DOCSLIB.ORG

Redalyc.Memetics: a Dangerous Idea

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Redalyc.Memetics: a Dangerous Idea Interciencia ISSN: 0378-1844 [email protected] Asociación Interciencia Venezuela Benítez Bribiesca, Luis Memetics: a dangerous idea Interciencia, vol. 26, núm. 1, enero, 2001, pp. 29-31 Asociación Interciencia Caracas, Venezuela Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=33905206 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative ENSAYOS ESSAYS ENSAIOS MEMETICS: A DANGEROUS IDEA LUIS BENÍTEZ-BRIBIESCA SUMMARY In his bestseller book “The selfish gene” Richard Dawkins been extensively investigated, memes are ethereal and cannot be has defined DNA as a universal replicator molecule that consti- defined. Without an adequate idea of these elusive elements it is tutes the basic structure for evolution and natural selection of no surprise that no scientific demonstration of such an immate- living creatures. When trying to explain cultural evolution he rial replicator exists and serious scientists disregard memes as proposed the existence of a unit of cultural transmission for the basis to explain consciousness and cultural evolution. which he coined the very appealing neologism of “meme” call- Memetics is nothing more than a pseudoscientific dogma ing it the second replicator. Memes, as genes, are copied. They where memes are compared to genes, viruses, parasites, or in- mutate and are selected. This idea has undergone the sorcerer’s fectious agents thriving for their own survival in human brains. apprentice path spreading rapidly amongst many evolutionary Memetics is a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious scientists developing into a strange “science of memetics”. But study of consciousness and cultural evolution. while genes are well defined and their molecular structure has The concept of a self-repli- grounds, he was faced with to the gene, that could help gerous Idea”, and recently cating molecule as the origin the necessity of finding the explain cultural evolution by Susan Blackmore’s book “The of life seems to be widely ac- equivalent of a replicator natural selection. Memes, as Meme Machine” (Jeffreys, cepted. Richard Dawkins in gene in the human mind. He genes -according to Dawkins- 2000; Aunger,1999). The his bestseller book “The Self- thus proposed the existence of are copied, they mutate and metaphoric idea of memes has ish Gene” elaborates exten- an immaterial replicator, “a are selected. The analogy is undergone the sorcerer’s ap- sively on the role played by unit of cultural transmission”, so simple and attractive that a prentice path and thus has the universal replicator mol- a “unit of imitation” for full-blown theory of cultural spread so rapidly that even ecule DNA as the basic struc- which he coined the very ap- evolution based on memes Scientific American in the ture of the gene to explain pealing neologism “meme” has emerged from various au- October issue of 1999 dared evolution and natural selec- (Dawkins, 1989). His inven- thors. The best examples are to publish an extensive article tion of living creatures. But tion was indeed a very catchy Daniel Dennet’s pair of by Susan Blackmore entitled when he tries to explain cul- one and provided an ideal el- books, “Consciousness Ex- “The Power of Memes” tural evolution on the same ement, conceptually identical plained” and “Darwin’s Dan- (Blackmore, 2000). The issue KEY WORDS / Memes / Genes / Consciousness / Cultural Evolution / Recibido: 05/12/2000. Aceptado: 08/12/2000 Luis Benítez-Bribiesca. M.D. Centro Médico Nacional S- Congresos, 4°. Piso, 06720 Editor in Chief, Archives of XXI, Av. Cuauhtemoc 330 México, D.F. México. Medical Research. Address: Bloque B de la Unidad de e-mail: [email protected] JAN 2001, VOL. 26 Nº 1 0378-1844/01/01/029-03 $ 3.00/0 29 RESUMEN En su popular libro “The Selfish gene”, Richard Dawkins tructura molecular ha sido investigada extensamente, los memes definió al ADN como la molécula replicadora universal que parecen ser etéreos e imposibles de definir. Sin contar con una constituye la estructura básica de la evolución y selección natu- idea clara acerca de estos elementos elusivos no debe sorpren- ral de las criaturas vivas. Pero cuando él trata de explicar la dernos que no exista ninguna demostración científica de la exis- evolución cultural tiene que proponer la existencia de una uni- tencia de estos replicadores inmateriales y por ello los científi- dad de transmisión cultural para la cual ideó el neologismo cos serios ignoran a los memes como elementos para explicar exitoso de “meme”, al que llama también el