Re: Sociology of Science

  Hello Robert,
   
  Thank you for your clarifying and probing comments. Hopefully it will ease your mind to know that I am not implying one should reject biological evolution. I am not a biologist; how should I suggest such a thing to those who know much more about biology than I do? But one should properly contextualize the existence/phenomenon of evolutionary biology in comparison to all of the other varieties of evolution that are in common; and there are many of them. This is a great task (contextualizing and classifying) that will require interdisciplinary voices, which such an organization as ASA may be prepared to undertake with its respective representation across the disciplines.
   
  You asked: “What do you mean by an ‘evolutionist’? Do you mean ‘a person who accepts the biological evidence for common descent and the web of theories that explain it’?”
   
  Well, I doubt if I’m the right person to put any kind of concrete definition on what it means to be an ‘evolutionist.’ But let me try something from a sociological perspective: An evolutionist is not ‘a person who accepts the biological evidence for common descent and the web of theories that explain it,’ though this can certainly be part of it. An evolutionist is one who accepts and uses evolutionary theory (or theories, which may or may not include ‘common descent’) to explain, describe or observe things in their field(s) of academic study and (possibly) in their personal life. Once they use phrases like, ‘evolution shows us’ or ‘it is because of evolution that,’ ‘according to an evolutionary framework,’ ‘this proves they evolved,’ or ‘we are evolving into,’ a person reveals their alliance with, allegiance to, or dependence upon evolutionary thinking, logic and linguistics. A person is an evolutionist if they use the concept/percept of ‘evolution’ to describe or explain t
 hings
 about the world in the name of science. According to this definition, the grammar and the rhetoric of evolution take precedence over the dialectic of evolutionism, which is often pitted with ‘creationism’ and now sometimes with ‘intelligent design.’
   
  The ‘philosophy of evolutionism,’ as you call it, is something quite different than when evolutionary theory is used in biological science, ecology, archaeology, geology, zoology, etc. At least, this is true from what I’ve heard/read biologists, ecologists, archeologists, geologists and zoologists saying about the ‘fact’ of evolution as they see/imagine it. A person need not accept evolutionism in order to study, do research in, profess or practise natural sciences. We are therefore agreed that distinguishing between ‘evolution’ and ‘evolutionism’ is important, though it is clearly not the whole philosophical, sociological or theological ball of wax.
   
  In non-natural sciences, e.g. such as sociology, the dependence upon naturalism is much less cut-and-dry. Evolutionary theory penetrates fields such as anthropology and psychology so deeply that the evolutionists in those places and their ideological influence cannot (any longer) be ignored. Discussions about evolution should therefore not be restricted to natural sciences only, but must come to include other disciplines as well, that is, unless the bias of naturalism is to be taken as the ruling principle of all scientific endeavours.
   
  This is one place where the ‘intelligent design’ topic has raised many eyebrows in that it promises to influence not just natural science, starting with biology (as Dembski, Nelson and Meyer lean on biochemist Behe for intellectual support), but also all other areas of the academy and even society in general. Please note that I am extremely leery of such a claim to universal application of ‘intelligent design,’ especially in areas which are not (yet) represented by ID or DI scholars. Nevertheless, their voices are being heard, even if their chants of revolution are often not heeded.
   
  Let me not say now whether I think a majority or a minority of evolutionists are indeed atheists or theists. The fact is, I don’t know, and it would take a massive survey across several academic disciplines and in different countries to even make an educated guess. There is no need to depend on ID or YEC sources in commenting here about evolution and evolutionism; so many other sources are valuable and valid in their own way.
   
  “one religious doctrine that my acceptance of biological evolution does not demolish is the doctrine of creation.” – Dave
   
  Thank you for being upfront about accepting the/a doctrine of creation. This is also an encouraging thought!
   
  Not sure if that helps or not, but I tried.
   
  Gregory
   
   
  p.s. hope it's o.k. to move this response to the SoS thread since it seems more on topic here
  p.p.s. also hope that people won't feel they're being brushed with a negative label 'evolutionist,' since the broad definition given includes many people/scientists, even Behe, Dembski, and many who are on this ASA list. What the linguistic focus requires is that people recognize or admit what 'types or varieties of evolution' they accept and which they may reject. Even asking a question like 'what are examples of things that don't evolve (into being or having become)' may be troublesome for some evolutionists who advocate evolutionism (e.g. Dennett and Chardin). While for others, their acceptance of certain theological principles places limits on the reign of evolution, even in practical (natural) sciences.
   
  ~~
  Gregory,
   
  Can we not distinguish between "evolution" and "evolutionism"? The two are not the same, despite ID and YEC claims to the contrary. What do you mean by an "evolutionist"? Do you mean "a person who accepts the biological evidence for common descent and the web of theories that explain it"? Or, do you mean "a person who espouses the philosophy of evolutionism"? To say "not all evolutionists are atheists" seems to imply that most or the great majority are, and that they are espousing the philosophy of evolutionism. Is that what you intend? Does one have to show "allegiance to evolution" in order to accept the biology? Isn't that what one might say about the "evolutionist" who espouses "evolutionism"? Speaking for myself and not for Pim, one religious doctrine that my acceptance of biological evolution does not demolish is the doctrine of creation.
   
  So what if "materialism and atheism live on openly in the perspectives of well-known popular evolutionists." Are you implying that therefore, one should reject biological evolution? Help me here.
   
  Bob Schneider

                
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Sun Jan 1 19:11:44 2006