Re: Things that don't evolve

Let me gather together some of the ideas expressed in the posts on this topic thus far. Please excuse that I cannot keep up with the conversation always in ‘real time’ since I’m in time zone GMT +3. I found the comments interesting and helpful.
   
  “All aspects of the physical universe are evolving. Irreversibility is the name of the game! … Humans are both physical and nonphysical. The physical aspect does evolve; however, you are right that the nonphysical aspect does not evolve.” – A. Moorad
   
  Conclusion #1 – non-physical aspects/things do not evolve.
   
  “[E]volution explains only one small slice of reality. I'd also add the moral law” … “angels and seraphs” – David Opderbeck
   
  Conclusion #2 – what evolution explains is (only) a small slice of reality. Moral law, angels and seraphs don’t evolve.
   
  “But as I see it, evolution, defined as common descent, and natural selection, only applies to biology.” – Jack Syme
   
  Conclusion #3 – evolution applies (authentically?) only to biology.
   
  “Mathematical constants and static formulae come to mind.. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone mention "mathematical evolution" … 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.” – Chris Barden
   
  Conclusion #4 – mathematical constants (and static formulae) don’t evolve. Does anyone use the term ‘mathematical evolution’? The concept of ‘progress’ is often involved in evolution, which in some cases can be a mere tautology, i.e. without any ‘weight behind it.’
   
  “human nature doesn't evolve.” – Janice
   
  Conclusion #5 – Janice’s own words suffice.
   
  “quartz.” – cwc
   
  Conclusion #6 – quartz doesn’t evolve (into being or having become).
   
  “the recognition and computation or measurement of constants develops.” – Dave Siemens
   
  Conclusion #7 – recognition and computation or measurement are involved in the discourse; ‘development’ is a related evolutionary vocabulary; constants are constant but how they are examined or interpreted is not constant (please excuse if I’ve misunderstood here)
   
  “OK, perhaps some T.S. Eliot might raise the tone? / Seriously, evolution could be seen as "change through time". In the following passage from "Burnt Norton" from "Four Quartets", which is one of the greatest pieces of Christian literature that repays studying over and over, T.S. Eliot reflects on the nature of time, mortality, and the sense of time_less_ness, seeing the spiritual states as an escape from time, and a just "being" at the "still point", where, presumably no evolution occurs.” – Iain Strachan
   
  Conclusion #8 – T.S. Eliot helps us escape from speaking about Pi. Thanks Tom! Change-over-time or ‘change through time’ are common expressions in evolutionary linguistics. Thus if everything changes, then everything evolves. This would verify the ‘theory of everything’ claim made by Ted. However, Iain notes that there is, according to Eliot, a ‘still point’ where evolution does not apply, “where presumably no evolution occurs.” I’m curious if folks at ASA could help me to more precisely discover or define what that still point is/might be and what it means for science, philosophy and theology.
   
  Conclusion #9 – From Vernon’s post, regarding the ‘mystery of Israel,’ if something requires ‘a further divine act’ then that something cannot be ‘explained or described’ by evolution(ary theory). Also, the issue of something ‘defying all naturalistic explanation’ is suggested as something that doesn’t evolve.
   
  Conclusion #10 – David Campbell’s post I found interesting for its implications in both science and theology (and philosophy). For one, he mentioned ‘process theology.’ For two, he suggested angels can “evolve in their understanding,” which is apparently a non-physical thing (i.e. understanding, not just consciousness). For three, he says, paralleling the words of Janice, that ‘human nature’ does not (fundamentally) change (evolve). Add to that however, that we as persons are getting a little better or worse – I take it in this he means ‘in not only a physical sense.’ This connects also to Moorad’s and David O.’s thoughts.
   
  Next, he distinguishes between biological-organic evolution and galactic or cosmological evolution. Surely one theory doesn’t account for both phenomena/fields of study equally? We know that C. Darwin was not an astronomer, unlike his second son G.H. Darwin (e.g. “Cosmical Evolution” 1905), and that he did not develop his biological and botanical evolutionary theories alongside strong astronomical insights. David says “it’s not too useful to treat them all as ‘evolution.’” Thus, we may be getting somewhere if we can identify boundary areas between things that evolve and things that don’t evolve. It would be helpful if he could expand on what is ‘not too useful.’
   
  Finally, David reminds us that the imago Dei (Gen 1: 26, 27) is at issue on the question of things that don’t evolve (into being or having become). If we are somehow programmed (hopefully unlike in the Matrix stories) as persons “to arise as emergent properties…in the course of evolution,” then that appears worth speaking about in contrast to (or in cooperation with) the notion that something non-random, intervention-style, purposeful or teleological was and/or is at work in our lives.
   
  These examples are all good starting points for discussing things that don’t evolve. Please let me know if the above summaries aren’t accurate.
   
  G. Arago
   
  p.s. in agreeing with Ian about restudying Eliot’s “Four Quartets,” it may be of interest to note that Eliot uses the word ‘evolution’ once in the poem. The lines surrounding it are included below:
   
  It seems, as one becomes older,
  That the past has another pattern, and ceases to be
  a mere sequence—
  Or even development: the latter a partial fallacy
  Encouraged by superficial notions of evolution,
  Which becomes, in the popular mind, a means of disowning
  the past.
  - “The Dry Salvages” in Four Quartets (1936-42)

David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote: Can someone give an example of something that doesn't evolve (into being or having become)? Are there any things that don't evolve?

   
  Unless one takes a process theology approach or the like, God does not change. Angels, etc. are not omniscient and thus can evolve in their understanding, if one wishes to use as broad a concept of "evolve" as possible. Human nature does not fundamentally change (though God can change it); however, most of the time we are gettign a little worse or a little better.
  
There's very limited connection between the evolution of stars, galaxies, etc. and biological organisms, apart from the underlying thermodynamic principles that make it very difficult for physical things to remain constantly unchanged. Thus, it's not too useful to treat them all as "evolution".
   
  Biological evolution is a biological "theory of everything" in that it provides a unifying explanation for all organisms and their physical features. Some organisms show little obvious physical change over a long period of time, but the DNA is accumulating mutations all the while, as far as we can tell. Some aspects of human nature are not readily explained by evolution and might reflect an intervention-style action of God, making us spiritually in His image. However, it is difficult to rule out the possibility that these features might be programmed to arise as emergent properties of humans in the course of evolution.
  

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams" 
				
---------------------------------
Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice