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

Hi Bill,

I've had sort of an epiphany on this - which, I'll just warn you, leads
to the danger that I'm currently wanting all the other children to play
with my new toy. Please forgive me if I temporarily demonstrate a
somewhat pathological level of enthusiasm on the topic; I'm sure I'll be
fine after a stiff medicinal brandy and a little lie down...

Anyhow, my new-found perspective on this is that it's important to be
careful to distinguish different usages of the term "evolution" NOT so
that one can practice better science, but so as to avoid
misunderstanding amongst non-practitioners.

In this regard, it's quite proper to speak of the mouse trap "evolving"
when one means that "it" shows some sort of development over time - a
development which can be demonstrated (as you do) by appeal to a series
of ancestors of increasingly refined function (I had written "increasing
complexity" but I think that perhaps speaking of "increasingly refined
function" captures the essence better?).

What I think is at issue, however, is the need to ALSO consider not just
what various understandings of evolution have in common, but also how
they DIFFER (writes he in big letters in the hope that this one central
point won't be lost).

So, yes, mouse traps "evolve" a bit like ducks. But they also "evolve" a
bit differently than ducks. For mouse traps we have to invoke the
terminology of artifice (i.e. intelligence and design), whilst for ducks
we can meaningfully speak of "dumb" mechanisms which are "purposeless".

What I'm wanting to get at (and I think Gregory also - but he may speak
for himself on the matter) is the need to keep this distinction in mind
lest one fall into the rather silly error of taking biological evolution
- which is in many ways THE paradigm instance of evolutionary concepts -
and extrapolating that to cover literally everything.

Now, lest one immediately respond that such an extrapolation would NEVER
happen, I have to point out that it DOES happen and that such happenings
can be enormously influential (in a bad way). Take, for instance,
Dawkins notion of a meme. This is perhaps THE most telling example of
how NOT to obfuscate the meaning of the term "evolution"; UNLESS, of
course, one wishes to take advantage of precisely that confusion which
arises when one ambiguates one's terms. In respects of the meme concept,
I think it clear that by drawing analogy to a virus Dawkins implies that
the same sort of "evolutionary" process is in action in both instances
(why does "meme" sound so very much like "gene"). A very well understood
scientific concept (biological evolution) thus lends quite illegitimate
credence to an idea which, when used as anything OTHER than a metaphor,
is palpably false. Even if memes DO exist, the "evolve" very much like
mousetraps, and quite unlike ducks.

Note that the real danger lies in wait (as I try to point out in my post
on the semantics of "evolution") not for those who talk about
evolutionary processes (of any sort) in their professional capacity -
they know what they mean and what they don't mean, and it's quite
unnecessary for those in other disciplines to tell physical scientists
how to suck eggs. The danger, rather, faces those outside the sciences
for whom "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - or did people miss
the point that Gregory Arago speaks precisely as a non-scientist
attempting to draw attention to a confusion caused by the use of
language within the scientific community? People's claim that Gregory
"just doesn't understand what is meant when we speak of 'evolution'" is
exactly what Gregory's being saying all along.

But whatever Gregory's problem, the point to which I would now wish to
make is that a principle of Christian charity demands that we protect
the innocent from suffering the collateral damage of our professional
engagements and qualifying references to "evolution" would assist to
that end. The options are to either clarify the use of the term
"evolution" or exclude outsiders from one's circle of discourse.

I am, however, quite aware how pedantic such qualification can appear,
particularly when it is not, in proper English usage, even remotely
improper to use "evolution" in quite disparate contexts. I'm not sure
how one deals with such a difficulty, but it helps to acknowledge that
it exists and the extent of its implications.

Now for that brandy and a little lie down...

Kindest Regards,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

Bill Hamilton wrote:
> Gregory wrote
>
> As a student of human-made things, including technology, my view is that
> technological evolution is nonsense! Humans (consciously) make
> technology, therefore technology doesn't 'evolve.'
>
> Most technology is developed by trial and error. One method of
> accomplishing a function is devised, then later on a new technology
> emerges that provides a better method and developers incorporate it. And
> if a being who had no acquaintance with humans could look at the history
> of our technology over many years, it might get the impression that
> evolution had taken place. A couple examples might help.
>
> First, what about Mike Behe's famous example of irreducible complexity:
> the mousetrap? Probably the idea of a trap came about when one of our
> ancestors found an animal crushed by a falling tree. He got the idea
> that he could suspend a tree branch above an animal trail and drop it on
> an animal passing under the branch. Then he or another inventive person
> realized that he could prop the branch up with a stick to which he
> attached some bait, so he wouldn't have to wait by the trap all day.
> Eventually someone realized a spring could be substituted for gravity --
> initially springy wood, eventually steel.
> Through many steps we get the mouse trap and the many other varieties of
> traps we have today.
>
> Take another example: cars. The Ford Model T had a separate coil for
> each sspark plug. Probably because the separate set of points each coil
> had to have were unreliable someone got the idea of using a single set
> of points and a distributer. That arrangement was used until power
> electronics that could stand the environment of an engine compartment
> became available. If you look under the hood of one of today's cars --
> GM anyway -- you'll see a separate coil for each spark plug. New
> technology from another field was adopted when it became available.
>
> William E. (Bill) Hamilton, Ph.D.
> 248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
> http://www.bricolagia.blogspot.com/
> Want to help a child?:
> http://www.compassion.com/sponsor/index.asp?referer=85198
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 21 16:31:48 2008