Re: Robert Wright on Steve Gould

From: Cliff Lundberg (cliff@noe.com)
Date: Sun Jan 23 2000 - 18:32:49 EST

  • Next message: Cliff Lundberg: "Re: Fred Hoyle's "Mathematics of Evolution""

    Stephen E. Jones wrote:

    >If Darwinism followed it's rule of prefixing "apparent" before
    >"intelligence", as it does with "design", it would presumably
    >have to admit that *human* "intelligence" is only "apparent"
    >"intelligence"?

    The 'apparent' is all science is concerned with. But then, 'intelligence'
    --unquantified--is no more a scientific notion than 'complexity' or
    'design-with-no-apparent-designer'. If Stephen's analysis is valid,
    at least I have the consolation that my stupidity is also only apparent.

    Critics of 'Darwinism' seem so unconcerned about the ambiguity of the
    term, I have to conclude that they think the ambiguity is something
    they should perpetuate. Is Stephen talking about natural origins in
    general, or evolution through natural selection, or gradualism, or
    macroevolution?

    --
    Cliff Lundberg  ~  San Francisco  ~  cliff@noe.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:39:47 EST