tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post4115922053042644648..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Evolution for Everyone--Even Biologists?Larry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-80129701297684794772009-11-09T16:06:05.410+00:002009-11-09T16:06:05.410+00:00Dr. Arnhart,
Let me begin by saying that I am ex...Dr. Arnhart,<br /> <br />Let me begin by saying that I am excited about the work you have done and are doing with evolutionary theory in a political context or in the context of political theory. I have to date read only a little of your work, but as one who is both an evolutionist and fond of Leo Strauss and Western Political Theory generally, I am very enthusiastic about what you are doing.<br />Regarding the importance of evolutionary theory to all academic investigations or the unification of all knowledge, I think the importance of one theory can be overstated. If the prospect of a unification of knowledge is to be taken serious, it must reside in those habits of thought or investigation which are generally present throughout the sciences, soft and hard, and humanities; viz.: formal logic, careful observation, the careful use of language and the definition of terms, the modeling of events or actions in thoughts, etc.<br />I will agree that the evolution is a very important theory and likely has implications in all of the life sciences as well most of the social sciences, but there are areas of knowledge that seem to be beyond its influence.<br />I suppose you could argue that all academic investigations are conscious activities and that consciousness, however we define and understand it, is a product of evolution and therefore no knowledge or academic activity is beyond its influence. Such an argument would likely work, and it would support your original claim, without giving the false impression that there must be two readings of Plato: the evolutionist and non-evolutionist.<br />I would remain a bit skeptical to the point as I do not think that evolutionary theory has given an adequate account of consciousness, but I certainly can not deny that such a thing is possible.<br />Regarding my comment about "the unwashed and ignorant" IDers and Creationists, I will simply apologize. I have spent too much time on lists with people who make such reference to the end of smearing others.<br />I am not particularly blog savvy, but I will look for your bloggs on Plato and ID and Darwinian Liberal education.<br /> <br />Thanks & Kind Regards,<br /> <br />Timothy E. KennellyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-33923759544114891852009-11-09T12:23:24.425+00:002009-11-09T12:23:24.425+00:00Mr. Kennelly,
Why do you dismiss proponents of &q...Mr. Kennelly,<br /><br />Why do you dismiss proponents of "intelligent design" as "these ignorant, unwashed vulgar types"?<br /><br />How would you respond to my posts on the Platonic origin of intelligent design reasoning--particularly, in the LAWS (book 10) and the TIMAEUS?Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-39303335592905892492009-11-06T23:33:52.627+00:002009-11-06T23:33:52.627+00:00Mr. Kennelly,
I have written extensively on this ...Mr. Kennelly,<br /><br />I have written extensively on this blog about evolutionary reasoning as applied to many of the areas of study you mention. How would you respond to those posts?<br /><br />For example, how would you respond to my posts on "Darwinian liberal education"?<br /><br />Do you believe that a science of human nature has nothing to do with any unifying themes in the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities?<br /><br />Do you deny the very idea of human nature as the ground of liberal education?<br /><br />Do you agree with Leo Strauss that the ultimate aim of liberal education is a comprehensive unification of knowledge, against the typically modern tendency to Cartesian dualism?<br /><br />Or would you argue that each field of study is absolutely separate from all the others? If so, how do you understand liberal education?Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-62344504181640709682009-11-06T22:03:08.618+00:002009-11-06T22:03:08.618+00:00I find the claim that nothing in "any of the ...I find the claim that nothing in "any of the academic disciplines - the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities - makes sense except in the light of evolution" wildly excessive. The fact that the claim is then followed by the suggestion that the claim is opposed by Creationists and IDers is rather disappointing - not that you are saying, "If you disagree you are one of these ignorant, unwashed vulgar types," but the implication is in the comment.<br /><br />There are many areas of academic investigation which are unrelated to evolutionary theory. The reading of Plato, or Homer, or Machiavelli is not somehow aided by the use of Darwin or evolutionary theory. Your suggestion would seem to have the implication that there are two kinds of reading of all texts: the evolutionists reading and the non-evolutionist reading - such an idea looks like simple nonsense. The reading of texts has creteria of its own which have nothing to do with evolutionary theory. The same might be said of mathematics, formal logic, art history, military history, Atomic Physics, Engish Literature, Applied Ethic, etc..<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Timothy E. KennellyTimothy E. Kennellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-62893821582793718992009-11-03T14:25:26.494+00:002009-11-03T14:25:26.494+00:00Humans can produce more melanin in their skin to a...Humans can produce more melanin in their skin to adapt to changes in the environment. The human body can do amazing things. Birds can change the size of their beak for adaptational purposes. Animals can grow longer hair for adaptational purposes. Salt-water fish can adapt to live in fresh water and vice-versa. Doesn't this type of change require pre-existing genetic information in their DNA code to allow for that type of change? Should we perhaps be looking for a different source for this information rather than random mutations?Arv Edgeworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00001360729476520810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-38967048274915887952009-11-03T03:20:56.565+00:002009-11-03T03:20:56.565+00:00I am reminded of E.O. Wilson's book Consilienc...I am reminded of E.O. Wilson's book Consilience and how he hoped for a unification of disciplines.<br /><br />I thought I understood evolution from it's cursory presentations in high school and college, but it wasn't until I retired a few years ago that I starting reading about evolution (neo Darwinism) in depth along with books on genetics and biosciences. <br /><br />Anyway, I have discovered a beautifully simple, cruel, but impartial truth that now colors my views on just about everything. I cannot see how any scientist could truly begin to understand his discipline without a good understanding of neo Darwinism.expeedeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17234891482975754679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-19093629667465551482009-11-02T20:55:26.272+00:002009-11-02T20:55:26.272+00:00It has been my experience that Northern Illinois U...It has been my experience that Northern Illinois University was quite open to interdisciplinary studies as I pleasantly recall a typical semester consisting of anthropology, biology, psychology, and political science courses. <br /><br />I continue to read consilently. Thank you Larry.Bryan D. Jaskernoreply@blogger.com