Re: The story-telling ape (was virus: Logic)

Marie Foster (
Sat, 18 Oct 1997 14:55:59 -0700

Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
> The thing I agree with the
> most about evolution is that it has NO purpose. Purpose is a human
> invention again... For that purpose one needs to look inside. (Marie)
> List,
> Is Marie's statement a "religious" statement implying that religion can
> answer to purposes but science (via "evolution") cannot. This is the core
> concept that I got from her words. Again, does it dichotomize science and
> religion...and at the core of this statement, itself, isn't there that
> continuing battle BETWEEN science and religion (contrary to Marie's apparent
> feelings that neither can live up to their ideals perfectly). I think that
> at the heart of the science vs. religion debate are ideas such as this one
> that concludes that the two are striving for different ends. I disagree
> with the sentiment, even if Marie says that this interpretation is not one
> which she intended to imply. I still think that science and religion are
> striving toward the same goal. Further, I think there is only ONE goal
> though I'm hard-pressed to state what that is at the moment.
> I would ask Marie, Why (if at all) does she feel that science cannot answer
> toward "purpose"; and, similarly, why cannot religion answer toward "what is
> inside"?
> Brett
> Returning,
> rBERTS%n
> Rabble Sonnet Retort
> Everyone must row with the oars he has.
> English proverb

Cool Brett. We are getting close to understanding each other. I said
that evolution has NO purpose. Science has purpose. Is there more than
one purpose? Well, it depends on how you define it. Actually, it is
probably more correct to state that there is zero purpose.

I think I may have just made a koan.

Thank you.