Re: Social Evolution - restructured

*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.*

We had started discussing whether any ethical principles can be drawn from
nature / evolution. The point I was trying to make initially is that it
seems to pat and simple to me to say "no, ethics and the science of
evolution are entirely separate fields." I used the term "social Darwinism"
but probaly I should have used "sociobiology." If social behaviour has
biological roots, the "separate fields" response seems simplistic to me.

*...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.*

This is more than a little unfair. My scholarship focuses on law and
economics and law and social norms, and there certainly are many theoretical
approaches there that derive from what could broadly be termed "social
Darwinism" (for the morbidly curious, see
http://www.davidopderbeck.com/scholarship.php). There also is a huge body
of literature about jurisprudence that ultimately is grounded in
utlitarianism, which ultimately is grounded in "social Darwinism" in a broad
sense. Certainly I'm no specialist in evolutionary theory, but then, if we
all restricted the discussion to our specialties, we wouldn't be able to
talk to each other (or, for the most part, to talk about the relation of our
specialities to theology at all).

*Ethics are not 'random mutations' and they are not 'naturally selected.'
Nonetheless, if a person is steeped in evolutionary logic, this 'la nguage
of evolution' is difficult to avoid, cosmological, biological,
anthropological, sociological, economical or otherwise.*

But a reductionist sociobiology would say that our concepts of "ethics"
ultimately have a biological basis, which is firmly grounded in random
mutations and natural selection. That's the observation I was trying to
make. If you want to be thoroughly "naturalistic" in your methodology,
isn't it just *ipse dixit* to say "evolution has nothing to do with
ethics?" (Just to be clear, I don't accept that sort of reductionist
thinking. I'm just trying to flush out some possible assumptions that
underlie our discussion of ethics.)

On 1/28/06, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> 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,' i f 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 me taphors 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; i t 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 'la nguage 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 th at 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
>
> ________________________________
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Jan 28 10:49:22 2006