Re: There are things that don't evolve

Great summary Greg! You said: Things that don't evolve are things that
have goals, purpose and meaning. As Christians -- at least if we set aside
process theology for a moment -- wouldn't we say that all of creation has
"goals, purpose and meaning"? There is a telos to all of creation,
including even biological evolution. I've found some of the arguments
concerning teleology in biological evolution very interesting, particularly
some of the arguments from Christian thinkers like Simon Conway Morris.
Even aside from those specific arguments, we'd generally affirm (I think)
that evolution is providentially, purposefully, intentionally directed by
God (again, setting aside process theology). We'd have to say then that
"nothing" evolves. But then we'd be conflating "evolution" with "blind,
random chance," something the theistic evolution folks say we shouldn't do.

To me it seems more like a question of functional definitions within
particular communities of practice. Biologists use "evolution" to mean one
specific thing involving genes and natural selection; law professors talk
about the "evolution" of the common law to mean the way judges shape the law
over time; sociologists talk about the "evolution" of culture to mean the
way people adapt cultural practices to technology, climate, and other
circumstances; and so on. It seems difficult to draw any broad conclusions
from this, because each community of practice is using the term "evolution"
to describe very different processes of change. Maybe the only conclusion
we can draw is that "things change."

On 4/3/06, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> 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 Tue Apr 4 10:12:58 2006