Reply to comment

I agree with Madi that Darwin's idea isnt really pessamistic. Personally, I see it as a very optimistic concept because it means there is still room for us to evolve and grow to be beings of even greater ability. I suppose it is partially, too, due to my beliefs. I dont necessarily think that just because God didn't make us the way that the Bible says he did means that he is just not there. Same with Galileo, I still have a hard time understanding how someone can think that just because earth is not the center, God is not watching. Personally, I don't believe in 'God' but I do believe in spirit and those sorts of things, which, I think, is something that can survive even evolution. (though that is a bit of a personal thing, I cannot say it for anyone else)

Something I noted in this reading that went along well with our discussion in class was Dennett's claim that "Human imagination has only a few resources to draw upon when faced with such a mind-boggling question"(25) This reminded me of a paper we discussed last class, where we debated whether the mind was limited. Later, Dennett says that even if Darwins idea was to be rejected and replaced, it would still be something that has "open[ed] new possiblities of imagination..." (83) I think this is really interesting, as it is Dennett's last way of reminding the reader that yeah, evolution is be best and most valid theory we have now, but it is still, and will continue to be, possible that it may change, even though it currently seems unimaginable. Which then brings me back to Flatland, and how A. Square could not imagine 3D, but then it was there, and then Sphere nearly rejected the idea of imagining any further dimensions, but eventually accepted that there is always the possiblity of stretching the imagination.