Re: [asa] On the semantics of "evolution" (long)

    Below are some excerpts from Murray Hogg (May 19) that I thought were
very good, persuading me that some of my writing was not very good. I
haven't been following the list-discussions, so I've missed a lot of what's
been said (I'm sure there were many other good ideas by Murray and others),
I've focused on what Murray wrote in this one post.
    Minor omissions (...) and major breaks (.....) are noted, and my
comments are in [[bold double-brackets]].

--------------------------------------------

    The difficulty arises when one considers the situation as it pertains
to the impact of science on broader society,... a sociology of science
concern. .....

    I begin by observing the ambiguity of the term "evolution. ...
    Two points are here understood and would not require clarification
[within the scope of a single discipline where meaning is restricted by
context] 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. .....

    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. ...
    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. .....

    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.
    [[Murray quotes Gregory, who previously said:]]
>Universal evolution or, as the ASA education link (Craig Rusbalt) calls it
>Total Evolution is my main target.
    [[My original definition-sentence made it clear that "Total Evolution"
is "Total FORMATIVE Evolution"; Murray agrees by quoting what I actually
wrote. And my whole page makes it clear that TE does NOT include
metaphysical atheistic evolutionism; in fact, this is one of the major
themes. But I agree with Murray's main argument, that my "Total Evolution"
term allows (or even encourages) abuse, so I changed it.]]
    [[also, it's "Rusbult" not "Rusbalt"]]

    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. ...
    Above I had suggested that "evolution" is a relatively innocuous term
when used within a particular disciplinary context. ...
    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.
    [[Yes it does, but is there a term, besides the ones I've invented,
that is commonly used when referring to a claim, such as that by Howard Van
Till, that everything in formative history was produced by natural
evolution? This could be contrasted with a claim, for example, that
everything was natural evolution except the origin of life which was
miraculous.]]
    i. practitioners in the physical sciences are most likely to find this
equivocation unproblematic. ...
    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.

   [[Murray continues on to explain that FORMATIVE evolution (my term) is
evolution that occurs due to natural mechanisms.]]
   [[And he describes abuses (evolutionism?) by Dawkins.]]

    What seems to me important is that it is precisely the Sociology of
Science which allows us to discern the extent 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.
    [[ yes ]]
    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 too 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.

---------------------------------------

    [[Then, responding to a reply from Rich Blinne, Murray says:]]

    The problem I see with this (and it is the remarks in your post which
have prompted a rethink) is that it can be taken two ways depending upon
where one puts the emphasis;

    [[Yes, although in the earlier version what I explicitly DID write was
clear, it would not be unreasonable for a reader to "run with it."
Therefore, the term needed fixing so I've tried to fix it.]]

Thanks for sharing these great ideas, Murray.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 30 14:29:44 2008