Re: [asa] The word "evolution"

Randy,
I think you're right in the comment in your last paragraph. The basic
problem is that the philosophical doctrines, especially materialism, are
popularly connected to science. That science deals with material causes
(even sociological and psychological matters have to be connected to the
physical) does not "prove" that there are only material causes. The
neo-atheists are exacerbating the problem.
Dave (ASA)

On Mon, 26 May 2008 17:59:35 -0400 "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
writes:
I just noticed that one of the feature articles in the current May 2008
issue of Physics Today is titled "The evolution of a dedicated
synchrotron light source." That spurred me to finally comment on the
seemingly endless fray on this list about the proper use of the word
"evolution."

I'd like to cast my vote for a rather broad usage of the word. I suppose
this would be at the other end of the spectrum from the more narrow usage
that Greg recommends. Much of my thinking was influenced by recently
listening to a course on the history of the theory of evolution by Ed
Larsen. He spent a fair amount of time discussing concepts of evolution
prior to Darwin. If I understood him correctly, evolution was a broad
term used to express the idea that an entity was derived from a previous
and similar, though different, form. In contrast, alternative views were
that of stasis, or eternal existence of that entity, and catastrophism,
or sudden appearance of that entity independent from any pre-existing
forms.

The concept of evolution was independent of any source of variation or of
any mechanism of selection and seemed to be broader than organic life.
Hence, it seems to me quite appropriate to use the term "evolution" for
any state that develops from a prior state through some type of change,
whether it be human-mediated or according to natural law, or anything
else.

It seems appropriate to refer, as the editors of Physics Today do, to
technological successes as having evolved. I'm particularly interested in
the sociology of scientific research and of technology development. (and
I do agree with Greg that we need much more emphasis on social sciences
in the ASA) I've closely observed two separate DRAM development teams in
IBM and have seen how each of them evolved along slightly different
paths. Their "group knowledge" seems to exist independent of any
particular individual. It was a major challenge to document that group
knowledge and to transfer that knowledge to a different group.

In general, the use of the term "evolution" is easily understood from the
context as in the title quoted above. When used as a stand-alone term, as
in a pollster's rendering of "Do you believe in evolution?", the meaning
is not as clear but given the culture wars around us, virtually everyone
understands it to mean "the development of all living species from a
common ancestor" with primary mechanisms for change being any
modification of genetics and selection being primarily, though not
exclusively, natural selection. What confuses the issue is the
oft-appended assumption "without purpose and without any divine
guidance." This does not seem to be an appropriate use of the term but is
so common that this must be clarified for many people.

Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 26 18:21:26 2008