ASA - Social Evolution
Please excuse that I have not been able to follow up on this topic here at ASA due to a particularly hectic past week. Even now there are other pressing commitments, but this site somehow seemed more important. As a social scientist, perhaps one of the few participating on this discussion list, please allow me to address the topic of ‘social evolution’ from a different view than most natural scientists or theologians might guess or suggest.
Earlier I asked, “Is this thread about 'social evolution' or 'biotic evolution'?”
This question was posed because the difference between ‘biotic’ and ‘biological,’ ‘social’ and ‘sociological’ is quite significant in that it identifies either ontological claims or theoretical claims. Biotic things evolve or they don’t evolve (this is called the ‘fact’ of evolution to many N. American ears). Social things evolve or they don’t evolve, according to the metaphor of ‘evolution’ (commonly called the ‘fact’ of social change). On the other hand, there are biological ideas, theories, concepts, methods, experiments involving ‘evolution’, etc. just as there are sociological ideas, theories, concepts, methods, experiments, etc. involving ‘evolution.’ The problem (of the initial topic) is that to reduce ‘evolutionary sociology’ to mere ‘social evolution’ would be to do an injustice to sociological thought generally. But that is likely not what this thread is about or what the topic starter (who has since not responded) actually meant to address.
Later, I wrote that “David started repeating 'social Darwinism' (7 times in 3 paragraphs) like it was a scarecrow in a lonely field,” to which Dr. Mr. Opderbeck responded with ‘Huh?’ (Alternatively, I would of course respond with an ‘Eh?’ instead of a ‘Huh?’, but that is another conversation. :->) ‘Social Darwinism’ was not the initial topic and to understand why David invoked it, especially without identifying any of its practitioners or theorists, would be up to David to display and explain. Just writing ‘social Darwinism says this or that’ is unsatisfactory from the perspective of scientific rigour, even if it may suffice in a courtroom scenario. ‘Social evolution’ is not David’s particular field (of expertise) after all and the topic of ‘social Darwinism’ does not exhaust it.
‘Social evolution’ is not a legal problem, it cannot (and likely will not) be debated in the courts. A decision about ‘social evolution’ cannot be reached that it is unscientific or pseudo-scientific. Secondly, ‘social Darwinism’ is something quite different from ‘social evolution.’ There are Darwinists and neo-Darwinists and there are evolutionists and neo-evolutionists (try ‘neo-evolution’ at Wikipedia). Thus, deriving ethics from Darwinian natural science is decidedly different than deriving ethics from an evolutionary or neo-evolutionary sociological standpoint. The issue of defining evolutionary and non-evolutionary sociology still remains open for exploration.
“In any scientific investigation God ends up being reduced to a natural cause.” – Keith Miller
Here, hear – though this is likely not meant to demean or to minimize natural scientific achievements; just properly to situate them. God’s activity in our world is not naturalistic but revelatory. Reducing God to a natural cause is an incomplete, partial, minimalist perspective. On the other hand, the social sciences today do not refer to ‘natural causes’ in the same way as do natural sciences. This distinction should probably be taken into account when considering the topic of ‘social evolution,’ if the topic is even worth considering at ASA.
“MN [methodological naturalism] is falsely presented as equivalent to philosophical naturalism or materialism. That is, the practice of science is seen as based on a philosophy that claims that the material universe is all that there is.” – Keith Miller
Well said! This also seems to imply that ‘evolutionism’ or the over-usage of evolutionary theory in non-‘natural science’ disciplines tends to be misguided, misleading and potentially disastrous. Evolutionary theories that promote materialism are at least not philosophically consistent with sociological views that leave open non-material dimensions of human existence. The secularization of societies may in this way confront its evolutionary constituency on a scientific basis.
“The answer is that you cannot derive moral principles or ethics from the natural world. Features of the natural world can be used to legitimize virtually any ethic. You can use natural metaphors to validate ruthless competition, and you can with equal ease use it to support altruism, cooperation and self sacrifice for the common good. I disagree with all attempts to derive an evolutionary ethic. Ethics can only be read into nature, they cannot be read out.” – Keith Miller
Again, this is music to the ears of a social philosopher who embraces theism and not anti-theism, atheism or agnosticism on the topic of ethics!
“There would be some force in David's argument if a kind of social Darwinism were the only type of ethic that social evolution had produced & if we were then trying to impose some different ethic. But along with survival of the fittest ethics there have also developed altruistic ones. & in fact the ethics of the Bible can be seen to have gone through a kind of evolutionary process” – George Murphy
Evolution is simply a metaphor when used in this way; it is not science. Social evolution ‘produces’ nothing; it is rather mere theoretical fluff (e.g. like ‘poof,’ if you will) promoted by evolutionary sociologists and social evolutionists. Surely people have tried to establish theories of evolution that support their (relativistic) ethical basis (or bases). Instead, I agree with Keith Miller here that all attempts to derive an evolutionary ethic are flawed. Such attempts are philosophy, not science. They are not even theology. When used like this ‘evolution’ as a metaphor to justify (a monopolized version of) change-over-time turns into ‘evolutionism.’ Please forgive me, George, for this observation and criticism, but I see no other reason for you to apply evolutionary theory to areas outside of natural and physical sciences, especially when evolution has been clearly demonstrated as a tool for naturalistic, materialistic and anti-theistic thought. Ethics are not ‘random
mutations’ and they are not ‘naturally selected.’ Nonetheless, if a person is steeped in evolutionary logic, this ‘language of evolution’ is difficult to avoid, cosmological, biological, anthropological, sociological, economical or otherwise.
“[P]rinciples analogous to Darwin's have operated in the evolution of societies." – Dr. Allan Harvey
This apparently brings us back to the original topic. Do societies ‘evolve’ or is there a better way to describe their ‘change-over-time’? I would argue that societies don’t ‘evolve,’ nevertheless agreeing that they certainly do change-over-time. Likewise, societies do adapt, differentiate, integrate, vary and transform according to the circumstances (e.g. environment) in which they exist, in addition to their particular characteristics.
Perhaps when the paper I am currently writing on evolutionary, neo-evolutionary and non-evolutionary perspectives in sociology is finished, it will become clear enough to express at ASA so that the scientists and scholars here may consider their relevance in the discourse of science and religion? Then again, perhaps most sociological thought is commonly deemed not-all-that-important to natural scientists. That is probably enough written already to upset the gravity of the topic.
One possible response to this post would be simply to disregard it, contending that ‘sociology is not science, it is not scientific.’ But that would be to ignore the contribution that sociologists make to help understand our lives as citizens, persons and people living in societies, under God, with our own peculiar cultural and religious perspectives attached. Another response would be to confront the legitimacy of evolutionary sociology amidst the diverse varieties and types of evolutionary theories.
To fairly address the thread’s apparently deeper topic would mean to check at the door any claims to scientific authority (whether Peacocke’s, Polkinghorne’s, Ellis’, Ruse’s, Dawkins’ or any personal-private views) via a physically-oriented hierarchy of science. It would ask for a reflexive response if any is to be attempted from within a scientific Christian community such as this one at ASA. In today’s age, this is probably too much to ask.
With warm wishes,
In unity,
G. Arago
gordon brown <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu> wrote: The Hebrew of Gen. 4:24 unmistakably says 77.
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Sat Jan 28 07:20:16 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 28 2006 - 07:20:17 EST