>Charles: How about revolutionary biology ?
Sez Chuck:
>Come on guys. Evolution doesn't need shit from god. If Lacan thinks
>so, he is out of his tree. Or in a more academic tone, could you
>please explain how god is required as a prerequisite to evolution?
And, for that matter, what it is about evolutionary biology that logically opposes revolutionary biology? A dialectician would see these as two sides of the same process, no? I believe that was Marx's response to *Origin* at the time, and that this has been a salient theme in Robert Maxwell Young's theory of human science and SJ Gould's take on Darwinism.
And I'm with Chomsky on Lacan, Ken. A good-humoured charlatan is the former's take on the latter. I always wondered, for instance, how Paglia gets so hot under the collar about poor Foucault (a far more interesting thinker, for mine), yet so often refers favourably to Lacan, who'd make a much better target for the sorts of slings and arrows she launches at Michel (whom, incidentally, I defend only relatively).
And I'm even more with Sam - skepticism is a healthy prerequisite. Taken to the point of all denial of human capacity to understand itself and the cosmos that spawned it, it is a highly infectious disease.
Cheers, Rob.