segundo replicador. la conciencia y la evolución cultural. La memética no es más Los memes, como los genes, se copian, mutan y son selecciona- que un dogma pseudocientífico donde los memes se comparan a dos. Esta idea ha tenido el destino del aprendiz de brujo, ya genes, virus, parásitos o agentes infecciosos que buscan tenaz- que se ha diseminado rápidamente entre muchos científicos mente sobrevivir en los cerebros humanos. La memética consti- evolucionistas produciendo una extraña “ciencia memética”. tuye una peligrosa idea que representa una amenaza para el Pero mientras los genes son entidades bien definidas cuya es- estudio serio de la conciencia y de la evolución cultural. RESUMO No seu popular livro “The Selfish gene”, Richard Dawkins ra molecular tem sido pesquisada extensamente, os memes pare- definiu ao ADN como a molécula reprodutora universal que cem ser etéreos e impossíveis de definir. Sem contar com uma constitui a estrutura básica da evolução e seleção natural das idéia clara sobre estes elementos elusivos não deve nos surpre- criaturas vivas. Mas quando ele trata de explicar a evolução ender que não exista nenhuma demonstração científica da exis- cultural tem que propor a existência de uma unidade de trans- tência destes reprodutores imateriais e por isso os cientistas missão cultural a qual deu origem ao neologismo com sucesso sérios ignoram aos memes como elementos para explicar a de “meme”, ao que chama também o segundo reprodutor. Os consciência e a evolução cultural. A memética não é mais que memes, como os gens, são copiados, se transformados e seleci- um dogma pseudocientífico onde os memes são comparados a onados. Esta idéia sido tido o destino do aprendiz de bruxo, já gens, vírus, parasitas ou agentes infecciosos que buscam tenaz- que se há disseminado rapidamente entre muitos cientistas mente sobreviver nos cérebros humanos. A memética constitui evolucionistas produzindo uma estranha “ciência memética”. uma perigosa idéia que representa uma ameaça para o estudo Mas enquanto os gens são entidades bem definidas cuja estrutu- sério da consciência e da evolução cultural. is so controversial and so perficial analogy with genes genetic information has to be of selection, adaptation, and highly criticized that three cannot be more farfetched. stored in a relatively stable survival a chaotic disintegra- short counterpoints written by While genes are stored in a molecule such as DNA in tion occurs due to the accu- prominent scientists in the universal molecule containing what Schrödinger referred as mulation of errors. Selection fields of anthropology, psy- coded information amenable a “code-script”. Without this due to heritable variations re- chology, and ecology and to objective scientific scru- structure, a mutation, which is quires a repeated phenotype population biology were tiny, memes, if they exist at nothing else but a change of upon which to operate added, of necessity. all, are a set of greatly het- code, could not take place (Kaufman, 1995). Proponents Surprisingly enough, and erogeneous imaginary entities and in the absence of a pre- of the “memetic hypothesis” although many ardent believ- that cannot in any way be cise copying mechanism mu- point out that memes mutate ers of this idea already speak subjected to rigorous investi- tations cannot be selected. In- continuously from “brain to of a “Science of Memetics”, gation and experimentation. formation in genes is encoded brain” and in a very short there has been as yet no sci- Even more, without an ad- in digital form with four let- time. How could this high entific demonstration of such equate idea of what to look ters, but in memes messages mutation rate, lack of a code an immaterial replicator. To for, no concerted effort to dis- are encoded in continuously script, and memetic instability start with, there is no clear- cover the whereabouts of varying analogous symbols account for the emergence cut definition of a meme. No memes has been or could be that might rapidly decay into and progressive evolution of one really knows what this mounted, asserts Robert noise as they are transmitted the human mind and culture? “unit of cultural transmission” Aunger (1999). It follows that from individual to individual The idea that cultural evo- really is; this is why the list the existence of a cultural (Smith and Szathmary, 1995). lution is subjected to some of memes appears to grow in- replicator could not be scien- Genes require that messages kind of Darwinian selection is definitely and arbitrarily, al- tifically demonstrated if its be replicated with a high de- not new and certainly does though there