Re: Are there things that don't evolve?

*David O., for example, seems to use the word 'random' pejoratively, but is
there not a positive sense of randomness too?*

I didn't mean it perjoratively. I meant it simply in the sense of
"statistically uncorellated with any observable agency." That's the sense
in which I understand most TE's to use the term when referring to biological
evolution. I would use "random" perjoratively if it meant "uncaused by God"
or "not contingent on God's will," but from what I understand that is not
the TE position.

Greg, I'm having a little trouble following your concerns here. If Ted used
the phrase "theory of everything" to describe "evolution," I don't think he
meant to endorse Dawkins' atheism. My understanding ot the TE position is
that "evolution" properly understood is *not* a "theory of everything"
because it speaks only to observable natural mechanisms. Other questions,
such as contingency vs. chance (in the global sense of a universe that
exists contingent on God's will vs. by mere chance), should be left to other
fields of inquiry, including theology. (Whether I fully subscribe to this
personally I'm not so sure -- presently I think I lean towards an
epistemology that's more presuppositional -- but this is my understanding of
the basic TE position).

Along these same lines, perhaps you can say everything "evolves" if by
"evolves" you just mean "changes." Even here I think we'd have to exclude
God from this, unless one wants to endorse open theism. But if we use
"evolves" that broadly, it doesn't seem to be a meaningful term anymore.

On 3/24/06, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> 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." – 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 connec ted 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 mo re
> 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
>
> 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 n ot 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 trag edy. 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 try ing 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 sc ientists 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 t he 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* <http://finance.yahoo.ca/>
>
>
Received on Fri Mar 24 13:08:52 2006