Are there things that don't evolve?

“Isn't it just inaccurate to use the term "evolution" to mean "change"? Doesn't "evolution" specifically mean "natural selection acting on random genetic mutations?" That's why Dawkins had to invent something like "memes" -- he needs the cultural equivalent of a "gene" that can be acted upon by natural selection. So maybe here's another one: human reason doesn't evolve. Reasoned decisions aren't always random and they are in some sense beyond natural selection precisely because they are purposeful and reasoned. Unless there's no such thing as free will.” – David Opderbeck
   
  It is hard to agree upon a singular or specific definition of evolution, since the concept is applied in such a variety of situations and fields of study. Undoubtedly, some of the places evolutionary theories are used are false (just as can be said about ‘creation’ and ‘ID’), which is what was implied to a huge audience in St. Peter’s Square, Rome on April 24, 2005, to the effect that we “are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.” Human reason is partly a non-physical thing and partly something that must be connected with a physical entity via the human mind/brain/heart. Thus, for physicalist evolutionists, who attribute reason solely to physical causality, reason can be said to evolve as all physical things do (except quartz!?). Does reason change; yes, perhaps it does. But that was not the question posed in the thread.
   
  “It would seem to me that a case could be made that human reason does evolve. / 1. in our human population, there exists quite a diversity of levels of reason (a la IQ and ability to abstract) and approaches to learning (visual, aural, etc.). The mere existence of many such states invites consideration of the operation of an evolutionary process. But more to the point, to the extent that any of these "states" is preferrable at any given time, for any reason, then there is "space" for the evolution of the reasoning capacity and processes. / 2. if there is any drift of any sensory capability up or down, or emergence of some hitherto latent sensory capacity to any significant (however small) degree, the reasoning would need to evolve inextricably for that sensory resource to be of any benefit. / Also, we are a bit too constrained in our own narrow time frame to be able to apply tools that would measure or make us aware of longitudinal multi-generational "drift" of reasoning pr
 ocesses,
 so that would appear to invalidate any conclusion that human reason is static. / Or so it seemeth to me... JimA
   
  In this short post Jim references ideas such as ‘evo process’ (while David Campbell’s ‘process theology’ went untouched), ‘preference,’ ‘benefit,’ ‘drift,’ ‘emergence,’ ‘sensory capability,’ ‘degree,’ ‘levels’ and ‘states’ as parts of related evolutionary vocabulary, while making his human reason-is-not-static (i.e. therefore it evolves) argument. Clearly the linguistics of evolution needs to be made clear one way or another. Which concepts take priority in which circumstances and in which disciplines or fields of scientific research? David O., for example, seems to use the word 'random' pejoratively, but is there not a positive sense of randomness too?
   
  One thing is clear. There is a new generation of scholars that is unwilling to allow evolution to persist with its monopoly over the concept of ‘change-over-time.’ That is one reason I suggested this thread, to help show that ‘evolution’ does not mean the same thing as ‘change.’ If people at ASA are willing to distinguish which things actually ‘evolve’ from which things simply ‘change’ then we’ll be getting somewhere new (or rather old). According to Dave, ‘mere’ cyclical variation would still fit into the category of ‘change’ labeled so broadly, but would NOT count as ‘evolution’. Does this not cover a whole variety of things that don’t evolve?
   
  “If you want to deny that changes in society that are not consciously planned can be called evolution, that is a possibility. But it is not necessary. Changes with results that continue and form the basis for later changes seem to fit the notion of evolution. What merely varies cyclically, for example, is hardly to be so labelled. Some changes in society's ramifications are deliberate, but these often have unintended consequences, which are not deliberate.
   
  I have come to my 4th contribution, so in response to an earlier post from David, I'll only say that /consensus gentium/ is not universally adopted. What a biblical Christian proves on the basis of assumptions will be different from that of others lacking or denying them. Indeed, among brethren claiming scriptural authority there are differences. Are there sacraments or ordinances, and even what do sacraments entail?” – Dave Siemens, Jr.
   
  Several examples have been given of things that don’t evolve. The notion of ‘unintended consequences’ from human decision-making will have to be left out of the discussion for now. Scientists should respect the ‘science’ of other scientists if those scientists can back up their claims using science, and perhaps with the help of philosophy sometimes too (gasp!). Theologians, who have come to wholly accept evolutionary theories into their worldview/psyche, will likely not take easily to a suggestion that they *must* limit the ways in which evolution can be applied. Need it be so? It seems as if they may have tied up their conception of God, our Creator, so closely with ‘evolution’ that to draw a boundary around usage of evolution would seem tantamount to limiting God’s creative action. That said, however, it was therefore comforting to me that George Murphy not long ago credited the IDM with at least promoting further discussion about God’s creative action in the world.
   
