Re: [asa] The word "evolution"

Hi Randy,

I think you nail the problem with your last paragraph - namely that the
use of the term "evolution" is often assumed/understood to exclude
intelligent agency.

This is not, as has been pointed out, overly problematic in most
contexts - when we say a biological species has "evolved" it clearly (?)
means something different than when we say computer systems have
"evolved". The active participation of intelligent agency being an
obvious (?) aspect of the later.

Here I might just add the tangential remark that invoking "trial and
error" as a factor in the evolution of technology is actually to miss
the significant point that it is not intelligent DESIGN which is here
the issue, but intelligent SELECTION. The creation of new designs may be
"random" but if that design does not function according to the criteria
laid down by an intelligent agent, it will not survive in order to
"reproduce". End of tangential remark!

Where the use of the term "evolution" is particularly problematic is in
connection with religion and theology. The fact is that there are a
great many people who consider that rationality is NOT a determining
factor in religious belief. Indeed, such a view is probably the
prevailing view in Western society. And it accounts, I think, for the
ready acceptance of Dawkin's views on the matter. Were people more
careful with respect to their use of terms - as Gregory urges - then
this would, I think, go some small way toward clarifying the usage of
"evolution" in areas such as religion/theology where the either the
intended meaning is NOT, in fact, quite so clear, OR where the ambiguity
of meaning works in favour of those such as Dawkins who seem to want to
suggest that as "evolution" CAN imply lack of purpose/rationality then
in the case of religion/theology is MUST mean lack of purpose/rationality.

I think that greater clarity as to whether the usage of "evolution" does
or does not exclude purpose/intelligent agency in even "obvious"
contexts (i.e. biology on the one hand, engineering on the other) might
help those of us who have to deal with the very broad and flexible
concept of "evolution" when it is used a label for models of development
in the humanities (social science, philosophy, history, religious
studies, theology, etc)

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

Randy Isaac wrote:
> 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 18:36:55 2008