This happens all the time. Watch a documentary on evolution and you find biologists, zoologists, etc, saying things like "the Jaguar was made for the water" and "caribou decided it best to travel in groups." To me, this inexactness of speech warns of a possible inexactness of thought. If you're a strict evolutionist, it seems one should avoid words that connote intention or design.
My honest take is that these folks see evolution as a kind of designer ala Richard Dawkins' "Selfish Gene." A bunch of algorithms manipulating matter towards survival. Of course, I don't see how you'd get Giraffe or Peacocks out of that.
I would like to see someone take all the survival algorithms assumed to propel evolution and write a kind of simulation program. Just to see what you'd get. I'm betting on a world full of shoggoth. YeeHa!!
I was taking a Business Law class a couple years back and we were going over the basics of corporations. I asked the "Professor" (Civil Lawyer posing as adjunct faculty) his opinion of corporate "personhood." He looked at me blankly and then asked me what I meant. I then asked him whether he thought it was a good idea to have corporations considered "persons" in a court of law. He said that he'd never thought about it.
I read the last 2 books with my son.
He's read the series multiple times now and general agrees with you Fred. He can't stand the character of Potter and is loudly cheering for his demise. He dislikes most of the characters with the exception of Dumbledore. He says if Dumbledore is truly dead, then Rowling is a fool.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, my most-hated term.
This happens all the time. Watch a documentary on evolution and you find biologists, zoologists, etc, saying things like "the Jaguar was made for the water" and "caribou decided it best to travel in groups." To me, this inexactness of speech warns of a possible inexactness of thought. If you're a strict evolutionist, it seems one should avoid words that connote intention or design. My honest take is that these folks see evolution as a kind of designer ala Richard Dawkins' "Selfish Gene." A bunch of algorithms manipulating matter towards survival. Of course, I don't see how you'd get Giraffe or Peacocks out of that. I would like to see someone take all the survival algorithms assumed to propel evolution and write a kind of simulation program. Just to see what you'd get. I'm betting on a world full of shoggoth. YeeHa!!
I was taking a Business Law class a couple years back and we were going over the basics of corporations. I asked the "Professor" (Civil Lawyer posing as adjunct faculty) his opinion of corporate "personhood." He looked at me blankly and then asked me what I meant. I then asked him whether he thought it was a good idea to have corporations considered "persons" in a court of law. He said that he'd never thought about it.
I read the last 2 books with my son. He's read the series multiple times now and general agrees with you Fred. He can't stand the character of Potter and is loudly cheering for his demise. He dislikes most of the characters with the exception of Dumbledore. He says if Dumbledore is truly dead, then Rowling is a fool.