  As far as the main point I would like to express in this message goes, it is crucial to first admit that I am not a physical/natural scientist. This does not mean that I do not study physical things or that the things I study are somehow un-natural. But it does mean that I operate theoretically outside of the paradigm of evolution as defined by the physical/natural sciences. That somehow makes it easier to confront evolution elsewhere (i.e. where it actually also exists).
   
  As a result, one conclusion is fundamental: evolution, when used as a ‘theory of everything’ (including to explain these words that I just wrote here, as supposedly ‘evolving’ into existence) is a tragedy. There is no complexity or ambiguity involved in saying this; it is plain and simple, lickety-split. One shouldn’t be afraid to place limits on any scientific concept, especially if considering that not to do so might narrow or bias one’s thinking. There are other ways to approach the topic of change than using evolution, that don’t carry such ideological baggage or anti-theistic tendencies. Nevertheless, putting a body of definitive, coherent, knowledge around such a belief is something easier to hint about than to do in reality. So I ask for your patience and morale support.
   
  As an aside, I must say that I do hold a measure of respect for those who are trying to do something special with ‘intelligent + design,’ though the inadequacies and faulty-ness of their supposed ‘science’ has been revealed many times here at ASA. They have not been spared legitimate scrutiny and that goes to show a healthy dialogue among Christian scientists and those who are using ID to promote agnosticism. IDists have tried to do something which was not attempted (“so far no serious competitor has come forward” – Karl Popper, 1974, Unended Quest). They have tried to overwrite C. Darwin’s contribution to science, and to replace it with a theistic-science in the process.
   
  It seems the question for scientists who are religious or theologically inclined is simply this: who are you willing to follow as an authority on the topic of evolution, in ALL its varieties, shapes and forms? Do you subscribe to evolution as a ‘theory of everything’? If so, from where do you get your ideas about evolution outside of natural(istic) science? Do you accept the testimonies of Richard Dawkins (and his memes), Paul and Patricia Churchland (and their philosophies of mind), Daniel Dennett, E.O. Wilson, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott, Thomas Nagel, et al.? Or are you willing to search for other possibilities in areas that have yet to be explored?
   
  In His Peace,
   
  Gregory

Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote: It would seem to me that a case could be made that human reason does evolve.
1. in our human population, there exists quite a diversity of levels of reason (a la IQ and ability to abstract) and approaches to learning (visual, aural, etc.). The mere existence of many such states invites consideration of the operation of an evolutionary process. But more to the point, to the extent that any of these "states" is preferrable at any given time, for any reason, then there is "space" for the evolution of the reasoning capacity and processes.
2. if there is any drift of any sensory capability up or down, or emergence of some hitherto latent sensory capacity to any significant (however small) degree, the reasoning would need to evolve inextricably for that sensory resource to be of any benefit.

Also, we are a bit too constrained in our own narrow time frame to be able to apply tools that would measure or make us aware of longitudinal multi-generational "drift" of reasoning processes, so that would appear to invalidate any conclusion that human reason is static.

Or so it seemeth to me... JimA

David Opderbeck wrote:
    Isn't it just inaccurate to use the term "evolution" to mean "change"? Doesn't "evolution" specifically mean "natural selection acting on random genetic mutations?" That's why Dawkins had to invent something like "memes" -- he needs the cultural equivalent of a "gene" that can be acted upon by natural selection. So maybe here's another one: human reason doesn't evolve. Reasoned decisions aren't always random and they are in some sense beyond natural selection precisely because they are purposeful and reasoned. Unless there's no such thing as free will.
  
 
  On 3/17/06, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote: Please toggle your memory Dave - 'have been defined' (passive voice) is wanting. Otherwise, it seems that you're simply buying into what Dawkins says. Just like for D. Dennett, for Dawkins everything evolves. If evolution is really a 'theory of everything,' such thinking about 'memes' is exactly what the theory calls for. I'm intent to dispell that notion. It seems that others at ASA are ready and willing to identify things that don't evolve either.
   
  Arago
  
 
  "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Chinese Proverb

                
---------------------------------
Enrich your life at Yahoo! Canada Finance
Received on Fri Mar 24 12:12:05 2006