“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.” - G. Arago
“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.” – David C.
Evolution is a type of change. Evolution is based on random changes (called ‘mutations’ in biology and genetics), governed by ‘the laws’ of chance (which are thus ‘measurable’ by statistics and probability). In the Darwinian sense, evolution is based on changes that have no goal in sight; they are ateleological changes without ‘purpose’ (Darwin explicitly stated he saw no purpose). In the neo-Darwinian sense, evolution is also ateleological, but the notion of purpose can also be entertained through the concept of ‘fitness’ (reproductive or otherwise) and the ever-present gauntlet of ‘survival.’
The theory of evolution crosses boundaries into virtually all disciplines of the contemporary academy with the general assumption that ‘to evolve’ is loosely equivalent with ‘to change-over-time.’ However, the ‘process philosophy’ (and occasionally, the ‘process theology’) inherent in the viewpoint that ‘evolution = change’ complicates and tends to mix-up the meanings. We sometimes reach a point where/when 'origins' have become obsolete.
I don’t know how much Marx you’ve read, but his labelling of ‘social change’ as ‘evolutionary’ and sometimes as ‘revolutionary’ was more Lamarckian than Darwinian. Of course, neither Darwin nor Lamarck was a human-social thinker! Nonetheless, both of their ‘discoveries’ of evolution were influenced by the cultural specifics of the countries in which their ideas were conceived. (Just don’t tell that to American-IDers, striving for universality!) The fact that ‘evolutionary language’ is used prolifically in social-humanitarian thought cannot be perceived either solely as a ‘borrowing’ from natural scientific discourse or as a twisting of social thought according to ‘foreign’ rules. It has its own gigantic discourse that is considered alongside and sometimes (though apparently at ASA, extremely rarely, safeguarded by MN/PN dichotomy) together with natural scientific discussions about evolutionary changes. It is the social-humanitarian definition and usage of evolution that I
am challenging (i.e. its more-dangerous-as-ideology type), NOT the biological (natural) scientific usage.
“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.” – David C.
I’m glad that you agree that Dawkins, Wilson, et al. are wrong about human society. Human society is indeed not merely a ‘product’ of biological evolution, and ‘human selection’ should be considered as a significant concept duo alongside ‘natural selection.’ Here some people may insist that ‘human beings are (simply) natural beings,’ thus squashing the relevance of social-humanitarian discourse. But then again, the question would still apply if human beings are ‘simply the product of evolution’ or ‘simply the product of natural selection,’ which is both highly presumptuous and reductionistic, and in my view a grave mistake.
A noteworthy player in this realm who often goes unnoticed is Robert Trivers, who wrote a book called “Social Evolution.” How deceptive it is indeed to use ‘social’ as Trivers does! However, I think you are wrong to include ‘Marxism’ with the others. Marx was an economist, trained also in law – his sociological ideas are still highly relevant, for example, concepts such as ‘alienation,’ ‘exploitation’ and ‘emancipation’ and his general 'critique of capitalism' (which I have heard again twice in the past 2 weeks by a renowned western Marxist and an economist, is the best still in existence, despite the fact that in the USA, capitalism is rarely critiqued [tongue in cheek]). Marx gave some thought-worthy insights into patterns of human behaviour also.
Trivers does something similar to Marx in that he goes outside of his field of expertise to impose his view of ‘social’ upon animals ‘as if they have souls.’ If George chastises me for rejecting his ‘natural/supernatural’ dichotomy, he should surely be even stricter with Trivers, Wilson, Dawkins, Singer, Sober and others in their mangling of the concept ‘social’ with animalistic thought. Many Christians, I fear, have taken on their approach (just as IDists are accused of following the Dawkins conflict line on science and religion discourse), albeit unknowingly because they are not familiar with its pitfalls.
In short, my grievance in this area of discourse is the substantial privileging given to the concept of ‘evolution’ framed within a greater tradition of ‘process philosophy’ that destroys peoples’ views of origins and statics with the hammer of eternal dynamics. Socio-biology has now ‘changed-over-time’ into ‘evolutionary psychology’ and thus must also be a target of criticism for natural scientists that care to protect the sovereignty of their fields. Yet, ASA seems rarely to critique evolutionary psychology, perhaps because it is likewise in bed with the concept of evolution through dedication to perspectives expressed in TE/EC.
I am indeed curious to hear more about how biologists distance themselves from sociobiologists if you would be willing to tell, David. Some sociologists have done the same thing. However, we are in the midst of what has been called a ‘biological challenge to social science.’ My part in this drama is currently to point out how ‘evolution’ is conceptually out of place in social-humanitarian thought, which involves decision-making, choice, will, meaning, purpose, etc..