is no way of essential niche and nature are gree of accuracy, something not require the existence of a outlining the basic composi- so elusive. that does not and cannot oc- replicator unit. In fact, Karl tion of this entity (Jeffreys, Furthermore, the mecha- cur with memes. The muta- Popper (1994) has stated that 2000). In the table from nism proposed for the copy- tion rate must be low to guar- the mechanism of adaptation Blackmore’s article, memes ing and mutation of memes, antee stability and to allow is fundamentally the same for and complex memes catego- as the basis of cultural evolu- for selective pressures to act genes, behavior, or scientific ries vary from stories, urban tion that memeticists contend over long periods of time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Order Representations + a Rich Memetic Substrate
    Language Needs A 2nd Order Representations + A Rich Memetic Substrate Joanna J. Bryson ([email protected]) Artificial models of natural Intelligence (AmonI) Group, University of Bath, England, UK Recent research has shown that human semantics can be 2nd-ord. soc. rep. no 2nd-ord reps replicated by surprisingly simple statistical algorithms for vocal imit. people birds memorizing the context in which words occur (McDonald no voc. imit. other primates most animals and Lowe, 1998; Landauer and Dumais, 1997). Assum- ing one accepts the point that semantics is the way that the word is used (which cannot be argued in one page, but see Figure 1: Human-like cultural evolution might require both Wittgenstein (1958) or Quine (1960), and which is the un- a rich memetic substrate as provided by vocal imitation, and derlying assumption of memetics) then why wouldn’t more the capacity for second order social representations. species have supported the evolution of this useful system of rapidly evolving cultural intelligence? Recent work in primatology tells us three relevant facts. might have evolved a sign language as rich as our vocal one. First, we know that apes and even monkeys do have cul- However, if I am correct, and the trick is that the richness of ture (de Waal and Johanowicz, 1993; Whiten et al., 1999). the substrate representing the strictly semantic, ungrounded That is, behavior is reliably and consistently transmitted be- cultural transmission is the key, then we now have an ex- tween individuals by non-genetic means. So we know that planation for why other primates don’t share our level of the question is not “why doesn’t animal culture exist”, but culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction ROBERT AUNGER a Number of Prominent Academics
    CHAPTER 1: Introduction ROBERT AUNGER A number of prominent academics have recently argued that we are entering a period in which evolutionary theory is being applied to every conceivable domain of inquiry. Witness the development of fields such as evolutionary ecology (Krebs and Davies 1997), evolutionary economics (Nelson and Winter 1982), evolutionary psychology (Barkow et al. 1992), evolutionary linguistics (Pinker 1994) and literary theory (Carroll 1995), evolutionary epistemology (Callebaut and Pinxten 1987), evolutionary computational science (Koza 1992), evolutionary medicine (Nesse and Williams 1994) and psychiatry (McGuire and Troisi 1998) -- even evolutionary chemistry (Wilson and Czarnik 1997) and evolutionary physics (Smolin 1997). Such developments certainly suggest that Darwin’s legacy continues to grow. The new millennium can therefore be called the Age of Universal Darwinism (Dennett 1995; Cziko 1995). What unifies these approaches? Dan Dennett (1995) has argued that Darwin’s “dangerous idea” is an abstract algorithm, often called the “replicator dynamic.” This dynamic consists of repeated iterations of selection from among randomly mutating replicators. Replicators, in turn, are units of information with the ability to reproduce themselves using resources from some material substrate. Couched in these terms, the evolutionary process is obviously quite general. for example, the replicator dynamic, when played out on biological material such as DNA, is called natural selection. But Dennett suggests there are essentially no limits to the phenomena which can be treated using this algorithm, although there will be variation in the degree to which such treatment leads to productive insights. The primary hold-out from “evolutionarization,” it seems, is the social sciences. Twenty-five years have now passed since the biologist Richard Dawkins introduced the notion of a meme, or an idea that becomes commonly shared through social transmission, into the scholastic lexicon.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Book Review the God Delusion Richard Dawkins New
