There are things that don't evolve

This thread has come a fair distance and perhaps the topic is almost exhausted for now. Let me then merely report in mosaic form on the findings and summarize what has and has not been addressed. One conclusion is, since each of us (over 20 persons) who contributed to this thread did so intentionally, i.e. purposefully and as a result of choice (or free will), that the thread itself did not ‘evolve’ as a medium of communication. The non-random ‘selection’ of thoughts involved was particularly human and not a result merely of environmental pressures or subject to the laws of probability.
   
  Here was the original question:
  “Can someone give an example of something that doesn't evolve (into being or having become)? Are there any things that don't evolve?”
   
  Some answers were given, including non-physical things, non-biological things, mathematical constants, human reason, human nature, quartz, angels and finally, God. The list of things that *do* evolve/change otoh was much longer.
   
  Since that time, four closely related threads have ‘emerged’ at ASA: “God’s evolving Humor,” “Is the human race with modern medicine not evolving downwards?”, “The wrong horse in evolution education,” and most recently “Direction in Evolution.”
   
  It is obvious that the concept of ‘evolution’ is at the forefront of people’s minds at ASA on a variety of different issues. The thread was originally written/proposed because I happen to think the concept of ‘evolution’ is one of the central sticking points in the dialogue between science and religion (and philosophy). Likewise, I believe that the concept of ‘evolution’ actually can be situated or properly contextualized so that it does not grow ‘out-of-control’ or turn into a ‘theory of everything,’ which this thread argued about against Ted Davis’ contention.
   
  I am tempted to follow the lead of Jack Syme and say that “evolution…applies only to biology.” But the truth is that ‘evolution’ is applied in multiple spheres/fields in the contemporary academy. Psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, cognitive studies, philosophy of mind, zoology, geology, botany, ecology and ethics are but a few areas where ‘evolution’ is invoked, not all of which are without contention. Evolutionary theology remains a mystery to me, but apparently there are those who either cannot or will not separate their theology from an evolutionary point of view (cf. Teilhard de Chardin, Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke, Nancy Murphy). Perhaps those at ASA more enlightened than I am about this phenomenon could share their views about it, especially evolution’s relation to process theology.
   
  The fact is that if biologists choose to use the term/concept/idea/paradigm of ‘evolution,’ and I am not a biologist, then there is little or nothing that I can do to deter them. Biologists represent/constitute what biology consists of and in and a non-biologist shouldn’t dictate to ‘them’ what their science is intent on studying. A non-biologist can, however, point out where the limits of biological theories lie and when biologists need to cooperate with/depend on other fields of knowledge, i.e. areas that exist ‘outside’ of biology which biologists nonetheless presuppose in order to practice their science. Likewise, a biological theory (if that’s what evolution predominantly is) should not be haphazardly applied to fields that are ‘sovereign’ in their own rights, and which address fundamentally different phenomena (e.g. human actors). Frivolously applying ‘evolution,’ for example, to societies runs the danger of reductionism, just as raising biological ideas to
 cosmological explanations suffers from idealistically inappropriate transferability.
   
  Some questions: What is the connection between ‘process theology’ and evolution? Human reason changes, it is not static, but does that mean we *must* conclude that human reason ‘evolves’? What are the main differences between evolution and mere change? Can we at least be sure not to reduce human reason to biology alone?
   
  My studies and personal feelings about the issue indicate this: Things that don’t evolve are things that have goals, purpose and meaning. Therefore, since human beings have goals, purpose and meaning, human beings are things that don’t evolve. However, this would be over-simplifying the argument. Human beings have a biological dimension too. There is apparently a supra-biological or non-biological conversation involved with discussing human reason and certainly this is true when discussing theology and the image of God in man. The image of God is at issue on the question of things that don’t evolve – David Campbell revealed this to us and others verified it directly or indirectly. This is where theologians (and philosophers) should cooperate and collaborate with scientists instead of either group assuming the other is deficient, incapable, un-musical or outright inept.
   
  A basic conclusion is thus immanent in the discussion, even if many natural scientists at first agree. Evolution is purely naturalistic – it is relevant only for natural things. Can this be accepted? The fact that human beings are not only ‘natural’ but also non-natural or partly ‘supra-natural’ exempts them from ‘purely naturalistic’ explanations and examinations. Therefore, the conclusion that non-natural things don’t evolve, or rather more specifically, “human-made things don’t evolve” is an appropriate delimitation to make. Please let me know if those at ASA would recognize this conclusion as valid (or justified true, in Plantinga’s words).
   
  Below is a summary (granted my own partial and biased summary) of comments in the ‘(Are there) things that don’t evolve’ thread and words from those associated with it.
   
  Trusting in Him,
   
  G. Arago
   
  ~~
  “Isn't it just inaccurate to use the term "evolution" to mean "change"?” … “‘[Evolution’ properly understood is *not* a ‘theory of everything’ because it speaks only to observable natural mechanisms.” – David Opderbeck
   
  “While the "body" of mathematical research does grow and evolve over time, the mathematics itself as an abstract concept does not evolve; it is only discovered…I think the non-evolution of logic and physics is closely related to the non-evolution of God's infinite mind.” … “Do you think that the mathematical logic that is inherent in nature is evolving? As a theoretical physicist I can assure you that it is not…The rationality and comprehensibility of nature is **not** evolving. This is an essential thing about reality, not a formal logic system developed by humans.” – Phil Metzger
   
  “[I]f everything changes, then everything evolves.” … “There is a new generation of scholars that is unwilling to allow evolution to persist with its monopoly over the concept of ‘change-over-time’.” … “Evolution, when used as a ‘theory of everything’ is a (theological) tragedy.” – G. Arago
   
  “[I]t should be clear to all that language evolves." – Dave Siemens
   
  “The most obvious thing which does not evolve is the sun” – Debbie Mann
   
  ‘[C]hange by complication’ – ‘movement toward greater complexity’ … “[the sun is] a non-biological manifestion of evolution” / “the more common understanding of biological evolution as involving passing
on mutations to succeeding generations.” … “Evolution basically is just change.” – Jim Armstrong
   
  “It's more accurate to call evolution "descent with modification" if you like a nice short definition.” – Dick Fischer
   
  “All purportedly evolution-based moral or social systems make such a claim [to progress].” … “Equating evolution with progress or thinking that organisms are in some way trying to evolve in a particular direction is what is rejected in modern definitions of evolution as ateleological, without goals.” – David Campbell (“Direction in Evolution”)
   
  “God apparently operates at least 99.99999% of the time through natural processes that can be understood in terms of rational laws” – George Murphy (“God’s Evolving Humor”)
   
  “[S]tellar evolution is quite different from the biological variety.” … “If evolution just means "change over time" then there are lots of types of evolution. But it's not very profitable to try to force different things like biological evolution & stellar evolution into the mold of some all-encompassing evolutionary philosophy.” – George Murphy (“Are there things that don’t evolve?”)
   
  “Doesn't ‘evolve’ indicate ‘ascent’?” – Debbie Mann (“Are there things that don’t evolve?”)
   
  ‘Descent as direction’ and ‘descent as ancestry’ – “Within our social system, we select out the "best and the brightest" to end up in the high places. But, a question to think about, is that enough to make progress?” – Wayne
   
  “[T]he nonphysical aspect does not evolve.” – A. Moorad
   
  "Are there directions in evolution?" and "Can these be called progress?" – David Campbell (“Direction in Evolution”)
   
  ~~
  “Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold.” – Lev N. Tolstoy
   

                
---------------------------------
Enrich your life at Yahoo! Canada Finance
Received on Mon Apr 3 18:53:41 2006