An Accidental Membership

[Man-in-Need]

I am not dismissive of evolution. I am dismissive of Darwinian evolution. I find the evidence for it lacking and the whole concept philosophically unsound. Don't think that I ally myself ID (erroneously called "Creationism") I take the perspective of a geologist called Richard Milton, who defected in a loud roar from Darwinian evolution and uniformitarian geology, himself being a design engineer and amateur geologist by training. He wrote a scathing book called "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" which not only traces the history of a bad idea, but the ideologies it spawned in its wake, the debate between evolution and ID and where the field of biology is headed in a post-darwin world. He proposes several theories from morphic resonance to Steele's Neo-Lamarckism all of which overcome the leaps of logic required for Darwinian evolution. It is really quite exciting what possibilities lurk in its place. The same thing with even peripheral phenomena like cryptozoology and ufology, which are both rejoicing still over the death of Philip Klass. If we just didn't have Skeptic Magazine screaming bloody murder over these subjects, more legitimacy would have been added years ago.

Nietzsche is an interesting case because I spent my last semester studying him. I think that while he liberates the individual, he is not to be taken whole hog or else it degenerates into Foucaultian cynicism and stasis. I agree with Chesterton again, "If Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility, Nietzscheanism would have"

[Bill]

...I don't know how these items like fountain pens acquire such an aire of elitism and mystique...

When I talk to people about FP's, their eyes almost glaze over...

Someone has said on this forum that we are in a golden age of fountain pens with more options and choices than ever in history, with availablity to anyone.

 

A few months ago I was conducting a training session (adults in a professional development setting) when I spotted one of the student writing with a fountain pen. At a break I pulled a Pelikan from my pocket expecting to compare nib or inks or such. Instead, he showed me a disposable $1.50 Pilot Varsity that he bought in the bookstore of a small university where he was employed. All he knew about FP's was that the Varsity pens wrote better than anything else in the bookstore. He was entirely satisfied. The Pelikan went back into my pocket without being uncapped.

 

This particular university is known to be protest- and demonstration-rich environment, anti-everything and anti-elitist (maybe elitist itself in it's anti-elitism). I enjoyed the irony more than I should have.

 

But of course I was curious and had to stop at an office store to buy the 3-color pack of Varsity FPs. They worked great but eventually got shoved aside by my alpha pens.

 

At first I was going to suggest to you Lamy Safaris as loaners. But then I remembered the Varsity. In my office, I have a pen cup filled with a hodge-podge of loaner/giveaway BPs and RBs for visitors. On the other side of the desk, out of reach of visitors, is a holder with FP's in various stages of rotation.

 

A few minutes ago, I moved the three Varsity pens from the FP stash over to the visitor cup.

 

Thanks for kickstarting my brain. There are many ways to be an evangelist.

 

Bill

[ballboy]

I haven't had my pocket watch out for a good few years now: have to get another waistcoat for that!

 

I consider Richard Dawkins to be an uncompromisingly skeptical advocate of Darwinian evolution. He would point out problems with Lamarkism and the others you've mentioned. Even Steven J Gould was slightly naive in his findings compared to Dawkins.

 

Long may the fountain pen write!

[Melnicki]

I don't want to turn this into a furnace about evolution, but please consider a few points:

 

Steven Jay Gould was a Marxist and his work is highly influenced by his political views. I distrust his opinions. Dawkin's debunking of Gould is valuable, but he too is opinionated. Keep it to the facts, make your points succinct, and leave your fancy allusions and language for art.

 

Biology: consider the microbes. They're everywhere, and most macrobiologists neglect their importance. I advise against belief in the ruminations of a renegade geologist (or any geologist for that matter). The evidence is in the cells, cells, cells! This is what biology (life) is. Viruses are an exception, but may turn out to be even more significant than microbes (and depend on cells, anyway).

 

Most people discuss macroorganisms in evolution because humans belong to this group. Objectivity is quite difficult here. (Please don't give me Philosophy (ink) about objectivity. It is real in the natural sciences). We also let our politics and philosophy (not just religion) intrude on whether or not we believe in certain pieces of biological research.

 

Everyone said E.O. Wilson's book "Sociobiology" was enormously valuable, until they read the last chapter where he tried to extend animal social behavior to humans. They lambasted him and called him all sorts of names (Gould included).

 

Not a single biologist I know doubts Darwinian evolution. Its finer details, of course, are not worth scrutinizing over. It is the "neo-Darwinian synthesis" that is of most importance to look at: this is the addition of molecular details (primarily genes/proteins).

 

I've already said more than I wanted to. Sheesh..

 

Fountain Pens are cool!! (okay, now this post is only 99.9% inappropriate on this message board.)