Re: Evolution: A Legoist Perspective

Padraic Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:13:57 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (David W. Robertson) wrote:
> 
> >http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/dwr/d2.html
> >
> >The title of my essay is "Evolution: A Legoist Perspective".
> 
> Note misspelling of "legoist" (legioist) in the second line.
> 
> A theory based on Lego! I love it!
> 
> Naturally, your first stumbling block around here will be your
> assumption that Gods exist. 

Actually, he wrote "if God exists" and while I understand the bias
inherent in the very mention of deity, we will never find a middle
ground if we keep reacting to the inferences of labels.

I suggest that the line be changed to "if a superior natural entity
exists".  This gets us passed the "supernatural" poppycock. Under the
hypothesis that a deity could exist, it would be "natural" by
definition. "Supernatural" for all practical purposes dictates
non-existence.

For instance, when we speak of UFO's, we speak of them as
"supernatural" because they are NOT accepted as existing. This is
done, even though, there is substancial testimonial and photographic
evidence to the contrary. However, they resist repetitious behaviors
leading to direct, predictable scientific observation. If they would
surrender to complete scientific scutiny, they would be considered
natural and known to exist. Since, they are under no obligation or
predisposition to submit to scientific authority, the authority of
science rejects their existence, primarily due to their lack of
cooperation.

What seems to be an inherent bias in science is that anything could
hold the capacity to resist scientific scutiny. This infers that the
scientific mind must be the most superior existing natural entity (a
new deity?). Which seems to be why the very mention of deity in a
scientific concept is a conflict of terms for some people.

A good example of this bias is the reference to a "food chain", which
of course we are at the "top". It's not a chain. There is no top. It's
a cycle and we know it. It's viruses that feast on our living tissues,
generally until they kill us and insects that return our remains to
the "food chain". We are only superior in our own minds and when we
see ourselves as superior, we lose the objectivity in our
observations.

For this reason, the possibility of deity serves a scientific purpose.
It challenges our definitions of superiority. In some vein, cats
probably consider themselves superior to humans. So perhaps,
superiority in and of itself is subjective and unscientific. We need
to think in terms of cycles, because that is what is natural (not
pyramid schemes). In the cycle of intelligent capacity, there may be
other entities that exist at diferent points in that cycle and
actually none of them may be completely superior, only different.


JTG  12/01/03