RE: [asa] Evolution Conference Washington, DC - language confusion

"Why don't many, many people (in America or elsewhere) want to consider themselves as 'evolutionists' or as '(neo-)Darwinists'?"

Because those who don't accept biological evolution are ignorant of modern science regarding biology (plainly stated as a fact). The day is rapidly approaching when macro evolution is automatically accepted by everyone, just like heliocentricity. This is because of the rapid rise of the science of genomics which demonstrates conclusively (via pseudogenes and other gene comparisons amongst organisms) that macro evolution happened. At the last ASA conference, Dennis Venema presented a good example using insulin comparison across genomes.

"Ridiculous, confusing use of language such as that demonstrated by the title of this conference is one legitimate reason."

When you come to accept evolution, you'll then see there is nothing confusing that was said.

...Bernie

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 3:08 PM
To: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com; asa@calvin.edu; Randy Isaac
Subject: Re: [asa] Evolution Conference Washington, DC - language confusion

Hi George,

Let me go then a step further than a basic on-line dictionary to quote a 'scientific/scholarly' dictionary:

"Social evolution refers to change in the size, complexity of organization, and institutional features of a society; social progress implies that change is for the better." - Wolfgang J. Koschnick (Standard Dictionary of the Social Sciences, vol. 2, part 1, London: Saur, 1992: 1498)

Why don't many, many people (in America or elsewhere) want to consider themselves as 'evolutionists' or as '(neo-)Darwinists'? Ridiculous, confusing use of language such as that demonstrated by the title of this conference is one legitimate reason.

Evolution simply equals change, right George? Not a problem or challenge for human identity at all...

"I am not a thing, a noun. // I seem to be a verb, // an evolutionary process- // an integral function of the universe." - R. Buckminster Fuller (1972)

"Evolution is at present more than a biological theory. Evolutionism has influenced the physical as well as the social sciences, and has become an integral part of the intellectual equipment of modern mankind." - T. Dobzhansky (1956)

The Free On-Line Dictionary will eventually change its definition. It would be great if Randy could eventually change his definition too!

Gregory

________________________________
From: "gmurphy10@neo.rr.com" <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu; Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>; Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 2:15:45 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Evolution Conference Washington, DC - language confusion

Gregory -

The following is the entry for "evolve" from The Free Online Dictionary. (I realize that this isn't the most scholarly or complete reference but it is quite adequate for showing normal American usage).

e*volve (-vlv)
v. e*volved, e*volv*ing, e*volves
v.tr.
1.
a. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
b. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.
v.intr.
1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
2. Biology To develop or arise through evolutionary processes.

The 2d meaning for "evolve" as an intransitive verb fits Randy's meaning precisely - ideas "undergo gradual change" as you yourself agreed (though without the qualification "gradual").

Shalom,
George

---- Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca<mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>> wrote:
> Hi Randy,
>
> Please explain or describe to me the 'mechanism' or 'method' by which 'ideas evolve.' If you'd like, pick an example or just to speak abstractly or theoretically. Otherwise, it is rather easy to dismiss you as having wax in your ears; you listen, but hear nothing I say.
>
> Ideas do not 'evolve'. Sure, they change. But 'change' and 'evolution' are not the same thing.
>
> There has been zero willingness on your part to confront this reality, unfortunately, and now the only option left is to assume it is a willful denial of knowledge on your part. Every single person I've spoken with on this issue 'gets it.' Perhaps the problem is the medium of communication?
>
> I write directly like this, since you were recently the President of ASA and if you are going to say something like "The title...seem[s] appropriate" as if that has authority, when I made a clear argument against it, then you should be able to explain your view. I don't think you can and I submit that you are displaying a lack of 'proper tools' to evaluate the topic. But I say this, of course, with due respect and humility for other aspects of your participation and contribution to 'science(, philosophy) and religion' discourse. The conference could be a great one for what it is, but this doesn't excuse the misworded title.
>
> Do you think 'ideas evolve,' Randy Isaac: yes or no? If yes, what gives you such confidence to say apples (biological entities) are oranges (ideas) or vice versa? Evolutionary theory 'evolves' you say, Randy?
>
> Yours disappointed (again and again) by American evolutionistic dogma,
> Gregory
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!<http://www.flickr.com/gift/>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 14 11:32:55 2009