Re: [asa] Altruism and ID

It's next to impossible to 'restrict' evolution to just 'that specific form,' due to the fact that evolution is one of the most interdisciplinary concepts at use in the academy today. I am quite willing to accept the 'expertise' of biological scientists in their respective fields of interest (noting that biological sciences are not monolithic, i.e. that there are variations across the field in terms of research methods, instruments, sites, and even conclusions, computer simulations being one example that doesn't even always involve biological objects). But neglecting the philosophical importance of evolutionary theory, or for that matter, process philosophy (i.e. the basis for evolutionary theory), is to do an injustice to the topic and would result in an incomprehensive view.
   
  I am reluctant to approach this ground again at ASA. Not much resulted in previous attempts. Let me just address one statement from your post.
   
  "Complex behaviors have been connected to single genes. So it is not unreasonable to suppose that something like altruism could not appear after a single or a simple series of mutations." - Jack

  What does it mean 'appear' (or for that matter, to 'emerge,' which was used last time)? I'll ask the same question asked to Pim, with a twist: is this a gene-centric view of reality that reduces non-physical things to mere manifestations fo physicality? If you prefer not to apply a gene-centric view, then would you be willing to reach for a kind of balance where philosophical and theological language, including language of spiritual things and material things, can be entertained in the same conversation with scientific language? I am not asking for a scientific theology here or for a theological science. Just room to breathe and for natural scientists to show respect and dialogue space when necessary.
   
  My point is here: concepts are not 'biological things.' They therefore do not 'evolve' as biological things. Concepts certainly do change, but 'change' is not synonymous with 'evolve.'
   
  Regards,
  Gregory
   
   
   
Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
          People use the word in evolution in different ways. But the evolution of biological species through random variation and natural selection, and the the transmission of these variations through genes, is specific to biological evolution. For the sake or argument lets restrict evolution for a moment to that specific form of evolution, even though people talk about societies evolving, etc.
   
  But even in the strict biological sense, altruism, could in fact be something that evolves. If there is a gene that makes an animal cooperate, and if by doing so in a certain situation this improves the animals ability to survive, then it will be passed on.
   
  Complex behaviors have been connected to single genes. So it is not unreasonable to suppose that something like altruism could not appear after a single or a simple series of mutations.

       
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 9 16:08:01 2007