    Book review The God delusion Richard Dawkins New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 Renato Zamora Flores* * PhD. Professor, Department of Genetics, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. “The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?” (Richard Dawkins)1 On September 15, 2001, only 4 days after the terrorist attack to the World Trade Center in New York, Richard Dawkins – evolutionary biologist, 65 years, professor of public understanding of science at the University of Oxford – published an incisive article on the renowned English newspaper The Guardian, with the impressive title “Religion’s misguided missiles,” where he stated: “Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from. It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East... To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used”.2 1 Without losing the courage and creativity that have characterized Dawkins since his first book, The selfish gene,3 launched 30 years ago, the British scientist now launches a dense and solid critical work on the logical and scientific bases of religious thinking: The God delusion. The title is a bit more sarcastic than it looks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Survival and Apparent Resurgence of Sociobiology
    This is a repository copy of The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/118157/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Dennis, A. orcid.org/0000-0003-4625-1123 (2018) The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology. History of the Human Sciences, 31 (1). pp. 19-35. ISSN 0952- 6951 https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695117735966 Dennis A. The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology. History of the Human Sciences. 2018;31(1):19-35. Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695117735966. Article available under the terms of the CC- BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology Abstract A recent dispute between Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson concerning fundamental concepts in sociobiology is examined.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. a Dangerous Idea
    About This Guide This guide is intended to assist in the use of the DVD Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. The following pages provide an organizational schema for the DVD along with general notes for each section, key quotes from the DVD,and suggested discussion questions relevant to the section. The program is divided into seven parts, each clearly distinguished by a section title during the program. Contents Seven-Part DVD A Dangerous Idea. 3 Darwin’s Inversion . 4 Cranes: Getting Here from There . 8 Fruits of the Tree of Life . 11 Humans without Skyhooks . 13 Gradualism . 17 Memetic Revolution . 20 Articles by Daniel Dennett Could There Be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?. 25 From Typo to Thinko: When Evolution Graduated to Semantic Norms. 33 In Darwin’s Wake, Where Am I?. 41 2 Darwin's Dangerous Idea 1. A Dangerous Idea Dennett considers Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection the best single idea that anyone ever had.But it has also turned out to be a dangerous one. Science has accepted the theory as the most accurate explanation of the intricate design of living beings,but when it was first proposed,and again in recent times,the theory has met with a backlash from many people.What makes evolution so threatening,when theories in physics and chemistry seem so harmless? One problem with the introduction of Darwin’s great idea is that almost no one was prepared for such a revolutionary view of creation. Dennett gives an analogy between this inversion and Sweden’s change in driving direction: I’m going to imagine, would it be dangerous if tomorrow the people in Great Britain started driving on the right? It would be a really dangerous place to be because they’ve been driving on the left all these years….
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Dawkins
    RICHARD DAWKINS HOW A SCIENTIST CHANGED THE WAY WE THINK Reflections by scientists, writers, and philosophers Edited by ALAN GRAFEN AND MARK RIDLEY 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Oxford University Press 2006 with the exception of To Rise Above © Marek Kohn 2006 and Every Indication of Inadvertent Solicitude © Philip Pullman 2006 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should
    [Show full text]
  • What, If Anything, Is a Darwinian Anthropology?
    JONATHAN MARKS What, if anything, is a Darwinian anthropology? Not too many years ago, I was scanning the job advertisements in anthropology and stumbled upon one for a faculty post in a fairly distinguished department in California. The ad specified that they were looking for someone who ‘studied culture from an evolutionary perspective’. I was struck by that, because it seemed to me that the alternative would be a creationist perspective, and I had never heard of anyone in this century who did that. Obviously my initial reading was incorrect. That department specifically wanted someone with a particular methodological and ideo- logical orientation; ‘evolutionary perspective’ was there as a code for something else. It has fascinated me for a number of years that Darwin stands as a very powerful symbol in biology. On the one hand, he represents the progressive aspect of science in its perpetual struggle against the perceived oppressive forces of Christianity (Larson 1997); and on the other, he represents as well the prevailing stodgy and stultified scientific orthodoxy against which any new bold and original theory must cast itself (Gould 1980). Proponents of the neutral theory (King and Jukes 1969) or of punctuated equilibria (Eldredge 1985) represented themselves as Darwinists to the outside worlds, and as anti-Darwinists to the inside world. Thus, Darwinism can be both the new and improved ideology you should bring home today, and is also the superseded Brand X ideology. That is indeed a powerful metaphor, to represent something as well as its opposite. Curiously, nobody ever told me in my scientific training that scientific progress was somehow predicated on the development of powerful metaphors.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution a Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused by Dr
    Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution A Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused By Dr. Mike Webster, Dept. of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University ([email protected]); February 2010 The current debate over evolution and “intelligent design” (ID) is being driven by a relatively small group of individuals who object to the theory of evolution for religious reasons. The debate is fueled, though, by misunderstandings on the part of the American public about what evolutionary biology is and what it says. These misunderstandings are exploited by proponents of ID, intentionally or not, and are often echoed in the media. In this booklet I briefly outline and explain 10 of the most common (and serious) misunderstandings. It is impossible to treat each point thoroughly in this limited space; I encourage you to read further on these topics and also by visiting the websites given on the resource sheet. In addition, I am happy to send a somewhat expanded version of this booklet to anybody who is interested – just send me an email to ask for one! What are the misunderstandings? 1. Evolution is progressive improvement of species Evolution, particularly human evolution, is often pictured in textbooks as a string of organisms marching in single file from “simple” organisms (usually a single celled organism or a monkey) on one side of the page and advancing to “complex” organisms on the opposite side of the page (almost invariably a human being). We have all seen this enduring image and likely have some version of it burned into our brains.
    [Show full text]
  • The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins Is Another
    BOOKS & ARTS COMMENT ooks about science tend to fall into two categories: those that explain it to lay people in the hope of cultivat- Bing a wide readership, and those that try to persuade fellow scientists to support a new theory, usually with equations. Books that achieve both — changing science and reach- ing the public — are rare. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) was one. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is another. From the moment of its publication 40 years ago, it has been a sparkling best-seller and a TERRY SMITH/THE LIFE IMAGES COLLECTION/GETTY SMITH/THE LIFE IMAGES TERRY scientific game-changer. The gene-centred view of evolution that Dawkins championed and crystallized is now central both to evolutionary theoriz- ing and to lay commentaries on natural history such as wildlife documentaries. A bird or a bee risks its life and health to bring its offspring into the world not to help itself, and certainly not to help its species — the prevailing, lazy thinking of the 1960s, even among luminaries of evolution such as Julian Huxley and Konrad Lorenz — but (uncon- sciously) so that its genes go on. Genes that cause birds and bees to breed survive at the expense of other genes. No other explana- tion makes sense, although some insist that there are other ways to tell the story (see K. Laland et al. Nature 514, 161–164; 2014). What stood out was Dawkins’s radical insistence that the digital information in a gene is effectively immortal and must be the primary unit of selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwins-Corrosive-Idea.Pdf
    This report was prepared and published by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, a non-profit, non-partisan educational and research organization. The Center’s mission is to advance the understanding that human beings and nature are the result of intelligent design rather than a blind and undirected process. We seek long-term scientific and cultural change through cutting-edge scientific research and scholarship; education and training of young leaders; communication to the general public; and advocacy of academic freedom and free speech for scientists, teachers, and students. For more information about the Center, visit www.discovery.org/id. FOR FREE RESOURCES ABOUT SCIENCE AND FAITH, VISIT WWW.SCIENCEANDGOD.ORG/RESOURCES. PUBLISHED NOVEMBER, 2016. © 2016 BY DISCOVERY INSTITUTE. DARWIN’S CORROSIVE IDEA The Impact of Evolution on Attitudes about Faith, Ethics, and Human Uniqueness John G. West, PhD* EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In his influential book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, have asked about the impact of science on a person’s philosopher Daniel Dennett praised Darwinian religious faith typically have not explored the evolution for being a “universal acid” that dissolves impact of specific scientific ideas such as Darwinian traditional religious and moral beliefs.1 Evolution- evolution.5 ary biologist Richard Dawkins has similarly praised In order to gain insights into the impact of Darwin for making “it possible to be an intellect- specific scientific ideas on popular beliefs about ually fulfilled atheist.”2 Although numerous studies God and ethics, Discovery Institute conducted a have documented the influence of Darwinian nationwide survey of a representative sample of theory and other scientific ideas on the views of 3,664 American adults.
