The EES has gotten pushback from many biologists who think that things
like cultural evolution and niche construction are already accounted for in evolutionary theory, and that therefore the EES is unnecessary.
Not exact matches
The emergence of Evangelical Catholicism is a Spirit - led development reflecting the
cultural contingencies of history,
like other such
evolutions over the past two millennia: the
evolution from the primitive Church to the Church of the Fathers; the
evolution from patristic Catholicism to medieval Catholicism; the development of Counter-Reformation Catholicism (the Church in which anyone over sixty today was raised) from medieval Catholicism.
At times it appears that each theorist regards religious
evolution,
like other dimensions of
cultural evolution, as resulting from its own internal dynamics.
Health deteriorates when
cultural evolution becomes the driver and certain adaptations,
like an ingrained taste for sweets, become mismatches.
«
Cultural evolution is a lot
like biological
evolution,» he says.
In this retrospective, what could have felt
like a crash course in
cultural history reveals a drawn - out artistic
evolution, full of curious contradictions and creative leaps.
Cultural evolution is younger and sub-fields like memetics younger still; we are unlikely to see any definitive answers to cultural evolutionary mechanisms in this century, if not much
Cultural evolution is younger and sub-fields
like memetics younger still; we are unlikely to see any definitive answers to
cultural evolutionary mechanisms in this century, if not much
cultural evolutionary mechanisms in this century, if not much longer.
In particular, What if macroscopic
evolution is not just another «a
cultural consensus» imposed by
like minded atheists / materialists who by definition preclude open science of testing it against the null hypothesis of known stochastic and chemical processes (as distinct from mutations causing microevolution)?
David L Hagan: What if macroscopic
evolution is not just another «a
cultural consensus» imposed by
like minded atheists / materialists who by definition preclude open science of testing it against the null hypothesis of known stochastic and chemical processes (as distinct from mutations causing microevolution)?
Andy == > It seems that churches and religion are not subjects with which you have a lot of first hand / hands on experience — more
like something you have always «studied about» from some perspective outside of the field itself — viewed always through the lens of
cultural psychology or
cultural evolution.