It should be easy to acknowledge that equating ‘evolution’ with ‘science’ is simply wrong. (Or as George mocked to me recently, it is not even wrong, thus, it is more than just ‘wrong’!). Why? Because there are philosophies and theologies of evolution that are not ‘merely’ scientific, and there is undeniably also evolutionary ideology. Personally, I have been studying evolutionary and neo-evolutionary sociology rather carefully for the past two years and would suggest there are more varieties of evolutionary theory than Don admits or knows about.
Don wrote: “The E in TE refers to Evolution in its scientific sense. It includes cosmological evolution and biological evolution and also those aspects of cultural revolution that are scientific -- it does not include the non-scientific extensions made by some sociologists such as Herbert Spencer or such people as Ken Ham.”
On what basis does Don believe in ‘cultural evolution’ (that is, he clarified that the ‘r’ in ‘revolution’ was a typo.)? Whose theory of cultural evolution does he apply, or is it rather something he takes for granted according to his own independent understanding? Does culture inevitably involve or is it somehow forced or guided? It is not hard (at least for social-humanitarian thinkers) to name many names of theorists here, but I’m curious if Don just assumes that ‘culture evolves’ or if he is actually scientific about his claims to knowledge? If only some ‘aspects of cultural evolution are scientific,’ then could Don say which aspects those are?
Don later wrote: “4. I am using evolution in today's context -- in the Darwinian sense. Any alternative usage by Spencer is something going beyond Darwinian evolution.”
There is no ‘today’s context’ in the singular; there are only plural ‘contexts.’ Did he really say ‘In the Darwinian sense?’ Charles Darwin died in the 19th century; do you not think that biological science has advanced since then and that some of Darwin’s ideas have been eclipsed, overwritten, updated, etc.? It would be ‘in the neo-Darwinian sense,’ if anything. This is one reason to question the open attack by the IDM on Charles R. Darwin and on Darwinism, forgetting that Darwin’s ideas have been advanced by others. We don’t see the IDM attacking T. Dobzhansky, contributor to the modern synthesis.
“The Age of Enlightenment closes with the first full-fledged theory of progressive evolution of mankind, that of Condorcet. This is a hymn of unbounded optimism composed in the shadow of death. On a different philosophical basis, the evolutionary ideas of Herder, Kant, and Fichte lead to Hegel’s system, in which history is understood as progressive manifestation of the Spirit. Marx puts Production and Economics in the place of the Spirit, and comes up with substitutes for the Kingdom of God, called Socialism and Communism. Marx discovered his ‘evolution’ of society at about the same time as Darwin published his account of biological evolution. Marx has the perspicacity to recognize in Darwin a fellow evolutionist, an affiliation which Darwin was most reluctant to accept. Soon thereafter, Spencer, Tylor, Morgan, and others were founding evolutionary social anthropology, expressly built on Darwinian theoretical premises. / Theories of cosmic and terrestrial inorganic
evolution also appeared well ahead of organic evolution.” – T. Dobzhansky (“The Biology of Ultimate Concern,” 1967)
So I asked, “5) Finally, does anything an engineer ever ‘make/build/design/construct/etc.’ count as something that ‘has evolved’ (into being or having become)?”
Don responded: “5. It seems to me that such language is being used in a very general sense and is not relevant to my position. (Incidentally I am not an engineer, despite the fact that I am a member of an engineering faculty.)”
How can it not be relevant to your position?! ‘Evolution’ is either a noun, or a verb ‘to evolve’ or ‘evolving.’ How can you so easily divorce its linguistic meaning from your apparent theoretical approach? Nothing that is ‘engineered’ should be said to have ‘evolved’ into being. Why not? Because ‘to evolve’ is simply the wrong verb to use in that case. This is not a sophisticated argument!
This is one of the sticking points about ‘intelligent design’ – it employs the views of quite a number of computer scientists and engineers, who quite obviously and commonly use the language of ‘design’ in their respective works. The fact that Ian Strachan posits ‘random’ computer programming doesn’t seem to cancel out the majority of ‘design’ theorists convenient usage of computers and machines in their favour. We, as human beings, ‘make/build/design/construct/etc.’ but we almost certainly don’t ‘evolve’ machines into existence – ‘evolution’ is simply the wrong concept in this arena of practical knowledge.
