Recreating (and advancing) pk’s censored domains: Macroinformation.org &
Knatz.com / Teaching / Society / Survival / Culture /
Mission: to mock the forcing of either/or alternatives onto both/and possibilities
Was the universe (world, cosmos … whatever is) created? Did it evolve? Or did it “just happen”? by chance?
Are those meaningful questions? Do we understand the meanings of the words well enough to ask such questions intelligently?
Whatever the answer to that last question, it seems clear to me that stupid religion (culture, habit …) on the one hand and stupid science on the other have hindered more than helped rational inquiry. What I wish to emphasize in the problem is the degree to which multiple possibilities have been reduced to paired exclusives: like a political election: Republican OR Democrat; Communist OR Capitalist. If you want to see how intellectually silly it seems to me, consider the ad:
“Tastes great!” “Less filling!”
The actors in the ads mud-wrestle over these choices.
The former is associated with deity, with intelligence, with mind … with man … with art, with engineering: creation. The latter is associated with foolishness: gambling: blind luck.
Have you ever heard anyone say, “Well, is she beautiful or is she blond?” We know perfectly well that the referent might be blond and ugly; beautiful and blond; beautiful and raven-haired … or blond and ordinary. And only after sixty-odd years of listening, reading, thinking have I found a thinker who allows for both evolution and design in the universe: Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box [NY, 1966]. Behe is a biochemist who accept’s Darwinian natural selection (and sexual selection) in evolution AND who insists that that at best can only be part of it. Nineteenth-century defenders of mind in a scheme of things (see that? god as a schemer!) in desperation reached for the eye as something so complex, so perfect that it could not have evolved by chance. But then the Nineteenth Century didn’t have a very good handle on the age of things. Neither did they know how many sorts of eyes there are right here on earth: or how imperfect the best of them is. And as to probability, stochastic processes … they didn’t have a clue. But, most importantly, they didn’t know the details of biochemical processes as they are being studied these days. Sho’ Nuff, Bey and colleagues can analyze biochemical minutiae of irreducible complexity that natural selection is utterly dumb on.
Accident partnered with experience is no accident
So: do we now “know” that some things evolved (like the eye) and some things (like the clotting of blood) can only have been designed? Stop leaping to conclusions! We don’t know enough to conclude much.
What will science, what will math … look like in one hundred more years (if we’re still around and functioning as a society in another century? highly dubious to me) … in five hundred years? (the more dubious) in a million years? …
And realize: a million years too is “nothing” if you include billions and billions of “years” in your consideration.
Pronouncements about what is and is not “possible” have an embarrassing history.
That’s all I’m saying on this subject today [2004 01 23]. The either/or exclusivity of our programmed minds has already been mocked here [at K: censored! getting resurrected, slowly, in part]: in connection with Paolo Freire and deschooling, for example. What ever else is also paralleled here, or will come to be paralleled, I don’t want to leave this module till I emphasize: don’t take my word for Bey’s argument: unless you can already tell a biochemist, to his approval, exactly how blood coagulates. Check it out. It’s astonishing.
You want to feel awe? You want your jaw dropped? Use Bey’s book to contemplate our ignorance!
Man uses ideas of god as a stalking horse, logically “poisoning the well” that design is smarter than emergence.