RE: Things that don't evolve

Let me reiterate the basic question at the start of the thread:
   
  "Can someone give an example of something that doesn't evolve (into being or having become)? Are there any things that don't evolve?"
   
  This question was asked partly in response to the recent statement by Ted Davis that evolution functions as a 'theory of everything' and partly due to the fact that it may help recognize limitations to evolutionary theory.
   
  The responses that followed were quite illuminating. Let me summarize them here again and ask if anyone disagrees or agrees with them or finds room for discussion.
   
  Any sort of statement assuming that everything evolves wil be interpreted as a view that closes the door on even the possibility that evolution may not be, in fact, a theory of everything.
   
    Conclusion #1 – non-physical aspects/things do not evolve. Added later: "I do not think that Bible in any sense evolves, what evolve is our understanding of it." (A. Moorad)
   
  Conclusion #2 – what evolution explains is (only) a small slice of reality. Moral law, angels and seraphs don’t evolve. (David Opderbeck)
    
  Conclusion #3 – evolution applies (authentically?) only to biology. (Jack Syme)
  
   
  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.’ (Chris Barden)
   
  (Mathematical Evolution at Harvard/Rome - Found: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:9z78P2yWxD0J:www.ped.fas.harvard.edu/research/rome/images/rome_05.pdf+%22mathematical+evolution%22&hl=ru&gl=ru&ct=clnk&cd=3)
   
  Conclusion #5 – "human nature doesn't evolve.” (Janice Matchett)
   
    
Conclusion #6 – quartz doesn’t evolve (into being or having become). (Charles Carrigan)
    
  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 (Dave Siemens)
  
  
  Conclusion #8 – 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, there is, according to T.S. Eliot, a ‘still point’ where evolution does not apply, “where presumably no evolution occurs.” (Iain Strachan)
   
  Conclusion #9 – 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. (Vernon)
   
  Conclusion #10 – Process theology is an issue. Angels can “evolve in their understanding,” which is apparently a non-physical thing (i.e. understanding, not just consciousness). ‘Human nature’ does not ('fundamentally') change.
   
  Biological-organic evolution should be distinguished from galactic or cosmological evolution. David says “it’s not too useful to treat them all as ‘evolution.’” It would be helpful if he could expand on what is ‘not too useful.’
   
  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.
   
  Maybe the image of God is an example of something that doesn't evove?
   
  G. Arago

                
---------------------------------
Have a question? Yahoo! Canada Answers. Go to Yahoo! Canada Answers
                
---------------------------------
7 bucks a month. This is Huge Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Received on Fri Mar 17 11:29:33 2006