| |
|
It is foolish because it is an ideological claim, which like many such claims that have been made by scientists within the scientific community, will almost certainly not be delivered.
It is true that there are lots of claims made which have not been delivered, but you aren't really distinguishing on any scientific basis, or are you? I mean, I could say that I expect a manned mission to mars sometime in the future, and you would say that is an ideological claim? Thats an odd use of language, if you ask me. Partly, I don't really see what you are saying, since presumably your denial that a control of evolution is equally ideological. I guess I don't see what the ideology is beyond the specific instance, and so it doesn't really tell me anything.
I do regard Dawkins etc as neo-darwinists
Fair enough. But then you should probably make it clear that the claims you are making for them aren't ones that they would themselves accept. Partly, I must confess that I think you have probably misunderstood their perspective. For instance,
The consequence of this is that neo-darwinism argues that species cannot control their destinies because their purpose (in the last instance) is to be the carriers of genes.
This "last instance", an ultimate cause which is somehow inescapable is really a misreading of "selfish genes". Pinker, as a good evolutionary psychologist in the Dawkins mold, takes great pains to explain how "genes" exert a sort of pressure with effects that give rise to emergent behaviour on a large scale. The fact that, from a certain perspective, we are gene propogating machines in no way denies the validity of love as a concept and an emotion. There is no conclusion I can see that one can draw about the ability of species to "control" their destiny. (I am just taking a best guess as to what that last phrase means).
Do you really believe that Dawkins, the world renowned polemecist, thinks that we can do nothing to effect politics, morality and the well being of our species and others? Of course not.
Partly, you might put it down to emergent behaviour. The base level (gene replicators) can give rise to more complex structures that have their own terminology. The existence of one does not preclude the other - this is really a extremely common phenomenon. For instance, I don't attempt to understand how to operate Microsoft Word by looking at electron interactions. And I don't see my browser and my email program as indistinguishable just because they are ultimately sets of instructions for a silicon processor, or particular instances of a universal turing machine, if you like.
Similarly, I don't see how noting that cats and trout cannot mate gives rise to speciesism. |
|
|