Now of course, most of you natural scientists out there will not argue with me about this. You may even tacitly agree, while disliking what appears to be an attempt to 'lower' the importance of your respective disciplines in the 'hierarchy' of knowledge. However, at the same time neither will you do anything to promote a de-privileging of natural science in the domain of the Academy in general, as seen in the meandering use of naturalistic (read: anti-theistic) evolutionary rhetoric in fields such as socio-biology and evolutionary psychology. To counter this perception of ASA, why not invite some anthropologists, culturologists, sociologists, economists, et al. to ASA to discuss the relationships between science and religion? Or, is it a problem that you simply don’t know any such persons or that they simply do not exist (in America)?
“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).” – David
You’re getting on to my waves of thought here David. However, no, I don’t think it is ‘semantically valid’ to say the cosmos has ‘evolved’ from one condition to another just because it has ‘changed-over-time’. If I were a ‘cosmologist’ I would probably be a bit upset because others are feeding me words to use from sociology, anthropology, psychology, biology and genetics. Directional vs. cyclical – yes, indeed this is interesting! Nikolai Kondratieff is a curious figure here. Does cyclical change = not-evolutionary? Someone answered this in the affirmative on the ‘Things that don’t evolve’ thread last year.
My training on this comparison is in economics, the field in which a branch of economists have taken the label ‘evolutionary economics,’ complimenting the area of ‘transition economics’ and ‘institutional economics’ (now also ‘neo-institutional economics’) for which there have been Nobel prizes awarded (e.g. Douglas North and the idea of ‘path dependency’). Macro- and micro- of course also exist in that field, in addition to how they are sometimes applied in biology.
I agree with you; the book didn’t ‘evolve’ into a position. You moved it; you willfully/intentionally made it change-over-time. This is because you are a thinking being who is ‘reflexive.’ You also ‘have’ a culture, thus you are ‘super-organic’ (de Roberty) and cannot be reduced to ‘organic evolution.’
The ‘human demographics’ topic is rather interesting imo, because it raises the question of what kind of discipline ‘human geography’ is, i.e. whether it studies ‘purely natural’ or ‘purely human’ things, or both. And how!? There is certainly a biological dimension to human existence, but the other dimensions are worthy of study as well and there are libraries of work done on them that no biological reductionism can ever account for.
“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.” - David
The error of invoking biological evolution ‘as purportedly supporting a particular social or moral view’ I have in mind too. As to the third sentence in the above paragraph, let me add that F. Engels is more important than Marx on the theme, as likewise are several other social (scientific) thinkers, for example, anthropologists L. Morgan and E. Tylor, L. White, J. Steward and M. Harris. One can return to Condorcet who posited 10 distinct epochs that would ultimately lead to ‘perfection’ of the human race, thus the uni-linear view of progressivistic social evolutionism. However, the neo-evolutionists for the most part have cut out uni-linear views and somewhat relativized ‘progress,’ thus leading us into the muck of neo-evolutionary social thought that is current today.
Acknowledging that socio-biology is ‘better informed about current evolutionary biology’ may be taken alongside the question of how much biology should be in bed with sociology to begin with. The issue of ‘biological evolution’ existing as a monolithic explanation in a discipline that contains considerable variety within its own boundaries is debatable. The ‘actual biological practise’ is what I am referring to, in light of admissions from some 'practising' biologists that they absolutely do not require the concept of ‘evolution’ in their day-to-day work. This admission acknowledges that the field(s) of contemporary biology have come some distance, for example, in facilities and equipment (e.g. computer simulations) since the days of Theodosius Dobzhansky’s ‘nothing makes sense in biology’ statement. Imo, the electronic age simply demands a better, more accurate ‘metaphor’ than ‘evolution’ – the most interdisciplinary concept in the Academy today!
“Culture is not reducible to (or determined solely by) biology.” – Arago (earlier in this thread)
“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.
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.” – David
Yes, then we have a considerable agreement. Note, however, that if you agree with me that ‘culture does not evolve’ then you are set against folks such as Dobzhansky, Julien Huxley, John Dewey, Margaret Mead, and many, many others who choose to use (and even abuse) the concept of ‘evolution’ when speaking about culture. Dobzhansky’s triad of cosmological-biological-cultural evolution is an extremely important contribution to the 20th century evolution discourse. Unfortunately, his views, along with Teilhard’s, appear to have been taken over as much by enemies of religious faith than by its defenders.
Thank you for wording the expression “[culture] is not merely a facet of evolutionary biology.” It is also exactly that, “an excessively expanded definition of biology” which must be challenged and if necessary argued against because of the damage it causes or may cause to other sovereign disciplines. I have even spoken of the arrogance and condescension represented by those who ‘privilege’ biology at the cost of other important branches of knowledge. The TE/EC position, imo, Van Till is not the first to run into the arms of Teilhard. I wonder for how many others the issue of theodicy is a significant factor in them holding on to a TE/EC point of view.
Thank you, David, for your thoughtful posts on this topic. I hope you are o.k. at taking a slower pace, if we should continue on this thread. Better to do justice to a theme through care and attention than ramble over it roughshod. (Besides, I’m cutting down on contributions at ASA these days in light of other commitments.)
With warm regards,
Gregory
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 30 17:01:14 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 17:01:14 EDT