So, the basic fallacy of memes lies in this. Whereas genes require no conscious adjudicator to evolve, their ability to survive or not is purely decided by the factual constraints of their existence, memes require a conscious adjudicator to reproduce, modify, and also to be negated.
Dawkins vision of the meme paints us as passive receptacles for our ideas just as we are passive receptacles of our genes. The fault should be readily apparent. Whereas I have absolutely nothing I can do about the genes that I have in my body, I actively choose which ideas I adhere to, which ones I bother to propagate, and which ideas I reject and fight against. I choose this. This "I" is my consciousness. And even if this I is reducible to deterministic parts, the self-referential capacity of people's minds to modify and monitor their own internal content is not something which should be passed over so lightly or surrendered so readily as the argument for memes would have us do.
Memes also differ from genes in that memes are non-verifiable. You cannot isolate a meme. You can't test for it. You can't even define it. How much of an idea is a meme? Dawkins tries to cover this by broadening the concept to cover "meme-plexes" Well, this makes as little sense as memes. We arrive at the same question. What is a memeplex? How can you isolate it? How do you even begin to define what one would be in reality? As a scientifically unverifiable concept, it is strange that it should be introduced by an author who has a reputation for scientific rigor.
Origin of the above quotes can be found here:
http://anamericananti-theistabroad.blog ... -meme.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#GeneticA critic uses the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant.
(emphasis mine)
I will be less dismissive of what Interbane is arguing in an honest attempt at clarification:
Dawkins (and Carrier, I suppose) is in fact attempting to discredited the validity of religion by appealing to an explanation of its origin. In this case, the idea of religion as a type of byproduct of evolution.
If the idea of religion can be explained naturally, it does not follow that a naturalistic explanation falsifies the truth of an idea.
Why would the scientifically unfounded assertion "a meme that is physiological in nature falsifies the truth of religion" hold as sound reasoning?
If I need to clarify my question more, let me know. I'm in a hurry.