Hi Gregory,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Let me hit on a couple of points that I find most interesting. You write:
“I can tell you that ‘human-social change-over-time’ does (you might say this is ‘obvious’) predominantly involve intention, purpose, goals, and plans, which makes it, unequivocally, an example of non-evolutionary phenomena. I had thought you were arguing against such a pov, Mike, but now I’m not so sure. Perhaps you are catching my drift and would be willing to accept ‘human-social change’ as a ‘non-evolutionary phenomena’? This would seem to solve our problem of “a mind using evolution to carry out an objective” if you agree that human minds don’t do this; then you would be free to posit divine design or non-human natural minds (whatever that may entail) designing in your proposal. And so you wouldn’t trespass into human-social thought unwarranted. I’d rather invite you, if you accept my position.”
Yes, ‘human minds don’t do this.’ But that’s descriptive, while I am forward-looking. I would thus change the sentence to read, “human minds don’t do this yet.” And with that in mind, I would encourage you to read my little essay:
http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/church-in-the-matrix/
And this gets to the really interesting question:
“In return for this admission (which opens unto a whole other realm of topics), Mike, could you please give an example of what you would call an ‘evolutionary choice’ or ‘evolutionary decision’ or does this combination of terms make no sense to you, the same as it is nonsensical for me, as a social-humanitarian thinker?”
You are correct in that I do not think evolution makes choices or decisions. Yet can a designer implant choices/decisions into the process of evolution? That’s the question that intrigues me. You note the difference between artificial selection and natural selection. The issue I raise in my book is whether a mind can endow life with ‘artificial selectors,’ features that function as the proxy for the mind that put them there. A mind can use evolution to carry out an objective in the sense that evolution can be rigged to reach certain objectives. Take the genetic code as an example. Is it simply an arbitrary association of nucleotides and amino acids? Or might it nudge “choices” on the direction of evolution?
- Mike
To Mike and Michael,
Mike Gene wrote: “You seem to be under the faulty impression that I think a casino is an example of evolution.” “I said nothing about Casinos evolving.”
Yes, indeed, I was under that impression, since you cited a casino owner using ‘games of chance’ as your first example to argue for “a mind using evolution to carry out an objective,” which I contend is a nonsensical use of evolutionary language. Well then, I’m glad you don’t think that ‘casinos evolve’ even though they involve minds using or enacting processes. Therefore, it seems you’ll allow me to stick by my conclusion, that “Human minds do use all sorts of processes, just not evolutionary ones.”
Mike clarifies his perspective by stating: “biological evolution is agnostic about intention, purpose, plan, or goal.” Further, he asks: “what test result shows there is “no intention” behind [read: biological] evolution?”
Perhaps that is a fine question to ask the majority of evolutionary biologists who seem to believe (or rather to assume) there is ‘no intention’ ‘behind’ (or in front of, under, within, throughout, etc.) biological evolution. It is not, however, a question that I can answer, as a non-biologist. For a field (evolutionary biology) that is ‘agnostic’ there sure seems to be a lot of faith (now looked at from a SoS position) held in the ‘no intention, guidance, plan or purpose’ position (e.g. the Ken Miller case in his “Biology: Discovering Life” textbooks with Levine); a slough of science popularising/promoting books has also professed this. If we could come at this sensitive spot in agreement from our respectively different positions (i.e. natural sciences and human-social sciences), Mike (well, please excuse if I’m wrong since you’ve not openly acknowledged whether or not you’re a natural scientist), that might afford us an opportunity to show the proper ‘agnosticism’ rather than then allowing the false propaganda to dominate public discourse.
I can tell you that ‘human-social change-over-time’ does (you might say this is ‘obvious’) predominantly involve intention, purpose, goals, and plans, which makes it, unequivocally, an example of non-evolutionary phenomena. I had thought you were arguing against such a pov, Mike, but now I’m not so sure. Perhaps you are catching my drift and would be willing to accept ‘human-social change’ as a ‘non-evolutionary phenomena’? This would seem to solve our problem of “a mind using evolution to carry out an objective” if you agree that human minds don’t do this; then you would be free to posit divine design or non-human natural minds (whatever that may entail) designing in your proposal. And so you wouldn’t trespass into human-social thought unwarranted. I’d rather invite you, if you accept my position.
As for ‘gaps,’ there are no gaps in saying: “human-made things do not evolve into being or having become.” This is a proposition that has not yet caught on. It is presented here at ASA as an offering for those who would see something meaningful in it.
