RE: [asa] Evolution - A Biological Law, a Social-Cultural Assumption

Please excuse the delay in responding to the thoughtful posts in this thread.
   
  Thank you, Jon and Paul, for your encouragement to write and publish on the theme of ‘evolution’ as it is used within the human-social sciences. Yes, it has been done and is being done. I’ve published one article already (though you won’t find it anywhere in America, except in a few private collections) and have two more to be published in autumn 2008 (these may or may not sometime be available on-line).
   
  I can assure you that there is no hostility on my behalf towards natural scientists, rather we have differing ways of perceiving the same general or specific topic and then discuss, question and sometimes ‘argue’ for it in this on-line medium. Isn’t that what we’re all doing here? I find it especially important in light of the 'biological challenge to social science' (Fuller 2005) to defend the sovereignty of human-social scientific thought and to defend the right to express perspectives that even may be ‘outside the box’ of typical American 'science and religion' discourse, while still engaging that national discourse. Such is the case when speaking about social-cultural evolution as an assumption and not as a ‘law’ (e.g. Talcott Parsons).
   
  Holmes Rolston III on Lamarckian selection is insightful to the problem of natural selection being used to account for too much (which is why I harp on about ‘the nature of’ and how natural scientists seem to elevate the meaning of ‘nature’ far out of proportion), though it does not really get INTO human-social thought. As a philosopher and contributor to science and religion discourse, his views are surely welcome, yet they do not seem to penetrate the topic of ‘human nature’ as deeply as they could. This is where the topic of evolution is most acute, and where physical-natural scientists are capable of telling only part of the story. (Yes, of course, scientists at ASA almost always humbly admit that their scientific perspectives are inevitably partial and incomplete and that supra-scientific knowledge has its relevant power as well! -)
   
  I have tried to demonstrate to the ASA list that there are multiple ways of viewing the concept ‘evolution’ (and by implication, though I speak little about it, also ‘intelligent design’), but this seems to have been lost to the delegation of ‘strong-TE/EC’ supporters. It seems, Paul, that in your recent ‘conversion’ from PC to TE (though did you consider EC – evolutionary creationism – as well?) you are taking a ‘weak’ or ‘soft’ approach, in that you don’t elevate evolution to try to explain (almost) all things. In other words, for you evolution has a rather obviously limited usage in the sphere of theology. And you have not tied your wagon to process theism either. I would be pleased if you would share some of your ideas about ‘things that don’t evolve’ (into being or having become) for the benefit of ‘strong-TEs’ who seem to struggle to imagine anything not evolving (cf. Heraclitus). It makes me optimistic to learn of a TE who acknowledges there are such things that
 don’t evolve! David Campbell, for example, suggested (by inference) recently that ‘cyclical change’ is non-evolutionary (see below). Please correct me David, if I've misunderstood you.
   
  In response to David C.’s claim that “I would say that societies, cultures, etc. do show non-cyclic change over time and can legitimately be said to evolve,” the answer given by David O. appears to suffice (see below) and was not challenged. Choice – as the character Neo reminded us in The Matrix: the difference (problem) is human choice (bring in theology to figure in/out the imago Dei). Should we then say, David, that the example of ‘cyclical change’ equates with something not-evolving? It would be an eye-opener of sorts for ‘strong TEs’ to humbly admit this.
   
  Seeking sovereignty,
  Gregory
   
   
  “The problem with this kind of comparison, I think, is that society changes as a result of intentional human agency. This establishes a level of causation that doesn't really have an analogue in biological evolution…I don't think we should confuse this transitive dimension of society with the sort of change that happens in biological evolution – otherwise we end up with silly reductionist ideas like memes. Human society is an emergent property that isn't reducible to any non-teleological structure.” – David O. in response to David C.

Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote: Gregory,
   
  I've read a number of your posts in the last two years in which I confess to feeling quite lost as to your meaning, your purpose, and which seemed to express mainly hostility toward the position of some in ASA, without clearly elucidating the positive message you were trying to convey.
   
