Chris:
>One reason is that randomness *is* complex organization.
Hi Chris,
Science is what we know about the universe. What we know about the history
of life on earth is meager. We know that different organisms have existed at
different times, that they are in some respects similar and perhaps related,
but that the differences are also great enough to avoid explanation. At the
moment any theories of how this came about is speculation, speculation
usually designed to accommodate some particular philosophy, such as theism or
atheism. I haven't included agnosticism because one definition of an agnostic
is the ability to live comfortably with unexplained phenomena. We also
indulge in speculations but I think we are a little less likely to claim them
as "thruth".
You have accommodated your philosophy (no plan, purpose, design or teleology)
with the facts by defining randomness as "complex organization". To me that
is a little like defining up as down , or defining black as white, but I have
no objection. We each have the responsibility of coming up with a way to
accommodate our philosophy to the facts. If a more complete understanding of
"evolution" is ever achieved, it will come from speculations of people with
diverse philosophies, including Cliff's speculations about symbiosis. (Like
you, I believe diversity is one of life's most defining characteristics, and
I place the same value upon diversity of opinion.) Theorizing leads to
stagnation, only when some particular theory is declared to be "scientific
truth".
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 11 2000 - 12:22:31 EDT