Don wrote: “3. I accept cosmological and biological evolution. I do not take Teilhard de Chardin's extreme posoityion.”
What is particularly wrong with Teilhard’s position and what is ‘extreme’ about it? If people care to read Teilhard they might find that most TE’s actually depend more on Teilhard and also H. Bergson than they might imagine. I was actually just reading some of his “The Phenomenon of Man” today as well as “The Heart of the Matter.” Let’s open up this question of cosmological evolution then. Don says he accepts cosmological evolution; I do not. I accept biological evolution (as a non-biologist) but not cosmological evolution (as a human being). Are there any professional cosmologists around here to help us figure this one out? Who will quote an evolutionary cosmologist to show the way?
This is a learning exercise for me as I am neither a biologist nor a cosmologist, as I assume neither are most of you. I am very pleased to see David C.’s agreement with me on the topic of origins vs. processes. It is somewhat of a surprise that no one else chose to touch it. This is a crucial topic that will resurface in the future and provide an inconvenient truth that biological evolutionists who are unfamiliar with philosophical evolution have missed.
Now Don, I do not mean to embarrass your claim of ‘cultural evolution,’ especially if you can’t back it up. Likewise, if you will not defend your fallacy of cosmic evolution, that is, if you do not mean that the cosmos doesn’t simply ‘change-over-time’ but that it actually ‘evolves,’ then I suppose you will show me more than P. Davies that ‘complexity’ does not necessarily mean ‘more evolved.’ Otherwise, I suggest getting acquainted with non-natural scientific views of evolutionary theories to recognized the fragmented reality of contemporary evolutionary theory. This would serve to disenchant your perspective of a united evolutionary absolutism and perhaps lead to a point of view wherein evolution can be considered safely more provisional and thus less ideological than it is currently viewed now.
Gregory
“All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.”
- The Riddle of Strider
Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz> wrote: In response to Gregory's questions, I would say:
1.Yes -- essentially.
2. Sorry, "revolution" is a typo for "evolution".
3.I accept cosmological and biological evolution. I do not take Teilhard
de Chardin's extreme posoityion.
4. I am using evolution in today's context -- in the Darwinian sense.
Any alternative usage by Spencer is something going beyond Darwinian
evolution.
5. It seems to me that such language is being used in a very general
sense and is not relevant to my position. (Incidentally I am not an
engineer, despite the fact that I am a member of an engineering faculty.)
Don
Gregory Arago wrote:
>
> Don Nield contributes as follows: “The E in TE refers to Evolution in its scientific sense. It includes cosmological evolution and biological evolution and also those aspects of cultural revolution that are scientific -- it does not include the non-scientific extensions made by some sociologists such as Herbert Spencer… [and that other guy].”
>
> I have several questions about this post: 1) Is Don’s point simply that ‘evolution IS science/scientific,’ end of story, and thus therefore speaking tautologically the ‘E in TE… [is meant in a] scientific sense’? 2) Why ‘revolution’ when speaking of culture? 3) How can cosmological and biological evolution be thought as ‘under the umbrella’ of TE – isn’t this taking the extreme position of Teillhard de Chardin, that is, over-reaching a grand unified theory into areas about which one might know very little? 4) Herbert Spencer used the term ‘evolution’ before Darwin published OoS, thus how could his work be considered a ‘non-scientific extension’ of (I assume Don means) Darwinian evolutionary theory? 5) Finally, does anything an engineer ever ‘make/build/design/construct/etc.’ count as something that ‘has evolved’ (into being or having become)? From my pov, engineers do exactly that, they engineer, that is, they quite clearly do not ‘evolve’ things. To speak in such a
language as ‘evolution’ for an engineer makes no sense; however, when engineers are trying their hand in biology, then speaking in evolutionary language may be suitable.
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail -
---------------------------------
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 6 17:09:30 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 06 2007 - 17:09:30 EDT