funny!

[Charles Brown <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

*       From: Jim Devine

I agree. The "Intelligent Design theory" is mostly a matter of
after-the-fact rationalization. (It's not as though Darwinism is
exempt from this stuff: the sociobiologists present a lot of "just so"
stories.)

^^^^
CB; I see your point, and I agree that there are some "just so" stories in
evolutionism, sociobiology.

I wasn't trying to criticize evolutionism in this way. I didn't mean
rationalize with my reference to "rational". I'm thinking the truth of
Darwin's theory is  that traits or behaviors arise by chance relative to the
"struggles for existence and reproduction" that they end up impacting
"rationally". "Rationally" or "intelligibly" meaning rational  from the
standpoint of the animals that benefit from them in their struggles for
existence and reprodution. These traits were not "designed" by any conscious
being, human or godlike. They were not designed with consciousness of their
"rational" or "intelligible" effect on the beings who benefit.  They just
happened ,randomly, relative to their beneficial effect.

LaMarckian ( non-Mendelian) traits are not random or by chance relative to
the struggles that they effect. So, human cultural traits are designed by
intelligent beings to benefit struggles for existence and reproduction.

Wow ! That's a mouthful


On 11/29/06, Charles Brown <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Very nice article.  Another positive result of teaching creationism as
well
> as evolution might be that in the debate with creationism, an evolutionist
> may be forced to clarify and explain evolutionary theory more than if it
is
> taught by itself. Arguing in a debate forces sharper presentation. In
> contrast with its opposite in creationism, evolutionary theory is more
> clearly defined. Evolutionary theory is "intelligible happenstance" or
> "rational chance". These qualities are forced to our attention and made
> explicit in trying to explain and distinguish it from "intelligent
design".
>
> Charles
>