something to say" reifies the neutral word
"evolution." "Evolution" is a descriptor, not a name for an agency.

On your second point, that's just a word definition argument. I
exercise my free will and write this, changing it somewhat as I go.
That process I'd call "evolution of the text." You would not -- that's
OK.

jb

On 7/30/08, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> We are all embedded in spacetime and so there is an unavoidable time
> development, otherwise nothing would happen. Therefore, all in creation
> partakes of this time-motion. I am reluctant to call anything in spacetime
> as evolving since it would suggest or imply that evolution has something to
> say about it, which it does not. Of course, we can exercise our free wills
> and make things happen but I would not call that evolving.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Wed 7/30/2008 4:07 PM
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society)
>
>
>
> Gregory wrote:
> "Society doesn't 'evolve,' Bernie. Who told you (i.e. who that KNOWS, not
> who that guesses) that it does?"
>
>
>
> I told myself.
>
>
>
> Let's talk examples. Give me an example of some society behavior that
> didn't evolve. Please be specific.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Gregory Arago
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:29 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme
>
>
>
> Burgy and Bernie,
>
>
>
> Wake up and read a bit outside of your home turf. You're quacking like
> ducks!
>
>
>
> 'Meme,' o.k. let's rewrite it. ME-ME. Not YOU-YOU! Do you want to use that
> 'selfish gene' centric product of R. Dawkins in your vocabularies? If so,
> it's all about survival (reproductive fitness, to be more precise), nothing
> more. Get with the program!
>
>
>
> Defend it and ?turn it into' your own meaning, you'll be doing a disservice
> as great as those who would pull the poison out of evolution by claiming it
> can be a 'completely theistic variety.' Are they serious? They don't own the
> discourse, but want to change people's vocabularies so that 'evolution' is
> GUIDED - who or what is doing that 'guidance' and why hasn't caught on in
> the mainstream of evolutionary biologists. Why are there guidance-ologists
> in biology?
>
>
>
> Society doesn't 'evolve,' Bernie. Who told you (i.e. who that KNOWS, not who
> that guesses) that it does? Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton...exactly who?
> Please do tell! I am a sociologist and I am telling you that yes, of course,
> society 'changes-over-time,' but that no, it doesn't 'evolve.' A significant
> difference there, even if it's ?mere word-play' to you. It is not being
> 'afraid' of a word, but exercising discernment of where a particular word
> fits and where it doesn't to best express the thought one wants to express.
>
>
>
> 'Meme' is condescending conceptology (R.D. needed 'a word to rhyme with
> gene'!!!) - any who are tricked into playing his game should step back,
> examine their reasons and if necessary open a book or 500 in the fields
> where R.D.'s theory INTRUDES, i.e. in the human-social sciences. We don't
> want him there, yet this attitude of 'it might be o.k. to refer to
> 'non-scientific' things like ideas' is disgusting. There are better ways to
> speak about the ?transfer of ideas' than to lean on Blackmore, Dawkins,
> Dennett, M. Harris (cultural materialism), Sanderson, et al. I'm surprised
> you haven't found the resources yet to enable you to do this. Perhaps ASA
> could put something about Me-Me's on its education section (Craig Rusbult)?
>
>
>
> Yes, Mike Gene, that is exactly the point - a "whole new field of
> pseudo-science has been inspired by R.D.," though I wouldn't dignify
> Me-Me-tics as a 'field' - that sounds far too rigorous and disciplined! :0)
>
>
>
> Gregory
>
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/30/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>
> From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme
> To:
> Cc: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Received: Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 7:50 PM
>
> Burgy said:
> " The word "meme" seems to have value as descriptive of
> something real. The fact that Dawkins invented it does not make it of
> no value."
>
> I agree Burgy. "Meme" may be controversial, but the fact that
> society learns and evolves seems to be agreed by all. Some are afraid of
> the
> word because Dawkins says that memes are responsible for religion and
> inventing
> God... going too far.
>
> ,,,Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf
> Of j burg
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:21 AM
> To: Nucacids
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme
>
> I am puzzled. The word "meme" seems to have value as descriptive of
> something real. The fact that Dawkins invented it does not make it of
> no value.
>
> Or amybe the argument is that "meme" does not refer to something
> real.
> Of course it is not real in the sense of a physical thing. But it
> seems (to me) to be real in the sense of a concept/influence or
> whatever. As such, it is a useful term; I'm not sure what to use in
> its place to refer to what dawkins is writing about..
>
> Burgy
>
> On 7/30/08, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
> > Hi PvM,
> >
> >
> >
> > "The confusion that science is atheism is unfortunate but not
> surprising
> > given the state of education and religious indoctrination in this
> country."
> >
> >
> >
> > Indeed. And what also adds to the confusion is the manner in which
> vocal,
> > atheistic scientists preach about science leading to atheism. Ken Miller
> > nicely explained this in his first book, Finding Darwin's God.
> >
> >
> >
> > "However, we should not oversimplify the issue as science is atheism,
> and
> > certainly not by pointing at an atheist who also happens to be a
> scientist.
> > Of course, for some, the idea that science is atheism is comforting."
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not oversimplifying any issue when I note that Myers publicity
> stunt has
> > worked to entrench the confusion. Thanks to Myers, thousands of
> Catholics
> > now know one thing - the man who deceptively obtained a Eucharist wafer
> in
> > order to publicly desecrate it is a scientist who hosts the #1
> "science
> > blog." Are you under the impression that Myers stunt has helped
> people to
> > see the error in the science=atheism equation?
> >
> >
> >
> > - Mike
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
> --
> Burgy
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Now with a new friend-happy design! Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger
> <http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 31 11:01:06 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 31 2008 - 11:01:06 EDT