Fish with feet
Oct. 27th, 2003 05:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrew_jorgensenMy mother, who last week was installed as the new pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Nowheresville, Michigan, just sent me this email:
However, if the Darwin Fish is antagonistic, those antagonised by it give as good as they get. Before I had even left the East side of Cleveland, I passed a car with the bumper sticker:
I felt a little antagonised myself, because I first thought that this was referring to the old canard that Darwin had renounced evolution on his deathbed, a canard that even creationists have abandoned. (The one story of a noted agnostic scientist undergoing a deathbed conversion to Christianity which is well documented is that of John Von Neumann, who was born into Judaism and spent most of his life as an atheist, but did in fact convert to Catholicism -- for the second time in his life -- while he lay dying in Walter Reed Hospital. Of course, Von Neumann was instrumental in the invention of game theory, and he may have just been taking Pascal's Wager.) After a moment of reflection, I decided that the bumper sticker was merely saying that Darwin, now that he is burning in Hell, has probably reconsidered, which is Argument No. 39 of the 519 Arguments for the Existence of God, the Argument From Post-Death Experience:
(Do note that I could stick an outline of an acacia tree in front of each fish and have a pretty good iconographic reduction of Lamarckianism.)
On the other hand, were I instead a subscriber to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, I could use this bumper sticker:
Though, as this representation still seems to buy into an implied progressive view of evolution, it's not the best description of Gouldianism. And while I'm misrepresenting the big names in popular evolutionary writing, I'll commit a false synecdoche and generalize Richard Dawkins's ascription of selfishness to genes to the organism as a whole:
I like cladistics, I really do. It's a nifty little classification scheme. However, one might not be able to tell that I like it from:
Finally, we have what I consider an entirely accurate summation of Evolutionary Psychology:
Ahh, car fenders. They're the new Lyceum, I tell you!
As I listen to Diane Rheme talk about the Florida case, I would like to tell you my wishes. I do not want to be kep alive if I am in a persistent vegatative state is. After I reach 80 or so, I would like to die naturally. If I break my neck I do not want to be put in a halo. One of my parishioners who is over 90 broke her neck and is in a halo. It looks terribly painful.To which I responded, "In that case, you really picked the wrong line of work. You should have stayed a lawyer – they never get put into haloes." Not that my mother, in her heretical Zen Presbyterianism, puts much stock in the concept of an afterlife -- or in many of the other tropes of Conservative Christianity. She really wants to get one of those Darwin Fish for her car, an act that might be seen as antagonistic to community values, judging from the number of Jesus Fish I saw affixed to cars on the Ohio and Indiana Turpikes when I drove up to visit her. (It should be noted that I was down with the Jesus Fish long before it sold out and went mainstream: it was an important symbol to Philip K. Dick, and as a crossword devotee, I love it just for its simplicity as an acrostic.)
However, if the Darwin Fish is antagonistic, those antagonised by it give as good as they get. Before I had even left the East side of Cleveland, I passed a car with the bumper sticker:
I felt a little antagonised myself, because I first thought that this was referring to the old canard that Darwin had renounced evolution on his deathbed, a canard that even creationists have abandoned. (The one story of a noted agnostic scientist undergoing a deathbed conversion to Christianity which is well documented is that of John Von Neumann, who was born into Judaism and spent most of his life as an atheist, but did in fact convert to Catholicism -- for the second time in his life -- while he lay dying in Walter Reed Hospital. Of course, Von Neumann was instrumental in the invention of game theory, and he may have just been taking Pascal's Wager.) After a moment of reflection, I decided that the bumper sticker was merely saying that Darwin, now that he is burning in Hell, has probably reconsidered, which is Argument No. 39 of the 519 Arguments for the Existence of God, the Argument From Post-Death Experience:
- Person X died an atheist.
- He now realizes his mistake.
- Therefore, God exists.
(Do note that I could stick an outline of an acacia tree in front of each fish and have a pretty good iconographic reduction of Lamarckianism.)
On the other hand, were I instead a subscriber to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, I could use this bumper sticker:
Though, as this representation still seems to buy into an implied progressive view of evolution, it's not the best description of Gouldianism. And while I'm misrepresenting the big names in popular evolutionary writing, I'll commit a false synecdoche and generalize Richard Dawkins's ascription of selfishness to genes to the organism as a whole:
I like cladistics, I really do. It's a nifty little classification scheme. However, one might not be able to tell that I like it from:
Finally, we have what I consider an entirely accurate summation of Evolutionary Psychology:
Ahh, car fenders. They're the new Lyceum, I tell you!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Loved your fish!
Date: 2003-10-27 08:14 pm (UTC)http://www.meangene.com/darwin/taxonomy.html
RAS
Thank you!
Date: 2003-10-27 09:34 pm (UTC)Why I will never have one of those Darwin fish on my car
Date: 2003-10-27 08:43 pm (UTC)Which isn't the case, in my case, anyway. I believe it's rational to accept most of the well-confirmed theories of science, like, say, the theory of evolution, but science is an evolving thing itself, modifying itself over time in response to new evidence, to human foilbles, to cultural changes. It's a human endeavor, a powerful one, but ultimately human.
And evolution is a case in point. Darwin is less the father of evolution than he is the father of the theory of Natural Selection, which is so heavily constrained by other factors, and is itself an almost unfalsifiable any time to you try to unpack the notion of what is "more fit".
