Re: [asa] Cosmological Evolution?

--- Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> “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.

Actually it's Howard Van Till's position (and probably that of the astronomy
community as a whole)

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.’

I won't touch the word 'better' either. And I agree that 'process' and 'change'
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.

Agreed, but see the definition of evolution below
>
> Please excuse the delay in response to this thread.
Hey, I've delayed a while too.

I should have provided the Oxford Compact online dictionary's definition of
evolution:

noun 1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to
have developed, especially by natural selection. 2 gradual development. 3
Chemistry the giving off of a gaseous product or of heat. 4 a pattern of
movements or manoeuvres

As you can see 'evolution' has several definitions. I think 'stellar evolution'
falls under definition 2 or 3.

>
> New Year's cheers,

Same to you
>
> Gregory Arago

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
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 Thu Jan 4 11:27:13 2007