1 Oct 1996 16:29:29 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Publius <email@example.com> wrote:
> Those of us who have been probing the workings of the
> Atheist/Darwinist mentalities have come up against a puz-
> zling quirk in their thinking process:
OK, I'm ready. What's the puzzling quirk?
> If they really believe what they preach, then they should
> readily admit that as the Evolutionary Process continues, it
> is just a matter of time till Man is succeeded by a Being as
> superior to Man as Man is to the Ape.
Actually, any proper evolutionist will tell you that, biologically speaking,
there is _no_ basis for saying that Man _is_ superior to an Ape. Evolution
measures success simply on the basis of differential survival. I suppose
you could say that we are superior to Apes because we are outcompeting them
for resources and living space in most places that we come into contact with
them, but I somehow doubt that's what you meant by superior. Actually if
you want to talk about REALLY superior organisms, check out Bacteria!
> Instead, some say that
> Evolution "was" but no longer "is" - its possibilities evidently
I have never heard or read a statement like this from anyone who considers
themselves an "evolutionist." That doesn't mean that nobody said it. Could
you furnish a quote or a citation? Anyone who did say this is dead wrong.
> The smart ones keep quiet because they know that
> if they are true to their Belief they will be admitting that
> Evolution is an open-ended process - in infinite Time and
> Space - and in one way or another, inexorably leads to "The
> Ultimate Configuration of Life" which I have called "God" (for
> want of a better title).
Hmm... the ultimate configuration of life? Since there are regular cataclysmic
events that short-circuit various evolutionary pathways here on earth (climate
change, asteroids, etc), I wonder how you would KNOW that you reached the
ultimate? After all, mammals are only here in large numbers 'cuz a friendly
asteroid eliminated their most common ecological competitors.
> To say that there is a Vector or an
> Order to Evolution (ask Gould) is an Atheist/Darwinist No-No.
> PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius>
Gould's most recent book _does_ take certain biologists to task for
persisting in the use of outdated and inaccurate metaphors that imply
a vector to evolution. The "No-No," in Gould's view is the view that
there is a vector of evolution. There is not. Read the book (Full House),
and you'll see that the appearance of a vector is actually the result of the
fact that life begins at a 'wall' of minimal complexity with the bacteria,
and therfore the elaboration of life over time can only result in more and
more complex forms. But at the same time that these complex forms are coming
about, the 'simple' forms of life are also evolving into ever wider niches.
A bacteria alive today (perhaps in a subteranean oil puddle, or next to a
700 degree Farhenheit seabed magma vent) is as evolved as you and I. And
that fact does not make human achievements any less remarkable, nor does it
make the world any less full of wonder and spirituality. Got it?
Environmental Policy Group, Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning