Just like the ideology of ‘naturalism’ claims that *everything* is ‘natural,’ the ideology of ‘evolutionism’ says that *everything* ‘evolves.’ As you have seen recently, I am questioning the ideology of evolutionism openly and directly here at TSZ.
As such, I have a simple challenge for people here:
What are examples of things that don’t ‘evolve?’
It’s a very basic and straightforward question. But it’s one that shows itself to be very difficult for people who are or consider themselves evolutionists to answer due to the ideological exaggeration of evolutionary theory (biological, cosmological, cultural or otherwise) into the belief that everything evolves, i.e. into ‘evolutionism.’ Those who are not ‘evolutionists’ (whether theists or atheists) usually find it easier to answer and thus to circumscribe the meaning of ‘evolution.’
For the more philosophically minded (in case they would like to nit pick the question), please don’t get caught on arguing about what is a ‘thing.’ Alternatively, the question can inquire the reader to tell us about “that which does not evolve.”
Two qualifications:
1) Don’t waste energy doing disciplinary dancing. It’s meant as an interdisciplinary question re: evolutionism, as broadly interdisciplinary as imaginable. It could be humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, applied sciences, performance arts, music, sports, cuisine, dancing, religion, politics, language…whatever you can imagine in the realm of knowledge. Please just state clearly and coherently what it is that you think “does not evolve” in a given realm.
2) It is not an acceptable response to ask me to define ‘evolution’ as a prerequisite for you before you can possibly give an answer. I know what I mean by ‘evolution.’ What I’m interested in is what you mean by it and if you limit its linguistic usage in *any* ways. Thus, what I’m looking for is what you think “does not evolve,” according to your language.
In case there might be a theist or two commenting, let us also take off the table the belief that “God doesn’t ‘evolve’,” because some people here don’t accept that as being important one way or another and because this is not about an intra-theology dispute.
Context: This question is posed with the assumption (based partly on TSZ’s raison d’être against UD) that *everyone* here is actually an ‘evolutionist,’ with the exception of the IDists who occasionally visit. Those who would wish to openly deny being ‘evolutionists’ are welcome to do so. It should likely be easier for them to answer the single question of this thread.
The easiest way to disprove my claim (which does obviously seem outlandish to some) that the ideology of evolutionism is indeed problematic is to come up with many examples of that which does not evolve and thus to prove that evolutionary theory actually is *not* exaggerated, as I am claiming it is. I’m predicting that no more than 5 significant examples of “things that don’t evolve” will be contributed on this thread. A more likely result would be less than 3.
Evolutionists tend to be very weak on this question or avoid it entirely, so there is a decent chance that nobody at TSZ will even respond to this thread with positive examples. That, of course, would also prove a point about the ideology of evolutionism being problematic.
Thanks for your participation TSZers,
Gregory
p.s. if you are clearly not interested in answering the question and simply seek diversion, your post will likely not remain in the thread; otherwise all people of good will are welcome
I think Gregory may help to clarify by listing an example of someone claiming something evolves for ideological reasons, where ideology rather than semantics motivates them. One would assume that most non-ideologues would disagree with their assessment. If everyone – assumed ideologue and everyone else – tends to agree, what’s the role of the ideology?
Evolution is one of the many words with more than one definition. The root is evolvere, to unroll. Most people are capable of distinguishing phenomena according to the applicability of those several definitions, mindful of the common thread that underlies all the applications. I don’t think being able to make their semantic case makes them ideologues.
Like others, I wonder where this is going. I might surmise that it relates to something in the social and political realm. One could for instance argue that Gould promoted punctuated equilibria and opposed any whiff of genetic determinism because of his left-wing sympathies (a charge he would have to take on the chin, since he makes precisely the same kind of point about Hutton’s uniformitarianism appealing to his sense of the permanence of his class ***). We shall see.
*** eta: I don’t buy either assessment.
Okay, we acknowledge that individual scientists may espouse politics we disagree with. So what?
Is it really accurate to say that ‘everything changes,’ Lizzie? When you say “everything changes” are you suggesting that there is *nothing* that “does not change”?
I’m aware of the equivocation some people prefer between ‘evolution’ and ‘change,’ so this question then becomes relevant to the main question of the thread, which is about “things that don’t evolve.”
This question is also still on the table for Gordon Davidson, who wrote:
What does the ‘almost’ leave out?
Sorry for asking your patience a bit further, folks, as we need to get through the less exciting but nevertheless valuable preliminary before getting to ‘the point’ that several of you are already asking for. Much has already been made clear from the answers provided regarding the limits of evolutionism and a summary will come shortly.
I’ll be at a conference the next couple of days (where I’ll speak about the tension over evolution in society in the Whiteheadean context) and will try to check in again as soon as I can.
For those who equate ‘evolution’ with ‘change,’ the question simply shifts to the second signifier: “What are examples of ‘things that don’t change’?” Joe says this is “a good question for a physicist or a philosopher of science. But it is of no relevance to the discussion here.” I have started to and will elaborate further on how and why I think it is actually very relevant, even if not mainly having to do with biology, to several themes that have been discussed in recent months at TSZ.
Well, particles can change by being accelerated and acquiring mass, so that leaves out one contender. Anything left? Any “things”?
Particles don’t change by being accelerated; all that changes is the reference frame from which they are observed. Particle mass(*), in particular, is invariant.
(*) In the only sense that I would use “mass” for describing a particle.
Glad to hear this discussion is “not mainly having to do with” evolutionary biology. It seemed that way to me too — from the point of view of saying anything about evolution, that this discussion was much ado about nothing.
Gregory,
I wrote this away from a connection so I didn’t know you had moved from Sandbox. If it is alright with you I’ll just post it here. I haven’t read the thread yet.
I didn’t put any effort into getting these comments into any particular order so please don’t read anything into their order.
There are lots of questions in the text. Please don’t overlook them.
Mike Elzinga was responding to the same arrogant statement I responded to when I told you you were full of crap and should drop the arrogance. What you are doing is what I called hyperliteralism in another thread. None of the people in this forum is stupid. Ignorant of the subject matter of your area of expertise? Certainly. Stupid? No. You made a statement that didn’t explicity say something, only implied it. Mike made it explicit. I chose foul language. Either way hyperliteralism is a dishonest rhetorical trick. I won’t say you were dishonest since that is alleging intent and that is against Lizzie’s rules. But implications should be fair game and we called you on it. Don’t be disingenous and do it again. Now that you have been told, it would be dishonest and I will gladly say it then.
========================
A story I would like to relate. Another forum I read is populated by back-to-nature types who are working to make their lives resilient in the face of climate change and the deindustrialization that exhaustion of fossil fuels will bring. They are happy enough with any science they can put to use in their effort at living and any science that confirms their worldview that the planet is going to hell in a handbasket. But there is a strain of science denialism in their thinking, mostly a new age mysticism concerning the human mind being transcendant of matter. They routinely disparage reductionistic science trying to explain how the brain works.
One of them recently commented on how the great 19thC chemist Arrhenius had noted that pouring carbon into the atmosphere would cause problems of climate in the future. He noted how great this holistic science was and we needed more of it and if only we had been doing this holistic science all along, instead of reductionistic science, we would not be facing the climate disruption this century will bring.
He was obviously ignorant of science. Why? Because the only reason Arrhenius could say anything at all about how bad pouring carbon into the atmosphere would be was because he was sitting on several decades of reductionist work by physicists and chemists(including himself) on how (to be brief) matter and energy interact at the molecular level. The holistic would have been impossible without the reductionistic.
The reductionistic and the holistic are the obverse and the reverse of the same coin. They need each other and if you want to disparage reductionistic science then you don’t really know anything about it.
========================
A quick note. Since you are not American you may not know the Dominionists but they are a pernicious, noxious form of political religion that are the Christian equivalent of Shariah Islamists. You can find them on Wiki.
========================
Concerning the distinction between ‘specialties’ and ‘specialisms’ I will apologize for that bit of pedantry because if you are neither American nor British then English may not be your first language. Your English is very good though and it fooled me so I can’t imagine where you ever saw the word ‘specialisms’. Perhaps it is that you have never seen the word ‘specialties’ and your translation is an artifact of your native tongue. Regardless, my personal belief is you do know the word and simply have ‘-ism’s’ on the brain.
Ok, Culture-at-large would be anything outside of the academic scientific community: the general public, politicians, the news media, the entertainment industry, the religio/churched community, the business/industrial community, the military, anywhere outside of the academic scientific community(ASC). The ASC is where the word evolution achieved its most recognized meaning and it was from there that that meaning was disseminated out to popular cultural usage. Your contention(as best I can understand it) is that evolution has polluted the culture outside of science and somehow science or scientists are responsible, having failed to…um… keep tight control over how the culture-at-large recieved the word or the concept (or…uhm…hmm…or something).
Your answer was yes so I have to ask how you perceive evolution/progress versus how you believe the culture-at-large perceives evolution/progress? That is a descriptive. I also ask the prescriptive. How SHOULD the culture at large perceive evolution/progress? Is progress defined only as constant improvement? Or is it defined as simply directional regardless of whether change is for the better or for the worse?
Academic journals could be split between those that are scientific and those that are not. The media would obviously be the culture-at-large. University classrooms would again be split between scientific and not. Since you allege the damage is being done to the culture-at-large, I am concerned with not-scientific. Both journals and classrooms involve education(the media simply acting as parrot). That makes my next question; Obviously lessons are being taught that are damaging to the culture-at-large. What are these lessons? Are these lessons only appearing in a scientific education setting or are they appearing in a not-scientific education setting?
Ok. No, one doesn’t say that. I agree and to show I understand I can also add that no one speaks of summer evolving into fall. Or a child evolving into a teenager. Seasons change. Children grow. But, as you point out, no one does this. The word evolve doesn’t appear to have the monopoly over the language of change that you allege it does lower down in this comment. It has a specific context that people use it in. I am not certain I can define that context, I simply know it when I see it. For instance, when Barack Obama wanted to speak of his changing views on government discriminating against same-sex marriage he said his views were evolving.
Is this the kind of usage you are opposing?
It seems perfectly benign to me. The word is one of many words for change in English. That happens to be one of the strengths of the English language; it is so very much larger than other languages that finer discrimination of meaning is enabled.
Ok. There is a lot to unpack here and I will probably derail somewhat. Please ignore anything that isn’t germaine to the point.
I could agree with the first point but this one seems wrong. Or perhaps not wrong but stretched. It depends on how granular you want to be. I would also say it depends on whether you want to insist that evolution can only describe derived/derivative change and not novel/saltational change(something I would agree to). If you look at the history of humanity’s reach for flight starting with Chinese rockets from thousands of years ago through to da Vinci, the Wright brothers, and ending (arbitrarily) with Voyager’s 1 and 2 you definitely see an evolutionary progression. The gross history shows lots of derivation. Lots of building on what came before. The fine detail though shows lots of saltational invention. Now you might think that the saltational events make it a non-evolutionary progression but remember what I said about your first point above. The word evolution is useful for describing the gross history. I don’t think anyone is using the word to describe the saltational events. Both evolution and novelty co-exist.
Where is the damaging pollution to the culture-at-large here?
This now sounds less like science harming the greater society as much as it does an internal academic dispute within your own discipline. My first reaction is: who cares? Apple, meet orange. You came to a forum populated by physical scientists (and their groupies) and want them to care about an internal concern of social scientists? If you don’t like that some of the principals of the social sciences have imported a concept, why don’t you take it up with them?
However, I am interested. I read that PDF by Sanderson and I looked up Evolutionism and NeoEvolutionism (as they are used by anthropologists) on Wiki and it seems like you are concerned with a non-issue. Well, a non-issue to me. I said above that evolutionary change and saltational change co-exist in human history. Some change is built on what came before and some is novel. It just depends on how fine you choose to tune the microscope.
Two examples was plenty although I hope you could give more. I quite agree that change is a master category and evolution is a kind of change. This seem completely non-controversial and trivial. But you won’t get biologists to change their use of their definition. In biology “change over time” is a useful shorthand for evolution. It isn’t very rigorous but it doesn’t have to be. It serves their purposes. Just because it causes some heartburn in the social science community isn’t enough of a reason.
No one outside of the social sciences is trying to make evolution a monopoly on the view of how change takes place in the world and you will have to provide some citations if you want me to believe anyone in the social sciences is trying it.
You mentioned cyclical change. I’ll repeat what I said earlier about you needing to read the Archdruid. I’ll even do some of the work and find representative essays.
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/07/held-hostage-by-progress.html
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-actually-happens.html
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-question-of-values.html
He holds the view that change on the grossest of scales is ONLY cyclical and the only reason we live in a time of unidirectional progress is the extravagantly profligate consumption of carbon based fuels by our society. You two should have much in common.
Ok, then now I know what you don’t consider a problem although I am curious how you define progress and process for yourself.
To get me to agree to that you will have to show where this pollution is in the greater society outside of your academic specialty and how it damages us. Show us the problem before you demand we acquiesce to your solution.
BTW, that list of 12 people.
Edward B. Tylor……….Scientist(Anthropologist)………..Died: January 2, 1917
Lewis Henry Morgan….Scientist(Anthropologist)………..Died: December 17, 1881
Talcott Parsons………..Scientist(Sociologist)…………….Died: May 8, 1979
Marshall Sahlins……….Scientist(Anthropologist)………..alive and kicking (83 y.o.)
Marvin Harris……………Scientist(Anthropologist)………..Died: October 25, 2001
Donald T. Campbell……Scientist(Social Scientist)………Died: May 5, 1996
Gerhard Lenski…………Scientist(Sociologist)…………….alive and kicking (89 y.o.)
E.O. Wilson…………….Scientist(Biologist)………………..alive and kicking (84 y.o.)
David S. Wilson………..Scientist(Evolutionary Biologist).alive and kicking (64 y.o.)
Joseph Lopreato……….Scientist(SocioBiologist)…………alive and kicking (?)
Robert L. Carneiro……..Scientist(Anthropologist)…………alive and kicking (86 y.o.)
Stephen K. Sanderson.Scientist(Sociologist)……………..alive and kicking (68 y.o.)
Five of them are dead and only two of them are still young enough to be teaching. They are also scientists. Where is the damage being done outside of the ASC. Again, show us the problem.
========================
It wasn’t a question. It was a statement of your attitude. Perhaps again this is a language thing. I used an idiom you may not know. I will try to keep that from happening again.
As for evolutionists, you are conflating disciplines again. They are evolutionists certainly. Within their own disciplines. Are they evolutionists in the Anthropology sense? You will have to explain that in order for them to know.
Limits on evolutionary theories? Again, non-controversial. No one here is claiming evolution explains all. You really come across like a fanatical, single minded, American creationist. Evolution on the brain.
According to his own blog (the “about” page), Gregory is Canadian, and working in Lithuania. This page indicates that he is from the West coast of Canada, so English should not be a problem.
Things that don’t evolve:
Gregory’s opinions of BIG I BIG D INTELLIGENT DESIGN!
No excuses then.
Ye gods and little fishes, you mean this whole garbage pie of Gregory’s is about the “important” work of a bunch of dead white dudes?! I mean, I assumed the white, and the dudeliness, given Gregory’s obvious bias for JD Bernal, Cambridge, and Heidelberg academics, but I also assumed that he, at minimum, was agitated by some sort of current events – insignificant as they might be – at east more recent than before he was born.
Lordy, lordy, what a disappointment. What a waste of electrons.
Thanks, aardvark, for taking your time to look up Gregory’s hopelessly out-of-date references..
The real disappointment here, as always, is in the lack of any real skepticism.
hotshoe,
It is even sadder than that. The subject is actually interesting. Within his discipline this is a contentious matter. That PDF written by Sanderson was easy to read, explained the matter and came to clear points. It is only Gregory’s presentation that is killing this, which is a hard thing to do for me. I imagine it is very hard to do for any of us or we wouldn’t be devoted to science. He could suck the cold out of an ice cube with his poor delivery.
We’re all real skeptical of Gregory’s unsupported brain fart.
Gregory,
No, I am an evolutionist (in that I study evolutionary biology). I was suggesting that there are no “evolutionismists” here. That is, the “evolutionism” that Gregory thinks we all have fallen prey to is simply not here. Most everyone here is resisting the idea that “everything evolves”, particular if we mean “evolves” as in biological evolution.
There is only one person here who is pushing the idea that everything evolves. I don’t need to say who that is.
I’m not disagreeing with either scientist’s political viewpoint. I mention Gould in that light only because he mentions Hutton in that light, and the charge can be reversed. Which is why I think it unfruitful. It was sparked by a guess about Gregory’s motivation in stirring this particular pot.
Personally, I don’t think scientists adopt theories for political reasons, and I think Gould was wrong (or at least guilty of unjustified surmise) about Hutton.
Ooh! Ooh! A population fulfilling the criteria for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium! Doesn’t evolve. But it does have to be infinite, which is a tad restrictive.
Or a ‘real’ population with no mutation … evolution stops eventually. More quickly with high inbreeding or strong selection.
My car doesnt evolve … Would that do ?
Welcome to TSZ, Graham2.
But is your car the result of an evolution in car design and construction?
I’ve moved a few posts to sandbox that were more about site rules than evolution. Sandbox is there for more wide-ranging matters.
Thats the problem right there. ‘things’ dont evolve. Populations, species perhaps, but not ‘things’.
I agree.
Ahh, the quintessential fits-all-cases creationist reply. A sort of going nuclear tactic. When all else fails, just blindly declare that the “evolutionismists” aren’t skeptical of the right things.
I see this every fucking time. I guess that’s just another case of something that doesn’t evolve.
Are we overlooking the reproductory and selective elements of evolution? I make a shovel. The handle breaks. I make another with a thicker handle. I find it heavy to use. I make another with a less-thick handle stronger than the first, lighter than the second. Then I decide to go fishing. I don’t take a shovel. Trial and error, learning (use what works within your budget; discard what doesn’t) seem a practical way to proceed.
What pdf by Sanderson was that? I wouldn’t mind having some clue what it is that Gregory thinks he’s discussing.
I’m still skeptical about the spherical earth thing, and heliocentrism.
I suppose they should be taught as hypotheses, but they are the excreta of a dank and soulless science.
Evolutionism and its Critics
Gregory linked it in the previous discussion – What is Science?
I read that when Gregory originally posted it. It seems to be about something within the field of sociology. It seems to be concerned about theorizing within sociology.
I am failing to see Gregory’s point in starting this thread. When I say that a person’s knowledge evolves, I am not theorizing about anything. I am just saying that the knowledge seems to develop gradually, rather than in sudden increments. I would likewise say that a person’s personality evolves. One of my high school class mates was involved in a bad accident with a lot of head damage. His personality changed a lot. I would not use “evolution” for that change that appeared to be due to the injuries.
I have not done any polling. But I have the impression that many biologists are critics of evolutionary psychology. So I take that as evidence that they are hesitant to accept theories that do not have good supporting evidence.
Gregory seems to see evolutionism where it does not exist. Or, at least, that’s the impression he has left with me. If he would actually define what he means by “evolutionism”, that might clarify things.
Gregory is unhappy that most of us here are primarily concerned with the denial of biological evolution and the attempt by the Discovery Institute to teach what amounts to special creation in high school biology class.
I say “special creation” to denote any claim that the current set of organisms (including humans) are the result of some kind of goal directed intervention, either by fine tuning or by unspecified interventions at various times and places.
The word evolution originated before Darwin and originally had a meaning more compatible with fine tuning. It has been appropriated by various academic branches to imply gradual change (and implying progress) as opposed to abrupt change.
everything evolves. Time is change. Evolution is change over time. It is the fundamental nature of experience. Memory tells us what was, observation what is, and imagination what will be. Nothing avoids that process. Change is the only constant.
Just want to toss that out there before I read the rest of the comments. I am pretty sure that I won’t be able to accept any suggestions for things which don’t evolve. Also, the nature of a ‘thing’ is indeed important to this discussion. But if we are talking about thing as a categorical, then it sort of can be ignored.
please give a single example of a thing which doesn’t evolve.
yes it does. Evolution is change over time. The evolution of anything is its observable change over time. Evolution is a resolution game sometimes but everything evolves. Species evolve if we look at that abstraction level. Individuals evolve if we look at that one. Cells evolve if we look at that one, even particles evolve if we can keep our resolutions from mixing. Stars evolve, solar systems evolve. Galaxies evolve. The observable universe evolves.
Ok. I saw someone mentioned that there is a link to a paper which makes the question perhaps a little more interesting. I’m going to have to go find that paper so I can figure out the context for this question because, as stated in the op, it is not particularly meaningful.
yes. things do evolve. all things do evolve. Else there wouldn’t be time. This is a bizarre conversation. Evolution is change over time and biological evolution is change at the resolution level of species over time.
I thought of this too after I posted the wall of text above. What I said in that post; evolution is derivative. It builds on what came before. What is new is constrained by the past. If there is no possibility of this then any change isn’t evolutionary change.
This is the same question as the OP. No need to repeat the challenge.
Gregory,
The OP makes no sense to me. Are you saying you can think of something which doesn’t evolve? Are you thinking that evolution means something other than change over time? In the OP you said your definitions don’t matter, that you want to see ours. Fine. Do you disagree with mine? If so, can you articulate why? Do you agree? If so, can you articulate why? Evolution is a term which defines the most basic observation that we can make. The universe is consistent. Cause and effect are inviolable at our particular resolution. We call the behavior of constant cause and effect “evolution”. To think that there is anything which doesn’t evolve is to imagine time stopping.
Religious claims are twaddle if they contradict that basic observation. If we cannot believe what we observe, then we cannot believe religious claims either since we observe them.
