Hi all,
For some time I have followed the exchanges between various participants
regarding the semantics of the term "evolution". At first, I had formed
the view that Gregory Arago was guilty of some degree of linguistic
pedantry, but certain recent remarks of his have caused me to alter my
view on the matter somewhat.
For what it's worth, I should like to offer a brief sketch of the
problem as I now see it (although "brief" is a matter of perspective -
it's actually unduly verbose!). I hope folks will forgive the stunted
nature of the piece - it's not an essay, but a series of connected
observations: an extended logical syllogism if you will. I should make
clear that this is not an attempt to understand Gregory's position. The
piece may or may not reflect Gregory's position or concerns - my only
claim is that it is currently how I see the matter (although my views
are currently in a mild state of flux!).
The only other prefatory remark I will make is that the issue is - as
Greg has often pointed out - an issue of sociology of science rather
than one facing biology in particular or the physical sciences in
general. I believe that physical scientists, and biologists in
particular, can safely ignore everything which follows with perhaps no
detriment to the pursuit of their particular ends. The difficulty arises
when one considers the situation as it pertains to the impact of science
on broader society. And it is this broader social context that provides
significance to the following. Keeping this in mind will, I think, help
to avoid the feel that HPSS (history, philosophy, sociology of science)
is offering a CRITIQUE of the the physical sciences in and of
themselves. Rather it is an observation of how the physical sciences
have influenced broader society - truly a sociology of science concern.
1. The Basis of the Problem
a. Ambiguity: Breadth of semantic range
I begin by observing the ambiguity of the term "evolution". The point
need not be labored as it is agreed by all that it has a broad scope of
meaning. Allan Harvey's useful discussion of the point has already been
cited and I need say no more on the matter.
Ref: Allan Harvey, "The E-word (Evolution)"
(http://preview.tinyurl.com/5qnlsy)
b. Clarity: Discipline Specific Usage
Where the use of the term "evolution" remains relatively unproblematic
is when it is used within the scope of a single discipline where meaning
is restricted by context. Thus, a biologist speaking of evolution in the
context of (say) the historical origins of a particular species will not
mean the same thing as an astro-physicist using the same term in the
context of stellar formation.
Two points are here understood and would not require clarification by
the practitioners of the respective disciplines;
i. that the term "evolution" when used WITHIN each respective discipline
makes reference to a particular set of discipline specific concepts.
ii. that these discipline specific concepts would not (necessarily!) be
transferable - that is to say, for example, no astro-physicist speaking
of the "evolution" of stars would mistakenly consider DNA replication a
significant factor in "evolution" as conceptualized within his/her
discipline.
2. Talking at Cross Purposes - the SoS perspective
It seems clear to me that at this point much of the debate on the ASA
list has centered around Gregory Arago pointing out that one cannot
merely assume that one is using the term "evolution" in any particular
Disciplinary Specific Usage. Others - perhaps precisely because they ARE
accustomed to using the term in a particular disciplinary context(?) -
have strongly disagreed. They have argued that context fixes meaning -
that if one is talking about (say) the origins of life then one need not
repeatedly resort to cumbersome qualifications, viz: BIOLOGICAL evolution.
For reasons mentioned in 1.b.i & ii. I cannot but agree with this
position - HOWEVER I now come to see that those OUTSIDE the respective
disciplines CANNOT be assumed to be familiar with discipline specific
usage of the term "evolution" EVEN WHEN THE TERM IS USED WITH RIGOR BY
PRACTITIONERS WITHIN PARTICULAR DISCIPLINES.
What becomes significant is that this has implications with respect to
broader society and hence becomes a legitimate point of critique by
those engaged in Sociology of Science. This will require demonstration
(below).
3. Equivocation: Muddying the waters by "careless" usage
Craig Rusbalt's material on the ASA site (to which Gregory drew
attention in his response to my recent post) offers an example of how
the apparently simple situation so far described can quickly descend
into difficulties.
Note here Gregory's specific remark;
<quote>
Universal evolution or, as the ASA education link (Craig Rusbalt) calls
it Total Evolution is my main target.
</quote>
Searching for "Total Evolution" via the ASA site search facility offered
multiple hits on the term. These provided interesting material for
reflection, but two almost identical remarks caught my eye;
<quote>
In theistic evolution, usually "evolution" means a Total Evolution of
everything — with astronomical evolution (to form galaxies and solar
systems) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus
chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution
(for the development of life) — but it can mean only biological evolution.
(http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/origins/te-cr.htm)
</quote>
<quote>
A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation
* — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a
universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the
"evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical
evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution
(to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first
life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it
can refer only to biological evolution.
(http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te2-cr.htm)
</quote>
Consider two points (the first being relatively trivial);
a. Note how "total evolution" is here claimed to be the common
understanding of theistic evolutionists. I believe that if this is kept
in mind it will make certain of Gregory Arago's objections to Theistic
Evolution more understandable.
b. "Total Evolution" - ambiguity of usage
Above I had suggested that "evolution" is a relatively innocuous term
when used within a particular disciplinary context. That is to say, it
should be considered relatively innoffensive to suggest that a biologist
using the term "evolution" would be understood as making reference to
BIOLOGICAL evolution whilst in the context of astro-physics the
reference would (perhaps) be to STELLAR evolution (it could, of course,
mean formation of galaxies, or other phenomena - but this is a minor
quibble). AND that in so doing the practitioners would be making
reference to quite different groups of concepts.
