Re: Things that don't evolve

Mathematical constants and static formulae come to mind.. I don't
believe I've ever heard anyone mention "mathematical evolution".

It's important, I think, to distinguish between evolutions that have
or are thought to have scientific mechanisms to explain them
(biological, planetary, galactic, etc.) and mere rhetorical
"evolution" that just means "somebody read this, and did this other
thing, which got somebody else thinking about this new technology".
Unless all progress is to be considered social evolution... a "theory
of everything" must have some weight behind it for it to be any more
than a tautology.

On 3/14/06, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> In light of several conversations happening these days at ASA, the Alliance
> for Science which speaks of "the support for evolution among the 10,000
> Christian clergy," and particularly the words of Ted Davis, who wrote last
> week that, "Yes, it is my view that evolution functions as a 'theory of
> everything.' Here I am defining 'evolution' very broadly to mean the 'modern
> creation story' as it is sometimes called," a question comes to mind as
> relevant.
>
> Can someone give an example of something that doesn't evolve (into being or
> having become)? Are there any t hings that don't evolve?
>
> Please note that I do not belong to an anti-evoltuion movement and neither
> do I support ID or the IDM. This question is meant to check if scientists at
> ASA can offer any kind of boundary or limitation for evolutionary theory. If
> not, one might be left to conclude that evolution is a 'theory of every
> thing' for many scientists.
>
> What are examples of things that don't evolve?
>
> G. Arago
>
>
> ________________________________
> Make Yahoo! Canada your Homepage Yahoo! Canada Homepage
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 14 08:06:13 2006