Path: kudonet.com!news.scruz.net!garlic.com!fox.almaden.ibm.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!206.229.87.25!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!sprint!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!enews.sgi.com!news.corp.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news1.best.com!nntp1.ba.best.com!nntp2.ba.best.com!gazissax
From: gazissax@best.com (Joel and Lynn Gazis-Sax)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.anthropology,sci.skeptic,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Evolution, Sociobio, Memes, Religion
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 97 23:00:57 GMT
Organization: Alsirat Online Magazine
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <5iefbd$2mr$1@nntp2.ba.best.com>
References: <5gudi4$44r@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> <5i1lq2$dtv$3@nntp2.ba.best.com> <5i601n$caq@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> <5i9vmd$pc4$1@nntp2.ba.best.com> <5id41o$fia@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gazissax.vip.best.com
X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.0
Xref: kudonet.com talk.origins:269767 sci.anthropology:28606 sci.skeptic:224430 talk.philosophy.misc:67033

What can you say after reading John Wilkins and Van Piercy?

Let's take a one-question quiz:

You look at a human eye and note its detailed pattern.  As an objective 
person you can conclude (choose one):

a.)  That there is a God because only an intelligence could have created 
such an instrument.

b.)  That the universe is intrisically meaningful

c.)  That a conscious, sentient being is viewing the phenomenon.

Christians would choose A, of course.  Piercy and Wilkins choose B.  The 
thing the first two answers have in common is that they are not based on 
true objectivism, but upon the projected belief that there is something 
more implied by the phenomenon than what you personally witness.  We 
can call this Faith.

The systems of meaning which Wilkins and Piercy invoke to defend 
sociobiology are no more the universe than the AAA map in my glove 
compartment is the state of California.  They are useful for navigating, 
but they are not the universe itself.  And as such, due to their 
inherent limitations, they lead us to error.

Here's a thought to ponder:  those who choose to see the universe as 
intrisically meaningful seek justification for the way things are.  
Those who see it as NOT intrisically meaningful are prepared to 
reevaluate all justications, to test, to probe, to change their minds 
about what they see.

The first, again, is Faith.  The second is Science.

But enough is enough.  Piercy and Wilkins will undoubtably continue to 
spin their wheels.  I don't need to read any more.  They're just 
repeating themselves, recursively....

Regards,


Joel GAzis-SAx