Re: [asa] What is exactly is a TE?

> Yes, the cosmos has been and IS changing-through-time, but this does not mean that it is 'evolving!' 'Change' and 'evolution' are NOT synonymous terms. <

I'm not entirely sure what you see as the main differences between
evolution and change over time. It is incorrect to tightly link
biological evolution to other types of changes over time, as in either
young-earther labeling of the Big Bang as evolutionary or Marxist
labeling social change as evolutionary.

I agree that Dawkins, Wilson, etc. are wrong to assume that society is
merely the product of biological evolution and entirely explicable by
it (and even they are much closer to scientific merit than Marxism,
social Darwinism, eugenics, many claims of higher Biblical criticism,
etc. in which a pattern liked by the author is claimed to be
evolutionarily justified as the way in which society, thoughts, etc.
change, regardless of the actual evidence). Biological evolution
gives some insights into patterns of human behavior, but no more than
that. Extreme sociobiology is self-defeating, for it implies that
sociobiology itself is merely a ploy to impress potential mates by
denigrating the motives of others while appearing forthright rather
than a scientific research program.

>'Cosmological evolution' is thus entirely questionable, even if one
grants (as both you and I do) that the cosmos changes. <

If the cosmos has changed over time, then it is semantically valid to
say that it has evolved from one condition to another. I'm not sure
where the problem lies. I suppose evolution also conveys the idea
that this change is generally directional rather than cyclical (e.g.,
human aging is evolution only from the viewpoint of a single
individual; humanity continually persists though the cycle of birth
and death and is not evolving simply by the fact that its individual
members change according to a regular pattern, though e.g. the modern
shift to later average death ages could be labeled an evolution in
human demographics.) and is not simply and abruptly changed from
without (I don't say that a book has evolved in position when I pick
it up and put it elsewhere, though semi-external factors such as
asteroid impacts have been partly integrated into some models of
biological evolution).

> It is also highly possible that biologists simply dismiss my 'sociological models' out of hand. When was the last time you witnessed a biologist give a sociologist the time of day? Take for example the farce of socio-biology; it is usually biologists dictating to sociologists that they are 'lower' in the/a hierarchy of disciplines and thus should listen to the more important (read: more reductionistic) areas of the contemporary academy. <

Academic infighting is commonplace. Many sociological models are
valuable, but some seem to be more based on the prejudices of the
observer rather than the data. I suspect that the latter dominate
popular versions and the former dominate genuine academic sociological
research. The specific problem I had in mind was the way in which
biological evolution is frequently invoked as purportedly supporting a
particular social or moral view when it does not actually support it.
Marxism is a classic example. Evolution neither implies that human
societies will go through the states Marx described, nor that they
will go in a particular sequence, nor that one of the states is better
than another, nor that it is in my interest to sacrifice myself for
the good of the proletariat. Sociobiology is much better informed
about current evolutionary biology than the typical popular invocation
of evolution; its problems come from the assumption that absolutely
everything in human behavior is fully explicable by
biological evolution and from assuming that "explicable by biological
evolution" means "exhaustively explained." Nevertheless, versions of
biological evolution as invoked by sociology are likely to not exactly
match up with actual current biological practice, just as the average
biologist has little clue about sociology.

> Culture is not reducible to (or determined solely by) biology.<

If this is the basis on which you say that culture does not evolve, I
would agree with you. Culture is influenced by, and sometimes
constrained by, biology, but it is not reducible to biology (without
an excessively expanded definition of biology). However, I would not
uses "does not evolve" to express this; "is not merely a facet of
evolutionary biology" is closer to how I would express it.

> "I don't know many examples of someone going from an evolutionary, theistic
> perspective to a process position, so I can only suggest possible reasons
> rather than known causes in general." – David
>
> If there are any such persons, I'd be glad to hear about them. And if not,
> then I wonder where peoples' priorities lie.

I was specifically meaning process theology; practically any view will
recognize some role for processes. Howard Van Till may qualify as
having gone from a TE position to a process theology position; he
identifies the issue of theodicy as the most important factor in his
change of view, so evolution is only indirectly connected.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.