Re: [asa] Cosmological Evolution?

“The cosmos is certainly ‘changing,’ but I wonder why people (esp. cosmologists) would use the concept of ‘evolution’ to describe that/those change(s).” - Arago
      
  ¨Bill Hamilton replied: “Howard Van Till in his book, "The Fourth Day..." describes the process of stellar evolution, wherein a star begins by fusing hyhdrogen into helium, and when the hyhdrogen is depleted, burns helium, fusing it into a heavier element (I forgot which). This process continues, yielding ever heavire elements, which are thrown off -- through boiling off or through novas -- to make them available to other stars or for planet formation. It is an orderly process which generates all the elements of the periodic table -- thus enabling the raw materials for life to be available. One dictionary definition of evolution is "1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form." (American Heritage online Dictionary) So I don't think "evolution" is off the mark.” (bolding mine)
   
  Thanks for your response Bill. It helps me to understand your position regarding how the raw materials of life became available. What follows is a linguistic analysis of your paragraph about why you don’t think ‘evolution’ is off the mark. It may not count as a ‘scientific’ response, but it is analytical nonetheless.
   
  In your first three sentences you use the word ‘process’ 3 times – ‘the process of stellar evolution,’ ‘process continues’ and ‘an orderly process which generates.’ The dictionary you quote adds the word ‘change’ and the idea of ‘complexification.’ I won’t address the latter concept (and certainly won’t here touch the word ‘better’), but the previous two (i.e. ‘process’ and ‘change’) let me suggest are imperfect synonyms for ‘evolution.’
   
  If ‘evolution’ were synonymous with ‘process’ and with ‘change,’ then everything involved in a process would be ‘evolving’ and everything changing would also be ‘evolving.’ From my pov that gives way too much credit to a theory originally coined by a botanist/biologist/naturalist and it stretches the definition of evolution outside of science (proper) into a metaphysical realm (which is what people are charging i+d with). Surely there are processes that should not be described as ‘evolving’ and changes that are not ‘products of evolution?’ ‘Evolution’ is rather a particular type of process or a particular type of change, but it is not all processes or all changes.
   
  Please excuse the delay in response to this thread. I'm actually in another country now, but can carry on the dialogue in the coming days. Two new threads at ASA also involve this topic and Robert Shneider recently invoked 'cosmological evolution' (still undefined), as a way to "stay in the realm of science and not muck up[s] the discussion with philosophical meanings." Actually, I wrote something more after what's above, but it would seem better to pause here and ask if we are on the same page or not.
   
  New Year's cheers,
   
  Gregory Arago

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 2 13:03:11 2007