  I feel like your title and first paragraph below are an excellent introduction to an article that ought to be written and submitted for publication, on the influence of evolution within the social sciences, the distinction that ought to be made between the biological and social varieties of evolution, and the consequences of evolutionary thought on the social sciences. In fact, I was disappointed that you hadn't gone on to write that article. It seems to me that if an article like this were written, as a scholarly paper on the subject and not just carping about how "natural scientists" at ASA don't understand the problem of evolution in modern social science, I could see how such an article could be a positive contribution to the purposes of ASA in promoting Christian as well as scientific truth.
   
  Jon Tandy
    

    
   
          Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:03:52 -0500
  Gregory,
   
  I am one ASA TE (recently converted from PC) who has no problem separating biological evolution from sociological evolution. I have absolutely no trouble "admitting that there are things that do not "evolve." In fact, I recently learned the hard way from this List to add "biological" to evolution whenever that is what I mean.
   
  Perhaps what is needed is a new word to describe forms of "evolution" other than biological, ideally a word that would work for the inorganic sector as well as the cultural realm.
   
  Along with Jon Tandy, I would like to urge you to write a paper on the influence of evolution (or lack thereof) on the social sciences for PSCF or some other suitable forum, assuming that it hasn't already been done. Has it already been done?
   
  Holmes Rolston III touches on the subject in his "Science & Religion: A Critical Survey," where he says (p. 94): "When natural selection moves into the cultural realm, what is selected is no longer merely genetic mutations, but, more importantly, selection is of acquired and learning-transmitted traits, a notion more Lamarckian than Darwinian."
   
  Paul Bruggink (ASA Member)
  Clarington, PA

   
   
  -----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 7:40 AM
To: ASA
Subject: [asa] Evolution - A Biological Law, a Social-Cultural Assumption

  Evolution: A Biological Law, a Social-Cultural Assumption
   
  Despite the fact that most natural scientists who accept biological evolution have elevated (read: accepted) evolution as a biological law, much the same as gravity is considered a universal law; the same law is not applicable to human society and culture. Evolution may be a biological law, but it is simply a social-cultural assumption (though Darwin was nevertheless inspired by Rev. T. Malthus). This assumption of evolution in society and culture, including ethics, morals, values, language, meanings, purposes and teleology, is what the majority of Americans are rightfully and stubbornly against. It is not evolutionary biology that is the REAL problem. Clarify this argument and the difficulty of defending evolution merely in biology, geology, botany, ecology, etc. will be much easier to make.
   
  ‘Concessions’: what are they? They are not, in this conversation, places where one can buy ice-cream cones and cotton candy at a local fair. Concessions: this is recognizing that you have to give a little bit and be willing to stand back from your dug-in feet, head and heart. Concessions: this is what TE’s at ASA must be willing to make in order to become relevant, and not just a marginal group of religious natural scientists who have found a way to individually balance between being a scientist and being a religious person, that the average man or woman on the street hasn’t realized (and doesn’t seem to want).
   
  TE’s have much to give in concession because they have intertwined their theologies with evolutionary biology so deeply that they find it hard to admit there is ANYTHING that does not evolve (cf. discussion on ASA list last year). In this situation, aside from safely positing that the Creator doesn’t evolve, they are just as guilty as E.O. Wilson, D. Dennett, R. Dawkins, S. Blackmore, M. & S. Harris and S. Pinker of elevating evolution into a world-view that is beyond its theoretical province. The REAL problem is that TEs and ECs have (perhaps unwittingly) intertwined their theologies with social-cultural evolution as well.
   
  Question for American ASA voters: there is much talk of [time for] ‘change’ right now in the (long, long, long and drawn-out) lead-up to the U.S. presidential election in November. Would anyone at ASA like to make the argument that American politics are currently ‘evolving’ into the election of a new President? If using the term ‘evolution’ in this case is silly, we can expect TE’s and EC’s at ASA to acknowledge it and say so.
   
  Is it natural and just simple, everyday progress?
   
  Political cycle = no evolution.
   
  But then again, who ever said that social-cultural evolution has any valid status at all?
   
  Arago

       
---------------------------------
 All new Yahoo! Mail -
---------------------------------
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 18 14:44:47 2008