    [Show full text]
  • A Theological Perspective on the Phenomenon of Life: Introduction Into the Bios, Psyche, and Zoe
    ROCZNIKI TEOLOGICZNE TOM LXVII, zeszyt 2 – 2020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18290/rt20672-7 ANNA PĘDRAK KAMIL DUSZEK A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE PHENOMENON OF LIFE: INTRODUCTION INTO THE BIOS, PSYCHE, AND ZOE A b s t r a c t . Life is such a beautiful and unique phenomenon. It cannot be described by a single definition, as it manifests itself in many different ways. Therefore, the phenomenon of life must be cap- tured as a whole and by including its essential planes. The authors of the paper did interdisciplinary research. Their task was an exploration of the issue of life on three planes: bios (life in its core manifes- tations), psyche (intelligent and conscious life), and zoe (life that transcends itself). The collected data gives an appropriate perspective for theological insight. This approach determines a methodology that is interdisciplinary and very theological in character. This in-depth perspective enables the whole phe- nomenon to be understood in its transcendental function. Life from its very inception emerges toward “something more.” The final goal of this transcendental dynamism is ever-living God. Key words: bios; psyche; zoe; religion and science; transcendentality; contemporary theology. 1. INTRODUCTION Is it possible to capture the essence of life? At present, many different branches of science dealing with the issue of life provide very interesting data. However, each of them captures this phenomenon in a narrow and precise field, so although their conclusions are pertinent, they are also limited. Despite the tremendous intel- Anna Pędrak, MA (can. licentiate) – doctoral student of dogmatic theology at the Faculty of Theology of the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin; e-mail: [email protected]; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9813-5277.
    [Show full text]
  • How a Generation Was Misled About Natural Selection
    Gabora, L. (2011). How a Generation Was Misled About Natural Selection. Psychology Today (online). http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindbloggling How a Generation Was Misled About Natural Selection Subtitle: Natural Selection: How it Works, How it Applies to Culture Liane Gabora Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia Okanagan Campus, Arts Building, 333 University Way, Kelowna BC, V1V 1V7, CANADA For 'Mindbloggling' column, Psychology Today Abstract This article explains how natural selection works and how it has been inappropriately applied to the description of cultural change. It proposes an alternative evolutionary explanation for cultural evolution that describes it in terms of communal exchange. When science is explained to the general public it is necessary to simplify. Inevitably details get left out, details that some consider important, and the ‘sexy' parts of the story get played up. But so long as the overall picture is more or less right, scientists generally appreciate the efforts of popular science writers, the press, and in some cases their fellow colleagues, to make their work accessible to a wider audience. The public in turn benefits from the opportunity to see the world they live in from a new perspective, and consider questions they might not otherwise have considered. Sometimes, though, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. The ‘babyless' version of a scientific story may be a hit nonetheless. Unless one has advanced training in a highly specialized area of a scientific discipline, it may appear to make sense. In most cases, the 1 misrepresentation of science doesn't make much difference; life goes on as normal.
    [Show full text]