BUT (!) note that "Total Evolution" is taken to refer to a cluster of
disparate discipline specific concepts. This entails a CLEAR
equivocation in the use of the term "evolution"; that is total EVOLUTION
entails a quite broad and generic understanding of the term "evolution",
whereas astronomical EVOLUTION, geological EVOLUTION, chemical
EVOLUTION, and biological EVOLUTION imply discipline specific concepts.
Here I make two critical observations;
i. practitioners in the physical sciences are most likely to find this
equivocation unproblematic. That is to say, a physical scientist will
most likely NOT confuse the point being made: that "evolution" can be
taken as a very broad conceptual umbrella and in such a case the term
merely means "change over time" OR it can be taken as a discipline
specific concept meaning (perhaps) change in allele frequencies or some
such. And whilst an astro-physicist would not perhaps understand the
meaningful of "change in allele frequencies" he/she would likely still
understand that the topic at hand is that of biological evolution. That
is to say, the claim "evolution is change in allele frequencies" would
NOT be misunderstood as a general remark about all things which change
over time (i.e. NOT a remark about "total evolution") NOR would it be
misunderstood as a remark about the specific discipline of astro-physics.
ii. NON-practitioners in the physical sciences, however, are in a
difficult position. THEY may not understand enough about the various
usages of the term "evolution" in order to avoid difficulties. THEY may
merely assume that "evolution" is a fundamental scientific principle
which states something like "all things change over time according to
predetermined physical laws" and THUS assume that "total evolution" is
fundamental scientific principle which describes change over time in
EVERY IMAGINABLE CONTEXT - not just that of the physical sciences BUT
also within every conceivable social, cultural, linguistic, and other field.
4. The consequence (and the SoS objection)
Let us try to see the critical point of the discussion;
Let us allow that within the scope of individual disciplines - biology
in particular - there have arisen certain concepts which provide
powerful descriptions (the HOW) of the basis of change over time (the WHAT).
HOWEVER,
This cannot be said for ALL disciplines. To give particular instance,
using "evolution" in reference to such disciplines as rely upon human
creativity and design can only occur IF such reference is metaphorical.
That is to say, poetry does not "evolve" according to discernible
natural mechanisms, nor does car design, nor philosophy, nor theology,
nor cookery, nor baseball.
NOW CONSIDER;
It is precisely this above point which is deliberately overlooked by
authors such as Richard Dawkins who would quite blatantly imply that
because it is possible to discern underlying mechanisms in BIOLOGICAL
evolution therefore the same sort of discovery must be possible with
respect to ALL OTHER PHENOMENA.
Dawkins says this specifically of religious belief - denying that it has
any element of rationality - but is instead a "meme" whose action can be
compared to that of a virus.
What seems to me important is that it is precisely the Sociology of
Science which allows us to discern the extend to which the
misunderstanding of "evolution" within contemporary society has resulted
in an undue reverence for the physical sciences and thus allowed them to
be applied OUTSIDE their appropriate sphere.
OR, to put it another way, I am of the view that organizations such as
ASA - who see at least part of their task as informing the public about
the sciences - would find a sociology of science approach helpful - NOT
because such an approach would make for better science, but because it
would make for a better understanding of the place of science in
contemporary society.
Here I think I have come to sympathise with Greg's repeated call to
qualify the use of the term "evolution". The problem is NOT that
physical scientists, or ASA members, or participants in particular
discussions, need such qualification to make sense to one another - it
is because such use of language lends legitimacy to the myth, prevalent
in broader society, that ALL phenomena - from snails to toilet seats to
Beethoven's 5th symphony - are the products of natural processes
discoverable to the physical sciences. And it is precisely this
misunderstanding that makes possible the quite undeserved eminence given
to people such as Richard Dawkins.
I also understand, I think, why it is that Greg objects to the claims of
"total evolution" (and to "theistic evolution" if it does, indeed,
entail "total evolution") for, it now seems to me, that Greg's objection
is that such a term comes dangerously close to being a claim about
everything that exists due to the fact that its implicit restrictions -
understood only to those familiar with its claims - are all to often
overlooked. The fault with such a term is that - despite its IMPLIED
exclusion of certain phenomena from the category of evolving things
(i.e. things that change ACCORDING TO NATURAL "LAWS") - it does not
CLEARLY DELINEATE those disciplines (theology, philosophy, car repair,
tiddly-winks) where "evolution" is simply not a helpful descriptive label.
Such is the matter as I now see it.
Sorry for the length of the above, but I hope it proves helpful. I
would, of course, welcome any feedback folk may care to offer.
Kindest Regards,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 19 19:31:22 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 19 2008 - 19:31:22 EDT