Re: [asa] The word "evolution"

Greg wrote:

"Well, so, I take exception to Randy (or at least suggest he should clarify) saying I am promoting a 'narrow usage' of the meaning of 'evolution'. Recently, I said that 'evolution' may indeed be suitable for (all) natural sciences. Is the realm of natural science meant to be a 'narrow usage' of 'evolution? I'd suggest I'm advocating that evolution be situated (cf. limited to) within a generous part of academia!"

I'm simply referring to your preference that "evolution" be limited to natural sciences and be excluded when speaking of "human-made" things. I believe this is a "narrow usage" and is not generally the practice.

"Why not the just avoid the ideologically-charged word 'evolution' completely and speak of 'developing' instead of 'evolving'?"

It is true that the author/editors of the Physics Today article which I cited could have said "The development of..." instead of "The evolution of..." but I contend that the connotation is different. Development focuses on the formation of some entity with less regard to the history and origin. Evolution emphasizes the dependence on and derivation from a previous form. Whether the changes from the previous form were "human-made" or whether the mechanism was by "trial and error" or not are irrelevant. The point is that there is a clear relationship to and derivation from a previous form.

Yes, unfortunately, the word "evolution" has become so ideologically charged that it is often misused but I don't think that this takes away from its proper usage.

No, I'm not trying to suggest how "human-social scientists" should and do use the term. You may restrict it in any way you see fit for your own use. All I am doing is pointing to Physics Today as an example of how physicists use the term, appropriately in my opinion, and I do think I qualify to vote in that election.

Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 27 08:59:30 2008