“Evolution is not a subject in biology, where biologists, and only biologists, have a patent on the term and concept. Evolution is part of OUR history and we all have the epistemic right to opine about our history.” – Mike Gene
The first sentence above I accept wholeheartedly (though I thought evolutionary biology was at least a subfield in general biology; isn’t it so?). Next, sure, of course we all opine about history. With the caveat that the ‘OUR history’ is assumed to mean ‘OUR human history.’ Is that correct? That is, the ‘our’ does not mean to speak for the ‘perspectives’ (if we could even call them that) of (other) animals, plants or bacteria; the OUR is a human one.
Following this HUGE ‘anthropic’ concession then, we can acknowledge that a discussion of ‘mind,’ when what is meant is quite obviously ‘human minds,’ belongs properly and with inviolable sovereignty in the realm of human-social thought. This move rightfully shifts the power away from natural-physical sciences and the sometimes reductionistic arguments made in the name of biology as new ‘queen of the sciences’ (i.e. ahead of physics) toward the realms of anthropology, culturology, psychology, sociology and communication studies (i.e. the ‘higher’ realms of complexity that deal with human choice, behaviour, organization, interaction, and relationships). One can easily put aside the realm of ‘biological evolution’ and still talk of ‘evolution’ and also of human history – is this one thing we can agree on Mike?
Zoologists (and/or taxonomists) presumably study human beings as ‘animals’ in a very different way to how anthropologists study human beings. This would be where Michael McCray’s challenge to ‘materialist scientists’ is a relevant issue. This is also a case where ‘reflexive science’ is a challenge to or perhaps better, an alternative to ‘positive science’ within the A. Comtean tradition. Both are ‘sciences’ in a sense of ‘knowledges,’ but with different foci and emphases.
“Is there some reason to think that it would be impossible for a mind to influence evolution? No.” – Mike Gene
This connects with Jim A.’s example of farming and with the topic of animal breeding. The verbs ‘influence’ and ‘use’ offer different scenarios (‘minds influencing evolution’ is much easier to swallow). What I would say is that ‘natural selection’ and ‘artificial selection’ are different things, which Darwin himself recognized (note: hopefully Darwin’s hesitations about the concept duo ‘natural selection’ are well known to people on this list). In the human-social realm I refer to ‘human selection,’ which appeals to a non-evolutionary (and certainly post-Darwinian) theory of human-social change. That is why (to get to the main point of my friendly argument with Mike Gene in this thread) I took exception to Mike’s casino owner example. Casino owners do not ‘use evolution’ because they are not using the ‘evolutionary mechanism’ of ‘natural selection’ but instead the ‘non-evolutionary’ method of ‘human selection,’ which in the case presented involves using ‘games of chance’ to make a profit.
“Do you think it is impossible for any mind other than human minds to exist in this Universe?”
No, I don’t think it is impossible.
In return for this admission (which opens unto a whole other realm of topics), Mike, could you please give an example of what you would call an ‘evolutionary choice’ or ‘evolutionary decision’ or does this combination of terms make no sense to you, the same as it is nonsensical for me, as a social-humanitarian thinker?
Glad to keep in correspondence Mike, if just a bit slower here at ASA than on the blogs!
Cheers,
Greg
p.s. Hello Michael McCray: Just a short note in response to your message. You wrote: “Evolution is defined as change over time. There is no stipulation within the definition as to whether this change is directed or not, nor is there a mention about whether the changes are progressive.”
I respond: it is true that some people define ‘evolution’ as simply ‘change over time.’ I am personally against this and think such a definition is unfortunate because it gives the term ‘evolution’ a monopoly over ‘change’. Almost all things change, therefore (almost) all things evolve. No, in fact there are changes that are not at all best thought of as ‘evolutionary.’ For example, cyclical change, which involves no ‘progress’ or ‘advancement’ is not called ‘evolution.’ Likewise, changes that are intentional, goal-oriented or teleological are not ‘evolutionary.’ This point is, however, debatable at ASA and elsewhere, even though it is clear that Darwin ‘saw no purpose’ or goal in NS and RM. One could argue that ‘theistic evolution’ or ‘evolutionary creation(ism)’ does display ‘purpose’ or ‘teleology’ or at least (allow for) ‘guidance.’ However, to me this is highly speculative and philosophically weak, even if it may be appealing in the cause of accommodating theology with science (but less so vice versa). The issue of ‘abrupt changes,’ as you speak of them, Michael, is likewise highly important (e.g. human choices are often abrupt) and displays a type of non-evolutionary scenario. In any case, my social-humanitarian voice against ‘evolution = change over time’ can be taken with a grain of salt, as many people here at ASA seem to have done. :-)
p.p.s. Lamarckian, rather than LeMarkian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 9 19:43:57 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 09 2008 - 19:43:57 EST