Hello graham2, A quick response, as I’m still in the middle of a conference with many ‘things’ / activities to do.
You wrote: “things’ dont evolve.”
In the OP, I took this into account, requesting: “please don’t get caught on arguing about what is a ‘thing.’”
Yes, that’s helpful. I’ll add it to the “things that don’t/that which doesn’t evolve” list when I give the next summary and move to the next stage.
In the meantime, I’m in for some serious ‘gravity,’ not in the physical, but psychological haunted house sense between now and then. So, I hope folks here will be patient until the next post.
We’ve been discussing substance, reductionism and mechanism/mechanistic thinking, evolution(ism), organism(s), teleology, mathematics, physics, biology, metaphysics, psychology, anthropology and ecology, post-Cartesian philosophy, purpose, nihilism and re-enchantment, science studies and educational futures with people from 25 countries in the past 2 days and for 2 more. It has been a whirlwind.
Thanks to Aardvark for his long post wrestling with the topic and to other posters, hopefully I’ll reconnect with these contributions soon. – Gr.
also, that isn’t the ideology of evolutionism, it’s the basis of our existence. All there is is change. If you are challenging this, you need more than just crossed arms and a serious expression.
Is this an attempt to challenge the assumptions of biological evolution? Because if it is, I can’t figure out how. Can you please help me figure out what you are trying to say?
BWE,
I don’t understand how come anyone would deny that all things evolve. Would some evolutionism proponents please explain why anyone would ever consider the question for more than about a minute and answer anything but yes?
BWE, let me just say hello and thanks for what you’ve written so far. I’ll respond in the next couple of days and address your concerns as directly as possible. You ask important questions though it is obvious we hold quite different thoughts about “the limits of evolutionism” and “things that don’t evolve.” Time and space are both relevant, along with change, motion, process, progress, development and other related ‘categories’. The OP and its goal hopefully *can* help make sense for you if ‘evolution’ is decoupled/dislocated from its monopoly on ‘change’ and ‘motion.’
BWE,
BWE, you’ve got it either backwards or inside-out. ‘Evolutionism’ (meaning universalist evolutionism) proponents *do* think “all things evolve.” Or maybe that’s what you meant?
Many days have been spent trying to get Gregory to do just that. Apparently Gregory doesn’t think we are capable of understanding what he has to say unless he spends an indeterminate period very carefully sowing the Socratic ground with his **ahem**.
To riff off of Jack Nicholson, “YOU CAN’T HANDLE WHAT HE IS TRYING TO SAY!”
You want to divorce a word from its definition? Huh? Ok. Then what word can we use to replace the one which used to mean “change over time”? Because that will be the word I will need to use.
You seem to misunderstand something fundamental about the concept of evolution. It already has a definition. And that definition is the absolutely most basic observation of existence. There is no divorcing evolution from change and time. That is like divorcing clocks from time. What term will we use in statistical mechanics when a system’s change over time is divorced from ‘evolution’? Will we have to use delta the same way we said the artist formerly known as prince?
Evolution of species is a brute fact which can be observed whenever you look at a parent and a child and notice that they are not identical. Change over time is constrained only by causality. I think you are going to have a hard time arguing against cause and effect. That is what you will have to do I think if you want to divorce a perfectly serviceable word from its definition.
I have no idea evolutionism proponents are by your definition. Creatures with brains as far as I can tell. Anything which acts is an evolutionism proponent since actors need to accept that causes precede effects in order to use intention.
Like most words, evolution has more than one meaning.
At the very least, it has Gregory’s meaning and the one used by biologists.
petrushka,
I don’t think that really holds up. First of all, what is gregory’s definition? Second, when anyone uses the term, they mean ‘change over time’. They often qualify what sort of change by saying things like ‘biological evolution’ or ‘the evolution of the idea’ or ‘the evolution of horse racing’ or whatever but if you use the word to mean something other than ‘change over time of x’ then you really are using it in a non-standard way. You can say it has two definitions at least, but without those different definitions to compare, I am going to have to stick with my original contention. It isn’t a word with much ambiguity.
Read the thread.
Sorry, but you’re completely wrong. Unless by “the standard way” you mean “your way”, then you’re in no position to pronounce upon the standard usage of “evolution”. It’s used in quite different ways by different people in different fields, as a simple reading of this thread should illustrate.
You are being as silly and obstinate as Gregory to pretend that evolution can only have one meaning.
That would make it rather unusual among words.