It is great to hear from you!
What really drives me nutz about E. O. Wilson's statement is that he is saying evolution uses "illusions" to accomplish "ends" or "purposes" (reproductive success) while at the same time many if not most Neodarwinists strongly deny that nature has any purposes at all. What a jumbled mess!
Agreed. To stand back and watch the ‘experts’ debate the philosophical ramifications of their belief is - well, I wish I could say humorous. The statement you are commenting on was actually from both Ruse and Wilson. Ruse recently got into a little squabble with Dennett over his latest book Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon and had this to say:
I am a hard-line Darwinian and always have been very publicly when it did cost me status and respect – in fact, I am more hard-line than you are, because I don’t buy into this meme bullsh** but put everything – especially including ethics – in the language of genes. I stick to this and my next book – which incidentally starts by quoting you approvingly on the world importance of selection – goes after the lot – Marxists, constructivists, feminists, creationists, philosophers, you name it.
But if this is so, why do philosophical naturalists dismiss astrology (The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs). If no intelligent design exists than astrology is part of the philosophical naturalists beliefs. Hey, the stars lined up just right and here we all sit discussing issues on the internet - but hey, had they lined up different there would be no internet or issues to discuss and it would not make any difference in the whole scheme of events.
What about alchemy (A seemingly magical power or process of transmuting )? Why should philosophical naturalists dismiss this as they research OOL? Life from non-life, intelligence from stupidity (lack of intelligence), design from the illusions of design…
The one thing we’ve learned from history is that it repeats itself. We are currently looking at the new improved enlightenment movement (or ‘brights’ ) back now with even bigger dogma and more massive control - and even more baggage than before.
Such a beautiful, well-meditated, heartfelt, and eminently rational post there, Heartlander. IMHO FWIW.
But not to worry: Truth is Truth. There is nothing that man can do to modify it or displace it in one iota. The universe itself depends on it for its existence, its order.
And so it stands to reason: History repeats itself because it is governed by higher laws that human beings do not pay adequate attention to. And so we ever seem to be "surprised" by its enfoldment in time.
In the meanwhile, Man is called to recognize and adjust himself to a reality that was already "ordered" before he was born into the world.. There is no rational evasion from the proposition that Truth finally rules the universe.
A "ratio" always invokes that which is the determining factor by which one changing thing can be interpreted by reference to another thing which does not change.
We know that in nature, some things change, and some things don't. If we didn't think so, then we'd have to throw out any conceivable basis by which to establish universal law -- which is the "thing" that does not change. And at that point, science itself would be dead.
And science itself is supposed to be a rational activity. So why would it want to do that -- to "throw out the baby with the bathwater," as it were?
The reason "history repeats itself" is because Truth is alive in history, as it is in science, as it is in any human endeavor of any kind at any time. And mankind is slow to "take the lesson."
Thank you so much for your beautiful essay Heartlander. I'll be meditating it further my friend.
That is mind-bogglingly stupid. Because it doesn't include God, anyone who doesn't believe in God must subscribe to it?