> > > If I am wrong in this it is because I am highly sympathetic to the uses of > the gene-centered theory. Thus I think that ideological lines are very > important to draw and I also think that the ideological lines an be drawn > without losing the theory.
I want to make something clear about this last paragraph of the previous post. What I am sympathetic with is the narrow scientific theory that takes the gene level of evolutionary selection as its starting point. The reason I think it is necessary to "draw ideological lines" [a little too much Althusser in this expression] is to distinguish the narrow theory from the supposed sociological and philosophical implications. Also, I am not arguing that biological evolution will change in its basic understandings. Though it is possible that we may find that the mechanisms are not exactly what we thought they were, and that there is simply a lot more "noise" or "junk" that we can't account for on the level phenotype expression. The hard-core Darwinian philosophers, such as Dennett, truly believe that they can explain everything, from psychological disabilities to human institutions, to individual intentions, with same type of evolutionary "selfish meme" theory. Thus we now have biological evolutionary theories of literature, music, gift-exchange, ... among other projects. It reminds me of the application of game theory and economic theory to everything including our "exchanges" with "the Gods." Jerry _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
