Re: [asa] The word "evolution"

In my last 10 minutes on-line in Russia for several months, I'd like to bring together the posts of Randy Isaac and Murray Hogg, on the meaning of 'evolution.' Some people have in recent days expressed support for my continued attempts to open up a fresh approach to the topic, while others, recently, once again George Murphy, have opposed any 'change' to their definition of evolution.
 
 
Randy wrote: "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."

To this statement, Murray responded: "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."
 
Can we agree that natural sciences categorically DO NOT include 'intelligent agency'? It seems to me we can. Can we further agree that human-social sciences DO include 'intelligent agency.' It seems to me we can. As a result, the exclusion of 'intelligent agency' in natural sciences and the inclusion of 'intelligent agency' should ring some sort of bell for people who wish to discuss 'evolution' AS IF it does not exclude 'intelligent agency.' 
 
Not long ago someone new to the ASA on-line list responded to a question I put, saying that theology is closer to human-social thought than to natural sciences. This is, of course, a debatable notion, but it is not all that difficult to defend given the pastoral care, missions work, all involve human beings, whereas our knowledge of nature is a tack-on to our existence as members of the Body of Christ. By acknowledging the RELEVANCE of human social thought and de-privileging physical sciences as arbiters of what counts as 'most important knowledges' in science and religion/theology/faith discourse, a more level playing field can be achieved. It is this possibility that I believe is being stunted by those who would ignore the supra-physical categories that 'human evolution' implies when they could simply use more precise language and help to avoid confusion.

This is the point Murray made in saying:
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."
 
Yes, I think Murray has made an excellent case regarding the need for appropriate qualification!!! Unless someone on the ASA list wants to claim that THEY speak for EVERYBODY who visits the list, then space should be made available for non-believers in Total Evolution (or even "Total Formative Evolution," which still seems in some ways problematic). Saying 'human evolution' is controversial because it means different things to different people in different situations.

Randy wrote: "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."

Please forgive if I don't see the point as one of 'narrow usage.' How many disciplines, fields, areas of study do you think are involved here? "Limited to natural sciences" is still affording evolutionary theories a WIDE realm in the current academy!! But limited it simply must be (to the natural sciences seems the most logical place, IFF a new alternative is promoted elsewhere)! I am in the process of helping to change the 'general practice.' :-)
 
Warm wishes,
Til the next,
Gregory Arago
 

--- On Tue, 5/27/08, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:

From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [asa] The word "evolution"
To: asa@calvin.edu
Received: Tuesday, May 27, 2008, 4:59 PM

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 4 12:14:36 2008