Re: [asa] Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics Introduction now available

Hi Dave,
Wow – three IT related posts from 3 different authors in a single day …
that's got to be a record here!

Hi Greg,

*Re: broadening biological evolution & definitions E2 to E5*
Yes this is probably an important discussion. But I believe much of the
evidence and discussion for E2-E5 happens much before humans actually make
their appearance on earth. So, from the beginning of life on earth ~4BYA to
about 100,000 years ago or so, we are really only talking about biological
evolution aren't we? I can see that we need to be careful to extrapolate
too much from biological evolutionary theory into other areas, but again,
aren't these definitions useful *to biologists and anyone else trying to
understand biological evolution?*

*Re: definition E1*
As Allan mentions, his E1 definition is descriptive and not prescriptive,
and is not related to any teleology. And it is definitely a valid use and
one I see all the time in my work. I work in computer software and the way
I see the word "evolve" or "evolution" used really is synonymous with
"change over time". This can have either positive or negative connotations;
it can be used as change with a purpose, or change without direction or
purpose; it can mean change that results in a worse state, or change that
results in a better state. It all depends on the context.

For example, mature companies that have been using information technology
for quite some time often have a wide variety of older technologies & older
business processes in place that matched business requirements in the
past. But often, these business requirements change over time – the term
sometimes used is *"business requirements have evolved"*. They may have
evolved because of a change in business focus (ie. the company changed their
own business requirements) or because of a change in external business
factors (ie. the company had little influence on the changes in requirements
and is reacting to external change). *Used here, evolution is simply
descriptive (and may or may not have been because of teleology – it is
irrelevant in this context).*

Now, the company needs to change their IT solutions to meet these
requirements. Sometimes a wholescale rewrite of their systems may be
required. Often though, the less risky & more practical / less costly idea
is to change things slowly. In this sense, *IT management tries to evolve
their systems to meet new requirements.* Ie. they are actively driving and
managing a slow change in their own IT environment. *Used here, evolve is
both prescriptive and teleological.*

Some companies let their IT infrastructure degenerate so badly that it puts
their entire business at risk. Often this is because of poor business
management; new IT solutions are implemented willy-nilly without proper
planning, IT hardware and software are not maintained properly, and no
thought is put into an IT strategy. New management will come in and declare
*"We can not let our IT systems continue to evolve like this". Here, evolve
is used as a description of what has happened because of a lack of
teleology. *

I guess I'm not sure what your concern is here. I think you may be worried
that some of the assumptions in E6 can creep into E1. But I believe Allan's
essays explicitly state this is not the case.

thanks,

On 5/19/08, SteamDoc@aol.com <SteamDoc@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Since I am being invoked and criticized in this thread ....
>
> Gregory Arago wrote:
> ----------------------------------------
> "Harvey's definitions, which I've read, says that "evolve really is used as
> a synonym for change." This is the definition I'm challenging, following in
> the footsteps of other sociologists, e.g. A. Giddens and P. Sztompka (both
> renowned and not minor players, one in England, advisor to Tony Blair, the
> other was President of the ISA). Harvey says E1 is "clearly no problem." I'm
> saying he's missing the bigger picture. Thus, Harvey's definition needs to
> be updated; evolution is not and should not be (whoa, naturalistic fallacy)
> claimed synonymous with 'change.' He is wrong to perpetuate the total
> evolutionistic (TE) fallacy."
> ---------------------------------------
>
> To start on the same page, this is something from "Chapter 5" of my online
> "course" here:
> http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/sci-nature/
> I hope if Gregory were to read the whole chapter, rather than one
> excerpt, he would recognize that he has misunderstood me.
>
> What Gregory seems to have missed is the fact that in this section where he
> thinks I am advocating a position he abhors, I am writing DESCRIPTIVELY, not
> prescriptively.
>
> My whole point in this part of the essay is that the word "evolution" is
> used in many different ways, and that it is important in discussion to be
> clear on what one means when that word is used. I should think Gregory
> would be standing up and applauding me at this point, because he so
> constantly harps on people's failure to define exactly what they mean by the
> word (even in cases where the context makes it pretty clear to others that
> biological evolution is meant).
>
> My meaning E-1 is simply describing a fact of English usage. It is
> undeniable that the word "evolution" is sometimes used in English to
> describe simply "change over time" with no implication of Darwinian
> mechanisms -- we might talk about the evolution of a weather system or the
> evolution of symptoms as one goes through a disease. Gregory may not like
> that usage of the word (which I believe is the original English
> meaning, from long before Darwin), and I am not particularly advocating it,
> but one will find that meaning in the dictionary and it is a fact that the
> usage happens. Recognizing this English usage does not imply endorsement of
> any particular metaphysics; it is just another reason to be clear about our
> meanings when we use the word.
>
> Gregory has also misunderstood my "clearly no problem" with regard to this
> meaning E-1. I was NOT saying that the USAGE is "no problem". While I
> don't find that English usage as objectionable as Gregory apparently does,
> usage is simply not at all what I was talking about at that point. The
> context of this chapter is biological evolution and whether or not it is a
> threat to Christian faith. My statements about the degree to which meanings
> E-1 to E-6 might be a "problem" do not refer to whether the usage is
> problematic, but to whether the concept being described by the usage
> (whatever words might be used) should be a problem for Christian theology.
> So in saying E-1 "should be no problem" I was simply saying that the idea
> that life on earth has changed over time in and of itself "should be no
> problem" for Christians. The other meanings starting with E-2 begin to talk
> about aspects of how that change over time may have happened (common
> ancestry, Darwinian mechanisms, etc.), and some of those concepts can be
> more of a "problem" for some Christians.
>
> I hope that clears up the confusion.
>
> Allan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
> "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
> attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at
> AOL Food <http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001>.
>

-- 
Steve Martin (CSCA)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.