Re: Why I will never have one of those Darwin fish on my car
Date: 2003-10-27 08:46 pm (UTC)Re: Why I will never have one of those Darwin fish on my car
Date: 2003-10-27 10:14 pm (UTC)Luckily you have philosopher friends
Date: 2003-10-28 09:08 am (UTC)Re: Why I will never have one of those Darwin fish on my car
Date: 2003-10-27 10:11 pm (UTC)I do not worship science. I worship LJ comments and those who leave them.
Re: Why I will never have one of those Darwin fish on my car
Date: 2003-10-28 07:51 am (UTC)In later editions of the "Origin," Darwin specifically said that his principle of descent with modification by means of natural selection could accurately be described by the term "survival of the fittest", and gave Spencer credit for the term.
RAS
"Survival of those who survive"
Date: 2003-10-28 09:07 am (UTC)Re: Why I will never have one of those Darwin fish on my car
Date: 2003-10-28 03:14 pm (UTC)On a different subject, do you mind if I ask how you found this? And, now that you've followed us home, can we keep you?
Too cute!
Date: 2003-10-28 04:06 pm (UTC)-Elizabeth
P.S. I heart your UserInfo quote.
Re: Too cute!
Date: 2003-10-28 04:53 pm (UTC)I probably should have creditted that Volokh post, and the Chris Mooney post (http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp#379) which led me there.
Friendsfriends is the most marvelous thing. I've been using it to follow the saga of whether or not you'd get to write the column you'd want. As both a former college newspaper columnist and someone interested in genetics, it tweaked my interest. Though I never had to get an editor to preapprove my subject choices!
Thank you for stopping by! Do come again!
Re: Too cute!
Date: 2003-10-28 05:16 pm (UTC)2) Friendsfriends is so very marvelous. And aw, i have a following! *blushes* Okay, so only for one topic, but still. I seem to have a small fanclub on LJ, which is all flavors of weird, but i bask. (And so many of my friends have brilliant people on their lists whom i semi-stalk, so it's generally a happy land of intelligence and mutual admiration.)
3) Well yes i know you didn't write the quote, but reading it i thought "That's my kind of person!" It also reminded me of myself :) (Also, it occurs to me that i may be in your area over the winter holiday.)
Re: Spurious Stephenism
Date: 2003-10-30 02:26 pm (UTC)--Stephen J Gould, Full House
LJ comments are big fun!
Date: 2003-10-28 09:00 am (UTC)On the unfalsifiability thing
Date: 2003-10-28 09:06 am (UTC)If the "plausible story" criterion is indeed the way they judge acceptable theories, they open themselves up to all sorts of speculation, biases, etc, especially when the traits they are talking about are behavioral (as opposed to strictly physiological).
Re: On the unfalsifiability thing
Date: 2003-10-28 10:08 am (UTC)The "Just So" story critique of adaptionism, especially when it comes to sociobiology, was one of Gould's favorites, and is certainly on the mark with much of the hyperadaptionism out there.
Rejecting Popper
Date: 2003-10-28 11:18 am (UTC)And trying to make his model of scientific reasoning precise and elegant, without realizing that the simpler the explanation, the less it explains in that messy thing called real life.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-27 10:59 pm (UTC)Love the fish! Especially the last one.
Thank you!
Date: 2003-10-27 11:06 pm (UTC)Now make one combining them all :-)
Date: 2003-10-28 07:31 am (UTC)I want a holographic one, that changes depending on the angle you look at it. That way the fundie nut jobs can have their comfy views and the rest of us can search for the truth ;-)
The "truth" is probably a combination of all of them. How would you show that?
Jeanie
Thank you!
Date: 2003-10-28 02:51 pm (UTC)I can be a bit of a nut job too, probably more so than most Christians I know.
Which somehow makes me think
Date: 2003-10-28 07:38 am (UTC)Re: Which somehow makes me think
Date: 2003-10-28 03:07 pm (UTC)My central evil nature makes me wonder if they'll do a follow-up show years from now called Regression To The Mean.
Re: Which somehow makes me think
Date: 2003-10-28 07:44 pm (UTC)Hey mom!
Date: 2003-10-28 09:32 pm (UTC)Re: Hey mom!
Date: 2003-10-29 07:28 am (UTC)Hahahahaha
Date: 2003-11-02 05:15 am (UTC)My contributions to this debate are as follows:
1) Even the "plausible story" standard of evidence is more than the faith-based explanations have going for 'em;
2) I guess I subscribe to Dawkinsism, primarily because the man is so damn charming;
3) Science *is* a religion to too many people (i.e. they place undue, uncritical faith in it -- I'm talking about laypersons here, not prof'l scientists;
4) I'm adding you, but how do I know you?? An abundance of Faith icons (heh) in your comments section suggests....but then again....eh, what the heck. ATHEISTS UNTIE!!
Re: Hahahahaha
Date: 2003-11-02 02:27 pm (UTC)The simplest, most true and least helpful answer to the question of how you know me is that Chris Wiggins introduced us sometime in late August, 1990. If you can't figure it out from my User Info page (http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=dherblay),
Re: Hahahahaha
Date: 2003-11-04 08:51 am (UTC)Re: Hahahahaha
Date: 2003-11-04 09:15 am (UTC)Re: Hahahahaha
Date: 2003-11-04 03:17 pm (UTC)Re: Hahahahaha
Date: 2003-11-04 03:55 pm (UTC)In other news, I never knew you had a middle name. I'm going to assume it's your first name that you've kept shrouded in impenetrable mystery this whole time.
My first name is "Clovis"
Date: 2003-11-04 04:03 pm (UTC)Re: My first name is "Clovis"
Date: 2003-11-04 04:06 pm (UTC)