[MD] Do genes experience?

[Ham Priday]

Peter and Platt --

Peter said:
> Richard Dawkins mischieviouly coined the phrase
> 'selfiish gene' and Pinker is reviewing Dawkins book
> of 30 years entitled 'The Selfish Gene'. Since Darwinism
> now shows us how man and all the other animals evolved
> through natural processes then it is no longer necessary
> to consider supernatural agencies such as "God" as
> creator of the universe.

This reductionist view precisely states the nihilist position, which I
believe is the position of most MoQers.  Darwin's 'Evolution of the Species'
did not show that "natural processes" make a creator unnecessary.  In fact,
having been trained in the ministry, Darwin was troubled thoughout his life
by the possibility that his theory would construed as anti-theistic.

The fact is that processes, whether biological, chemical or physical, are
man's serialized  perspective of a reality which is non-sequential but
constant and absolute.  Where do you surmise that process comes from?  I
suppose you'll tell us that it arose from the Big Bang;  that something can
come from nothing -- or "information", perhaps?

Dawkins is full of his own power as a spokesman for Science.  He's using his
celebrity status to cast a bad light on honest scientific research by waging
a war against religion.  If Science had all the answers, his arguments would
be seen as absurd.  As it is, he's making a good living as a nihilist
putting both science and religion in disrepute.

It's pitiful that self-styled elitists are so intimidated by what they
regard as "the baggage of religion" that they refuse to acknowledge the
logic of a primary cause.  Obviously, this is the greatest obstacle to
philosophical advancement in the postmodern era.

Thanks for making it so painfully clear.

--Ham