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

> 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.<

As a general term, I would use "evolution" to refer to non-cyclical
changes. Thus, the succession of the seasons or one generation
following another through the stages of birth, life, and death are
examples of change that do not fit my definition of evolution, though
the experience of a single individual through life might qualify as a
borderline case. I wouldn't apply "evolution" to things that are
readily, though not inevitably, cyclic, either, such as ice melting.
Some degree of change over time also seems to be implied in what I
think of as "evolution"-radiometric decay or breaking something do not
sound like examples of evolution to me, though accumulated effects of
such events over time might qualify.

This is a very broad use of the term "evolution". It does not imply
that there are any particular similarities between the evolution of
one thing and another above and beyond the fact that both are changing
in a non-repeating fashion. However, it is possible that additional
similarities exist. For example, similar mathematical formulas might
apply to at least certain aspects of the evolution of different
things.

> 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. <

> "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.

I would largely agree with this except for the initial assumption. I
was not making a comparison. I say that, in my opinion, one can
legitimately use the word "evolution" to include biological evolution
as one type and societal change as another type. If I were to compare
the two, I would say that there are several useful parallels between
the two as well as significant differences. In particular,
intentional human agency indeed lacks a close analogue in biological
evolution. (God's intentional agency is of course working in and over
both biological and societal evolution.) However, one can use
similar formulas to look at the spread of genes in a population or at
the spread of ideas in a group of humans. The two are not entirely
unlike. Also, the humans making up society are influenced by our
biological evolutionary heritage in various ways. But biological
evolution is far from adequate as a total explanation of human society
and its changes. Not only are there such factors as human volition
that do not fit well into conventional biologically evolutionary
calculations, but also even apart from those factors, the calculations
are so complex and the data so messy as to make full predictability
impossible, just as physics can have difficulty with trying to
simultaneously deal with the actions of a large number of
independently-moving particles. There are also practical and ethical
constraints on experimenting with humans.

> Should we then say, David, that the example of 'cyclical change' equates with something not-evolving? <

There are good theological reasons to hold that God does not evolve.
Most other things do seem to undergo non-cyclic change of some sort
over time. Thus, it's hard to think of something else that I could
confidently say that it absolutely does not evolve. Maybe elementary
particles would qualify. Among the myriad things that undergo such
change in at least some aspect, for some biological evolution is at
most a poor analogy, and for others it is a useful analogy, model, or
explanation in part, but inadequate for a full picture. I think this
is more or less suggesting that it's hard to entirely rule out a
Heraclitan view of most things-one doesn't step in exactly the same
stream twice.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.