Lou, Insights in evolutionary history and mechanisms continue to be awe-inspiring. But if we reduce it completely, absolutely to time and materials subjected to random processes, how can anyone justify the value of a cloud forest or a rare Griffinia? By this philosophy it matters not at all if the world is populated by a few organisms or millions. The destruction of nature can be justified by this means. Dylan On 19 January 2013 10:18, lou jost <loujost@yahoo.com> wrote: > Dylan Hannon said "On another level, a reductive, materialist view of life > denies any > meaningful natural order. It posits merely random associations of molecules > and environmental factors over time and space. How can this be reconciled > with more traditional views, i.e., an intelligible natural world?" > > Dylan, the "more traditional view" you mention was overturned 150 years > ago. Darwin's brilliant achievement was to show that the apparent order and > design really is the result of random factors molded by natural selection > and drift. That was one of the deepest insights in human history. And one > of the most awe-inspiring. > _______________________________________________ > pbs mailing list > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/ >