![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackOK, I've thought about this for a long time, and I've finally thought of something interesting.
Prologue (just because)
Descartes: I have a theory.
Descartes: That it's a demon1
Descartes: A dancing demon.
Me: No, something isn't right there.
Darwin: I have a theory.
Darwin: More complex organisms evolved from simpler ones.
Me: Hold on. That's not right either. Rewind.
Lamarck: I have a theory.
Lamark: More complex organisms evolved from simpler ones.
Me: Yes.
Lamarck: Spontaneous generation and inheritance of acquired characteristics are a good model of how this could happen.
Me: Agreed so far.
Lamarck: Which is what actually happens.
Me: No. Lets stop you there, and remember your great and good contributions to evolution, not the fact like all good theories, it was later improved upon.
Idiots: No, he was right, don't you see! LAM-ARC-KISM!
Me: Moving right along.
Darwin: Evolution by natural selection.
Idiots: VILLIFY! EVIL! WE AM NOT A MONKEY!2
Many people: What? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever... hold on, it does kind of explain a lot, doesn't it?
Thesis
If everyone believes Darwin's theory (or a more modern version thereof), they can be described as Darwinist (although that's a little misleading). But if you are Darwinist, what does it mean to be more Darwinist or very Darwinist?
It sounds meaningless but I think most people have an intuitive idea of what it would mean, and that's someone who places more importance on the idea. So if I think women should have equal rights with men I'm feminist, but if I think that's one of the largest injustices of the society and fighting it one of my personal highest priorities, then I might (ambiguously) be described as "more" feminist.
An atheist might be someone who says there is no God. You might describe as "very" atheist someone for whom saying there is no God is something they think about a lot, find it important to persuade other people of, is desirable.
According to the encyclopaedia, "Neo-Darwinism" means the current theory of evolution, ie. what Darwin said with the refinements made since. But since just about all people involved believe that, the term is ripe to be adopted to refer to people who place disproportionate importance on it.
People, both militant atheists who are vociferous about evolution to combat creationism, and people who are decrying militant atheism, sometimes give the impression militant atheism is an extreme of atheism or Darwinism. I don't know who's at fault. Yrieithydd described people having this impression of Dawkins; Miriam linked to an essay which used this sort of language).
But I guess this is what AoC is referring to when he describes things as Neo-Darwinist. That "pseudo-science" means not "evolution" but "people treating evolution as a panacea, using it as a reason not to believe religion, and developing over-the-top theories that societies also evolve, and that religion will be and should be eventually weeded out, and that that's a scientific fact."
However, it's much too late at night to decide if that's at all true -- certainly some militant atheists go too far, but whether that's at all endemic of anything. And anyway, this is all about one sentence, I'll parse it more fully when I know the surrounding.
(Many thanks to the comments of miriam, yrieithydd, robhu, woodpijn, etc. who may have actually said things a lot clearer than I did.)
[1] Reference to (a) the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode Once More with Feeling and (b) Descarte's cartesian demon thought experiment.
[2] Apologies, not that disbelieving Darwin is inherently wrong, but that many people do it for stupid reasons.
Prologue (just because)
Descartes: I have a theory.
Descartes: That it's a demon1
Descartes: A dancing demon.
Me: No, something isn't right there.
Darwin: I have a theory.
Darwin: More complex organisms evolved from simpler ones.
Me: Hold on. That's not right either. Rewind.
Lamarck: I have a theory.
Lamark: More complex organisms evolved from simpler ones.
Me: Yes.
Lamarck: Spontaneous generation and inheritance of acquired characteristics are a good model of how this could happen.
Me: Agreed so far.
Lamarck: Which is what actually happens.
Me: No. Lets stop you there, and remember your great and good contributions to evolution, not the fact like all good theories, it was later improved upon.
Idiots: No, he was right, don't you see! LAM-ARC-KISM!
Me: Moving right along.
Darwin: Evolution by natural selection.
Idiots: VILLIFY! EVIL! WE AM NOT A MONKEY!2
Many people: What? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever... hold on, it does kind of explain a lot, doesn't it?
Thesis
If everyone believes Darwin's theory (or a more modern version thereof), they can be described as Darwinist (although that's a little misleading). But if you are Darwinist, what does it mean to be more Darwinist or very Darwinist?
It sounds meaningless but I think most people have an intuitive idea of what it would mean, and that's someone who places more importance on the idea. So if I think women should have equal rights with men I'm feminist, but if I think that's one of the largest injustices of the society and fighting it one of my personal highest priorities, then I might (ambiguously) be described as "more" feminist.
An atheist might be someone who says there is no God. You might describe as "very" atheist someone for whom saying there is no God is something they think about a lot, find it important to persuade other people of, is desirable.
According to the encyclopaedia, "Neo-Darwinism" means the current theory of evolution, ie. what Darwin said with the refinements made since. But since just about all people involved believe that, the term is ripe to be adopted to refer to people who place disproportionate importance on it.
People, both militant atheists who are vociferous about evolution to combat creationism, and people who are decrying militant atheism, sometimes give the impression militant atheism is an extreme of atheism or Darwinism. I don't know who's at fault. Yrieithydd described people having this impression of Dawkins; Miriam linked to an essay which used this sort of language).
But I guess this is what AoC is referring to when he describes things as Neo-Darwinist. That "pseudo-science" means not "evolution" but "people treating evolution as a panacea, using it as a reason not to believe religion, and developing over-the-top theories that societies also evolve, and that religion will be and should be eventually weeded out, and that that's a scientific fact."
However, it's much too late at night to decide if that's at all true -- certainly some militant atheists go too far, but whether that's at all endemic of anything. And anyway, this is all about one sentence, I'll parse it more fully when I know the surrounding.
(Many thanks to the comments of miriam, yrieithydd, robhu, woodpijn, etc. who may have actually said things a lot clearer than I did.)
[1] Reference to (a) the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode Once More with Feeling and (b) Descarte's cartesian demon thought experiment.
[2] Apologies, not that disbelieving Darwin is inherently wrong, but that many people do it for stupid reasons.
Hello
Date: 2008-08-21 05:59 am (UTC)Re: Hello
Date: 2008-08-21 12:37 pm (UTC)