resolving linkage

consider the following theory identifiers as discussed in mainstream media


1. evolution :

2. lamarckianism or lamarckism

3. intelligent design


what happens when these identifiers are linked with[compared /seen through]:


1. religious dogma

2. capitalism

3. competition theory

4. socialism

5. systems or operating system analysis

6. liability through heredety

7. emergent complexity

8. "esoteric" ideas/systems

[there are more - as many as one wants really]

some example questions

what affect do the different contexts [individually] [eg 1-8 above]
have on a persons understanding of the relevence, meaning and framing of such conceptual identifiers

what affect does the persons previous programming layer - [eg 1-8] have on their understanding and envisionment, and subscribership to identifiers [1-3]

how might combinations of ideas complex into world views - in terms of knowledge structure, layering and cross-linking of concepts, promotion, spin, saturation. etc

of interest particularly here is the up-scaling of theory or the deft swapping and interchangability of theory and fact, map and territory, model and actual functioning. [up and down scaling of language wrt meaning is not a new thing - neither newly observed or documented thing]
evolution as a process has been demonstrated to a degree in laboratory circumstances, and in recent high gradient "pressure" natural environments. developments and tweakings of the core-linked set of elements of the theory have elaborated on the original formulation and gained a degree of "territory" and certainty, perhaps explaining the up- scaling.
problems arise when one attributes monolithically and somewhat exclusively research conclusion to a particular theory, in this case using as an example : evolution, at the expense of competing theories - as with all incorrectly pegged corroboration - the nucleate issue is diminished in value or reputation by inappropriately or loosely bound chelate information.
one could argue that environment can modify genetic expression in the subsequent generation by looking at for example mutagenic substance experience as a finding that could support aspects of evolution as well as lamarkianism- certainly a neo-lamarkianism- and have the argument proper so to speak. what then the meaning of visiting "the sins of the fathers on the sons" or "unto the thirteenth generation" - again to understand the conceptual reality and more importantly to understand the non-quantitive ,qualitive, relational, transforming potential and interactivity - behaviur - of knowledge , i would argue it foolish to dismiss awkward themes and reference points - if well argued.
for example : evolution studies, make much use of mathematical underpinnings yet intelligent design [ by no means a new theory - more a new promotion] can be resolved as agnostic theist or athiest , in one particular way, dependent on ones conceptualisation and understanding of mathematics.

- realitystructure