[MD] a-theism and atheism

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

At , least , and to say the least, you seem to make some progress.
But the difference between biological Darwinism, and social Darwinism
is really there,and there remains the difference between Modification,
change,
and mutation.
I agree on epigenetics, i never tought it was ridiculous.
It was one of the patterns not recognised enough by Darwin.

But the scientifical world made the switch to Neo-Darwinism, induced by
Julian
Huxley as main promotor,nobody in science speaks of Darwinism anymore.
But this does'nt make it worthless.

I totally disagree on launching the term gnostic in this environment.

2010/11/14 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>

> Hi,
> I have another interpretation of what JC said, below.
>
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:08 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > John said:
> > ...But non-theist, I can live with, even though technically speaking
> > "a-theist" means exactly the same thing.  Atheists in the flesh, however,
> > usually aren't simply non-theists, they are usually actually strident
> > anti-theists. They think religion should be abolished in the name of
> > scientific rationality.  The MoQ sees through that silliness -
> "scientific
> > rationality" as just another thing that's only in your head.
> >
> > dmb says:
> > Well, no. You want religion and science to be equally bogus. You want to
> > make science and religion equal by discrediting both. That's no good. The
> > difference between them still obtains, regardless or whether or not you
> can
> > find fanatical subscribers to scientism. Science itself - as a method -
> is
> > better than religion because science is based on empirical evidence and
> it
> > is far more open to change. It's more dynamic and more concrete.
> >
> > [Mark]
> I don't think the term bogus is the way I would put it.  I would interpret
> it more as presenting the two concepts as requiring belief of some kind.
>  Such belief is open to free-will and not something that is shoved on us.
>
> As scientist, I can perhaps bring a little more detail to what you call
> empirical evidence.  Apart from the theoretical aspects as many so begin,
> science is based on the interpretation of data through a model.
>  Evolutionary theory is a model, the bones are data.  The more that data
> can
> be interpreted that way, the stronger the theory becomes.  That is not to
> say that there are not alternative interpretations, but they require the
> same rigor.  The sole role of the gene in terms of inheritance has
> undergone
> some change.  The alternantive model would date back at least to Lamark
> (around Darwin's time).  Lamarkism states that traits acquired during life
> can be passed on.  It is not until recently that this model has come up
> again and is now called Epigenetics.  What was once considered ridiculous
> is
> now considered true.
>
> I would agree that no knowledge should be blocked from new interpretation
> (or change as you say).  Religious leaders tend to block such a thing, but
> this is psychological as you would say.  Following the study of the Gnostic
> gospels, new interpretations of Christianity are coming out all the time.
>  Of course the Church is against this, they say they are worried about mass
> hysteria, but I wonder...
>
> Mark
>
>
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser