From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I have seen a small clip of Indianna Jones that had was edited like this. But frankly, who cares? This is like Wikipedia's article on 'duh.' TheComputerWizard

Strange illustration


The Internet has been a source for the creation and prorogation of what many feel are memes. On the Internet an idea can be developed and quickly acquire modifications from users around the world such that the root idea becomes the basis for multiple spin-off ideas, subsets of ideas, and other similar iterations. In this sense, a "meme" evolves, taking on a life of its own through the contributions of users of varied cultural backgrounds.
Many "memes" are humorous in nature. "All Your Base Are Belong to Us" was an early Internet "meme," and "lolcat" is a popular emergent meme. Other memes focus on potential dangers, such as cell phones causing fires at gas pumps.

This "example" or illustration is misleading in the same way that the Icons of Evolution exposed by Jonathan Wells are misleading. --Ed Poor Talk 08:17, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

The idea behind the illustration is that the information is the subject (or mover), propagating itself as in Dawkins's theory of The Selfish Gene. It falsely anthropomorphizes the inert meme (like a gene), because someone or something must make the changes. It is a clever and sophisticated way to sidestep the need for a Designer to make the changes.

Every idea that morphs into another idea has been changed by a human being. The idea itself is passive. --Ed Poor Talk 08:20, 27 October 2007 (EDT)


Since the idea apparently originated with Richard Dawkins, I suggest we merge the 'article' to his page - along with his other ideas. If there are too many ideas there, then perhaps in an article on his book, The Selfish Gene which (I presume) is about a closely related topic.

Dawkins apparently believes that genes and "memes" propagate, in effect, themselves - much as pollen "spreads itself around" by employing bees. --Ed Poor Talk 22:08, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry I didn't see this sooner, but I think that memes, even though they they have no real substance, have caught the public imagination enough that they warrant their own article. I recommend reversion. Philip J. Rayment 08:34, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm glad to see this article has been redirected to Richard Dawkins for now. The concept may have become popular in some quarters, mostly on the Internet, but it is barely known off the Internet and its usage seems more popular among postmodernists, atheists/"skeptic"s and politically correct types than anyone else. It's basically a postmodernist idea rooted in Dawkins' atheism and in many ways a culture war tool used by the other side in the culture war, even though many who use it on the Internet don't realize it. The implication of the "meme" concept is there is no wrong or right, there are no absolute moral values, values are merely cultural ideas that constantly change, combine and separate from each other, and behave like genes as they are culturally transmitted from one person to another. The spread of Christian beliefs if viewed as a "meme" becomes a way of denying any higher power (the Holy Spirit) behind that spread, because "memes" are just ideas that act on their own and spread like viruses. If there is a separate article on memes, my two cents worth is it should cite to some socially conservative criticism of the idea and make clear its atheistic origins, and its popularity among postmodernists and politically correct leftists (as their latest variation on claiming western values are just "social constructs" - now they're "memes", which has the same implication.) Parrothead 08:41, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
I do not think this should be merged with Dawkins' article. True, he did coin the term, but others have expanded on it significantly - for example Dr. Susan Blackmore in her book, The Meme Machine. Moreover - what is the point of redirecting the article to another article that does not even mention memes? That does not make sense. It would appear as if time is being spent on studying memes, so I would think they are worth an entry on their own, with an explanation of their origins, studies and criticisms thereof. --KotomiTHajimemashite! 09:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
Parrothead, if the concept is not important enough to have its own article, then why did you bother with that extended explanation? Surely something akin to that explanation should be in an article about it instead of on a talk page discussing whether we should have an article. That is, most of your comments were about memes, not about whether we should have an article on it. If there is that much to say about memes, why not have an article saying it? Philip J. Rayment 11:16, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
Philip, memes probably should have an article, but as written the article that was here presented the "meme" concept as if it were fact. I don't think "memes" exist at all, the concept is to some degree a way for atheists to explain away the divine intervention of God in human thought (religion and moral values are just "memes" that spread, combine, and change like genes), and to some degree a pop-culture term for things that are better described as jokes or slogans (such as Internet fads and jokes). The two have little to do with each other but are both called "memes". Since the term is a popular one right now, Conservapedia should probably have an article on it, just not one that unquestioningly presents it as fact. Ideally a good article on "memes" would make clear the context in which the "meme" concept emerged - Richard Dawkins' atheism - and cite some good conservative critiques of it. If anyone knows of any good critiques I would be very interested. I am most interested in conservative critiques of political correctness and writings on the culture wars more generally, and am surprised to have not run across much dealing with and dissecting the "meme" concept yet. Parrothead 21:17, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
Okay, so that's three of us who support having an article on it, and no objectors since I raised the issue again. I was going to dispute your claim that it presented the concept as fact, but checking the history, you are correct. I don't know why your previous edits got reverted, and the person who reverted them hasn't edited for two weeks, so I don't know if he's simply on holiday or what. Philip J. Rayment 22:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)