Daniel Dennet in his Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: says “Perhaps the most misguided criticism of gene centrism is the frequently heard claim that genes simply cannot have interests. This . . . is flatly mistaken. . . . If a body politic, or General Motors, can have interests, so can genes.”
It is a joke or is it philosophy or is it science?
It is the duo of Dennet and Dawkin, who, imo, have taken the idea expressed in the title as their mantra and using an utterly unscientific concept of 'meme' have extended the very rigorous Darwin's findings with regard to 'Origin of Species' to unsubstantiated 'Origin of life-consciousness'. They have also, imo, tried to impose a presupposition that that all social phenomena must have an evolutionary basis and that it is legitimate to attempt to explain every phenomenon solely in terms of the benefit it may confer. These two who reject the fact that human attention/intention can change the environment and brain, however, spread the mythical idea that social structure are result solely of natural selection.
They and some others have imposed TOE on cultural realities like art, religion, and morality that have no genomic sequences to unfold or exhibit no material causes and effects and propagated opinions as if those are rigorous scientific conclusions. I think that some unsuspecting masses have fallen prey to charm of Dawkins et al.., they parrot those ideas on social platforms, as if they are speaking science.
I expect harsh posts in reply.
It is a joke or is it philosophy or is it science?
It is the duo of Dennet and Dawkin, who, imo, have taken the idea expressed in the title as their mantra and using an utterly unscientific concept of 'meme' have extended the very rigorous Darwin's findings with regard to 'Origin of Species' to unsubstantiated 'Origin of life-consciousness'. They have also, imo, tried to impose a presupposition that that all social phenomena must have an evolutionary basis and that it is legitimate to attempt to explain every phenomenon solely in terms of the benefit it may confer. These two who reject the fact that human attention/intention can change the environment and brain, however, spread the mythical idea that social structure are result solely of natural selection.
They and some others have imposed TOE on cultural realities like art, religion, and morality that have no genomic sequences to unfold or exhibit no material causes and effects and propagated opinions as if those are rigorous scientific conclusions. I think that some unsuspecting masses have fallen prey to charm of Dawkins et al.., they parrot those ideas on social platforms, as if they are speaking science.
I expect harsh posts in reply.
Last edited: