Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Lame? LAME??? Message-ID: <892@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 17:08:14 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.892 Posted: Fri Apr 12 17:08:14 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 02:58:33 EST References: <1576@decwrl.UUCP> <1454@hao.UUCP> <885@uwmacc.UUCP> <1457@hao.UUCP> Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 31 > > Quite so. And that puts a certain amount of pressure on the central > > dogma, if it is alleged to be the sole or dominant mechanism of > > evolutionary change. > > It's possible that the death of science for you stems from the > fact that you consider science to be a dogma, and therefore in > conflict with the dogma of your religious faith. > > Those for whom science is still alive consider the body of knowlege > given us by science to be very incomplete and no doubt wrong > in some respects. That is to say, not dogmatic. > > This is not to say that there are not many tenured professors > of science for whom science has died. (did I get all my negatives > straight?) Scientific dogmatism is a reflection on the individual, > not on science itself. If science ever does get to be dogmatic, > then it will certainly be time to relegate it to the status of > a religion. Then we can decide issues in the tried and true > religious method: we can have wars. All I meant was that cultural transmission of information provides (i.e., can logically provide) a mechanism for propagation of change not necessarily linked to genetics. You had better go look up what the central dogma is. It's NOT my term. I didn't make it up. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |