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 wonder if ‘christianist’ would be as irritating to the other side. I could only hope.
His references include people who died 100 or more years ago so I imagine so.
I prefer religionist.
That is actually the term I use most. It is the most broadly applicable.
BWE,
May I ask if you have a link. Google wants to charge me 8 dollars. I don’t mind that but if it’s free I don’t mind that either. I did find this:
THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
SCIENCE AND HYPOTHESIS
THE VALUE OF SCIENCE
SCIENCE AND METHOD
BY
H. POINCARÉ
AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION BY
GEORGE BRUCE HALSTED
WITH A SPECIAL PREFACE BY POINCARÉ, AND AN INTRODUCTION
BY JOSIAH ROYCE, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
THE SCIENCE PRESS
NEW YORK AND GARRISON, N. Y.
1913
at Project Gutenberg. It is likewise free and it contains two more books to boot so I may content myself with it.
Aardvark,
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_value_of_science.html?id=NNQEAAAAYAAJ
sorry about that. I meant to get the link when I posted that. On the left just click where it says ‘ebook free’ and it downloads a pdf
I have it in print with the introduction by Steven Gould and I gotta say, Gould was a good writer.
The value of science is all three of his individual publications bound together I believe. My printed copy is anyway,.
In firefox you have to select ‘pdf from the submenu under free ebook. It downloads right though. I just did it.
Grazie.
Having now glanced at both, I think the Gutenberg is the better option.
Cool. Do you have a link handy? I would like a better ebook. Also, i’m not home so I cant check but the google ebook seems to be missing another book that I think is bound with the copy I have at home. That google ebook is the only ebook I have and it’s hard to read. Which doesn’t matter because i’ve got a print copy but it’s all dog-eared and underlined from years of using the same copy in a classroom setting. It would be nice to have a better ebook. Or maybe its just time to buy a new print copy. I haven’tlooked at it much for a couple years now.
I am curious to know if you agree with my assessment. The most important science of philosophy book ever written.
Have you read any other philosophy of science?
Just notkced, the foundations of science is a complete book itself. I think editions might mix and match thwm together. My value of science” includes foundations as its first section. Foundations is good – really good, but make sure you get the value of scienve too. They cover much of the.same.material but foundations is earlier and he is much more specific in value.
I don’t know if it is good or bad for you but there is no pdf at Project Gutenberg. You can only save it as a txt. But that does make for a small document. The doc I saved has clickable links for the chapters. It has all three books.
The page is here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39713/39713-h/
I’m in Chrome so right click and “save link as” on the txt link named: 39713-h.htm
The mother page: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39713/
has some zips but I didn’t glance at them. You may find them useful. You may not.
The only book I can bring to mind easily right now is Kuhn’s SSR. I’ll let you know when I finish these. Kuhn made a wonderful point that has been misunderstood and abused since about 5 minutes after he finished writing his book. I am curious to see if Poincaré touches on that point.
If for whatever reason you can’t get PG to disgorge the book email me and I’ll send it to you.
moc.liamg@liefp.reinrod
Cool, thanks. If you are familiar with the subtlties of structure and haven’t gotten hung up in the minutia, you will love value. Even though I want to be all eriudite and tell you the next one should be bacon’s novum organum, and it should, really the one to follow poincare if you are already familiar with structure should be poppers “conjectures and refutations.” That one takes about a yeat to read but it is the most complete treatment of a detailed view of the process ever written. If you can pull up the ideas from those three books and synthesize them, you will know all you ever need to know about philosophy of science.
Take that for what its worth, a random assertion by a random avatar on the internet. however, poincare will change your outlook forever. By far the most profound ideas of any philosopher of science. The last official polimath. Smartest man who ever thought about geometry. Yada yada but its true
I downloaded the “.epub” version from Gutenberg. I will be using the free Calibre software to read it.
I think a nook ebook reader can also read “.epub” files. And Calibre can convert it to “.mobi” format for reading on a Kindle ereader. I think Calibre might also be able to convert to pdf.
I don’t have a Kindle or a Nook, so I’ll just read it on my computer. I’m using linux, and installed Calibre from the linux repos for opensuse. The “okular” program (part of KDE on linux) can also read “.epub”.
Alan Fox wrote:
Fine. Then what can evolutionism be? Please go beyond merely biology and involve multiple disciplines or knowledge areas in your answer, just as you’ve done in 3 of 4 definitions above.
As I said above, I thought your unwillingness to speak about more than just biology was why we were not communicating well before. Now it seems you are broadening your approach to ‘evolution’ and perhaps ready to face ‘evolutionism.’
Yet no evolutionists answered this wonderfully direct question. Why not?
The reason this thread appeared at this particular moment in time is because a big fuss was made by several regulars at TSZ regarding my simple statement in the “What is Science?” thread contending: “the problem is not with teaching biological evolutionary theory or even evolutionary cosmology (as long as it stops short of OoL speculation); the problem is teaching evolutionism as an ideology.”
Many people I have met, including evolutionary biologists and other biologists, as well as physicists, engineers, and even school teachers, would simply admit “Yes, evolutionism, not evolutionary biology (or eVo cosmology) is the major problem. So, then, what can we do about it?” These people openly want to work towards limiting the ideology of evolutionism for a more balanced academic landscape.
But this was not the preference of a few TSZ folks, who wanted instead to wildly claim a creationist and/or IDist conspiracy *even just in the term* ‘evolutionism’. That, unfortunately, is one small view of the larger discourse between science, philosophy and theology/worldview today. A even bigger problem than the problem of teaching evolutionism as an ideology, is the problem of those who deny that there even *is*an ideology of evolutionism that is propagandized, taught and promoted in writings.
That said, I can understand that a significant proportion of the responses to me in this thread were either 1) because people at TSZ thought I was just a typical American anti-evolutionist who hadn’t studied, discussed and debated the topics of evolution, evolutionary theories and evolutionism in a variety of academic contexts (almost all outside of the USA), or 2) because people at TSZ thought that *only* biological evolution is a legitimate ‘theory of evolution,’ which of course, is controversial.
Chemical, geological and cosmological evolutionary theories that have been proposed are not easily reducible or elevatable into biology, but this doesn’t stop scholars/scientists in those fields from positing (and working to develop) such theories. Neither has it stopped scholars/scientists in other fields from speaking ‘evolutionarily’ using tools borrowed or transferred from (mainly Darwinian) evolutionary biology. But let’s be clear about what this thread is about.
“Is this an attempt to challenge the assumptions of biological evolution?” – BWE
No.
BWE basically saved the thread, both with important questions and statements and because I was busy for the whole week at a conference. He/she wrote:
I’ll return to this below, but a brief story first. At the conference there was a process philosopher. He was asked about change and in his response stated that ‘everything changes.’ He said: “Everybody in this room is different now than they were when they walked in the room.”
Yet, what he was referring to is merely one level or dimension of ‘change.’ Is it possible there are other features of ‘reality’ which did not change since entering the room? Nobody now has a passport from a different country, i.e. different citizenship. Nobody’s gender changed. Nobody is wearing different underwear then when they walked in the door. The door was closed and a presentation was given.
So yes, indeed there are *some* things that did not/do not change (or in this thread, “do not ‘evolve’”). What are those things; what are “things that don’t evolve”? That is what this thread is about.
(cont’d)
graham2 suggested:
Yes, that fits quite well imo into the third category now added below.
Things that don’t evolve:
1) Physical constants and so-called laws of nature (Platonist)
2) Mathematical equations (symmetry, binaries, etc.; Platonist)
3) Human-made things (e.g. artefacts and technologies; a whole huge life raft of people)
So, the question remains: Is there anything else that doesn’t ‘evolve’?
I made a few very clear and basic statements about what I meant, including this:
This statement opposes BWE’s, that: “Evolution is change over time.”
Let’s be more precise.
From others, we have heard that cyclical change is *not* an example of evolutionary change. Iow, cyclical change (or revolutionary change) is ‘non-evolutionary.’
A few people (e.g. Neil Rickert “I am just saying that the knowledge seems to develop gradually, rather than in sudden increments”) have suggested that ‘sudden’ change is non-evolutionary. But others have rightly noted that by shrinking the scale, ‘sudden’ can be made to appear ‘gradual,’ that is, relative to the scale.
Another view of what doesn’t evolve is as follows:
Although the first sentences are consistent with the OP’s aim, to say “I know it when I see it” is not a sufficient or convincing answer. And higher levels of scholarship will not accept it. Scholars have claimed that rape ‘evolves,’ that freedom ‘evolves,’ that economies ‘evolve,’ that governments ‘evolve,’ etc. This is when problems with the term ‘evolution’ arise and why its ‘universalism’ is such a problem.
[As an aside: Please don’t feed us the patronising crap that humanist scholars say this just to ape naturalistic methods, to appear nearly as sexy as biologists. There’s ideology involved and worldview, which is the main point at issue in this thread.]
Now before Big Joe F. jumps up & down claiming “I told you so, Gregory is a universal evolutionist!” simply identifying that there are wide uses of ‘evolution’ surely does not mean I endorse those uses of ‘evolve’ / ‘evolution,’ only that *some* people do. Please don’t try to make me responsible for their exaggerations of ‘evolution’ into ‘evolutionism.’ What is more significant is that these are scholars in academic positions and not merely laypersons with no training or supposed expertise in the field who don’t teach people or mentor university students. This is where the danger arises.
Yes, we are agreed. O.k. then what are some of the other words for ‘change’ that are non-evolutionary? Answering this will show willingness to disassociate with the ideology of ‘evolutionism.’
Steve stated: “no one has questioned the idea that life evolves on this thread.”
That’s acceptable.
Given that Steve is a natural-physical scientist (“I do genetics, including evolutionary genetics, for a living”), I consider it appropriate to note that ‘development’ is an example of non-evolutionary change in the context of human-made things *and* in the context of singular lifetimes (which partly agrees with JoeF and Alan Fox re: individuals). But then biologists and geneticists have coined the subfield ‘evo-devo’ suggesting the two terms are part of a common process, which of course is considered by naturalists to be completely natural (given that biology is a natural science). So, which ‘development’ is non-ideological, freely usable either by naturalists or theists, modernists or postmodernists?
Thus, when Neil Rickert loosely asserts “I would likewise say that a person’s personality evolves,” he seems to ignore altogether psychological ‘development’ as the more accurate term. In an individual’s lifetime, a person’s psyche ‘develops’ and ‘changes.’ I’m sure almost everyone here would agree to that: our personalities change. The question is: why say it ‘evolves’ as Neil and a not-insignificant group of others prefers to do when instead a more accurate and scientific term is worth paying attention to and using instead?
That ‘alternative,’ that ‘instead’ is needed if limiting ‘evolutionism’ is to become a reality.
(cont’d)
Can I have a specific example or 10 please?
How about you quit being an asshole and just tell us what’s on your mind?
Sorry, Elizabeth.
Easily 30, at a quick glance. Try GoogleScholar. Do a little work for your own learning. Stop being lazy and myopic in denial.
For evidence of “those who deny that there even *is* an ideology of evolutionism,” just look above in this TSZ thread.
How about you get off your ass and respond to some of the posts on your thread?
Aardvark describes “the history of humanity’s reach for flight” as “an evolutionary progression,” so obviously in this case he is not distinguishing non-human-made things from human-made things; he is subsuming them under the common term ‘evolution.’ I’m claiming that approach is both invalid for ideological reasons and inaccurate based on the types of change we observe in human activities, which are quite obviously different than just bio-physical change.
Evolutionists, of this variety, are just as guilty of universalistic aspirations as IDists are when they conflate Transcendental Design with human design.
That’s fine. I am almost completely uninterested in biologists’ definitions of ‘evolution.’ They deserve no monopoly over the term, do they? Please see the OP where I intentionally wrote about INTERDISCIPLINARY uses of ‘evolution.’
As such, Petrushka’s “Gregory’s meaning [of ‘evolution’] and the one used by biologists” is unnecessary repetition. I’ve already claimed that ‘evolution’ is commonly elevated *above* and *beyond* mere biology, geology or even cosmology and shown (enough) evidence of this.
If some people here would like to lower the meaning of ‘evolution’ from a worldview back down the scales of complexity (to anthropology to biology to physics) that may indeed be a legitimate and important strategy. But rest assured that you’ll have many people to contend with resisting you if you try to do this. I would not be one of them.
Interdisciplinary can of course mean different things. But it certainly means more than a single field such as biology. There are thus a few different ways in which to consider ‘evolution’ interdisciplinarily:
I’m interested in 2) and 3). Just 1 for me is boring, imo outdated and what too many people already do. Why not let’s try something new?
This gets at what BWE wrote:
O.k. but what about topics and subjects/objects outside of the natural-physical sciences? Are you suggesting we simply MUST accept that they also inevitably be said to ‘evolve’? I’ve been attempting to show that isn’t necessarily the case.
BWE has self-declared as a ‘universal evolutionist,’ i.e. someone who believes ‘everything evolves.’ Would it be possible to change BWE’s view?
I suppose that’s possible. But how about 1st recognising that in fact I do also see it where it does exist? That would mean also recognising that it does exist. This would do you credit, Neil, given your ‘id philosophy’ debit.
No. I’ve advocated discovering disciplinary vs. interdisciplinary context in this thread.
Yes, exactly.
Yes, again. Iow, context. I’m interested in ‘processes of change’ that are ‘non-evolutionary.’ And calling *all* of those things/terms ‘evolution’ moves towards universal evolutionism, which is a big problem socially and bad scholarship in at least two of those cases.
Right, but to an evolutionary geologist, rocks do ‘evolve.’ That’s what’s at issue; multiple uses of ‘evolution’. And the point of the thread is to attempt to limit evolution to appropriate domains and disqualify it from inappropriate ones. If eVo just means change, the task is more difficult, but still achievable.
That is not what the OP intends.
The first uses of the term ‘evolution’ that I am aware of in the English language, which I posted at TSZ already were about God’s guidance and (co-)creation of the world. The notion of ‘gradual’ vs. ‘abrupt’ was not the main point. It was that God (or a First Mover/Great Energy, for non-traditionalists) was involved in the process of natural history and cosmic-personal life.
I guess the point is that at this point in history,the term ‘evolution’ is largely ‘owned’ by and associated with atheists in the context of the conversation between UD and TSZ, in the American culture war. Is that untrue? The ideology of evolutionism is almost exclusively preferred by atheists, which partly explains why any atheists here would wish to defend it (or to deny that it even exists, except in the ‘deluded’ minds of their opponents).
There are a considerable number of theists also who also accept limited biological evolutionary theories, geological evolutionary theories, cosmological evolutionary theories and so forth. Yet in the newest example of BioLogos, they are against the ideology of ‘evolutionism’ as an unsustainable exaggeration and thus seek to limit evolutionism. That is also my intention here, though I do not identify as a BioLogosian.
Thanks for responding. Perhaps we can get this train back on the rails.
My point to you and everyone else is that the word evolution has different meanings in different contexts. English is like that. Words can have specific narrow meanings in a technical context, and they can have nebulous meanings in informal contexts.
UD (and to a large extent, this site) is primarily concerned with the teaching of biological evolution in high school classrooms. You find that issue to be boring. No problem, except it makes me wonder why you frequent sites that are primarily concerned with things you find to be boring. In particular it makes me wonder why you are surprised when we don’t automatically follow the internecine squabbles in whatever discipline you happen to be interested in.
When I use the word evolution I mean either biological evolution or some process analogous to biological evolution, such as learning systems or learning algorithms. I see no reason to use the word evolution when you mean change that is not channeled by feedback.
Then I think you’re really missing the forest for the trees. And ‘boring’ specifically wrt just biological evolution. That is why I made clear at the start *interdisciplinarity* and the ideology of evolutionism was the issue. If you really want the ‘train back on the rails,’ i.e. the rails I laid with the OP, then please deal with those things and not your high school biology diversion. Otherwise, please bow out or start another thread. I’m not ignorant to the points you’re making, but oftentimes they miss the larger context, the forest for the trees.
“I see no reason to use the word evolution when you mean change that is not channeled by feedback.”
Outside of biology, this language is commonly used too. E.g. systems evolution, cybernetics.
This is what I’ve been working on for over a decade. The growing numbers of scholars I’ve presented it to and have worked with seem to all agree with the main point; evolutionism is ideologically suspect and an alternative type of change should be welcome features of any non-evolutionary theories. There is strong agreement that universal evolutionism is not a coherent ideology and that it is dangerous to allow evolution usage outside of its proper natural science domains.
It is almost entirely universal evolutionists, mainly atheists, who are against this.
This is a typical example of evolutionism, easily corrected linguistically. Car design and construction differ from biological evolutionary theory. They involve intention, purpose, goals, guidance and planning. So, to use the term ‘evolution’ in this case is too loose and unspecific as to be worthless.
Just change-over-time’ doesn’t count as ‘evolution’ because there are other types of change than ‘evolutionary’ change. Hopefully this is clear by now, both as suggested by others and as reinforced in my words above.
Steve Schaffner replied to this, saying: ‘evolution’ is:
In this case, Steve and I agree.
The question for BWE is whether or not *any* qualification is proper for ‘evolution’ or whether it indeed displays the ideology of evolutionism as an exaggeration from one field into another? Sociobiology was (and for a few, still is) an obvious exaggeration. ‘The evolution of horse racing’ imo is another exaggeration. ‘Development of horse racing’ is more accurate linguistically, which is why we speak of ‘research and development’ (R&D) and not ‘research and evolution’ (R&E). One is purposeful and teleological, the other, based on biological evolution is not. But with horse racing, undoubtedly there *is* a final cause in mind: to win races.
Neil, it doesn’t appear that you are an intensive or capable reader because you miss such an astonishing amount in your fuzzy, relativistic interpretations.
I wrote clearly and simply above about INTERDISCIPLINARY uses of evolution. Why reduce that to ‘within the field of sociology’? Perhaps you should take a break from reading code all day and engage in actual some human-social thought (and stop ‘calling bullshit’ while you sit comfortably on the pot?). Ever since I showed how ludicrous your claims were about ‘intelligent design’ in philosophy, you have been extremely unpleasant. Perhaps an apology is in order, or more likely just verbal abuse?
Well, this approach means raising the level by involving ‘systems.’ I’d prefer we stay simpler for the time being, BWE. Just one note: ‘purposeful systems’ differ from ‘non-purposeful systems.’ (Ackoff & Emery 1972) Likewise, ‘by their nature’ differs between human-made systems and non-human-made systems. I’ve written more about this recently here: http://humanextension.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/tco_vs-_tno/
Let me give the last words to Steve Schaffner, which echo my own thoughts. The only difference between us, it seems, is that I openly propose alternative types of change to evolution and that I also promote them in contemporary academic fields. By doing this, I aim to “limit evolutionism” which was and is the goal of this thread, in discussion with “things that don’t evolve.”
p.s. those who use a term ‘evolutionismist’ in this thread shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously. They belong on the same level of discourse with the creationists they most love to oppose. Please learn to recognise that ‘evolutionism’ is a term used in scholarly work and not *only* by creationists or IDists, thereby drop your arrogant pretenses and face the facts (yes, D.S. WIlson is a *real* living person, so is S. Sanderson, so is W.G. Runcimann!). Perhaps then the conversation can involve some intelligent contributions and discoveries.
p.p.s. “The ID hypothesis is also a model of evolution. Do you disagree with that?” Let’s not talk abut ‘the ID hypothesis’ in this thread, o.k.? My interest goes beyond the ‘narrow’ hypothesis of IDism.
Gregory, instead of lecturing about the vague “evolutionism” try this instead: every time you see a comment that is a flagrant example, respond by marking the post and then rewriting the offending portion stripped of the bias. Teaching by example would be more effective, IMHO.
Intentionality is not what defines or distinguishes evolution.
Darwin took great pains and several chapters to illustrate the equivalence of natural and artificial selection.
I’m sorry, but there can not be an interdisciplinary meaning for the word evolution, because implementations are quite different for different systems and different substrates.
What is common to most usages is change in populations over time as a result of variation and selection (or drift).
It is not a misuse of the term to apply it to technology or cultural institutions.
Also, this non-sense about unscientific uses of evolution the fault of atheists? Just as guilty is the Catholic Church: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolve+site%3Avatican.va
rhampton,
I’ve shown several examples already. BWE is most clear in saying that “everything evolves.” Hopefully he/she will address my examples, explanations, and arguments against universal evolutionism.
Of course with ‘gravity’ or ‘matter’ it is already easy, given that ‘anti-gravity’ and ‘anti-matter’ have entered popular usage.
In the comment you responded to, Alan Fox asked, “But is your car the result of an evolution in car design and construction?” with the assumption that cars *do* (read: should be said to) ‘evolve.’
I’m not sure what could be more clear as ‘teaching by example’ than that.
Again, part of the thread’s mission is to show that some people are not even willing to acknolwedge ‘evolutionism’ even if it *does* exist. How do you propose to deal with that?
What is wrong with saying cars evolve. Start there.
QFMFT
minus three sentences which might be sent to Guano․
Gregory,
There are scientific and unscientific uses of word evolution. I understand that you do not like it, but I disagree that it confers an ideological point of view. If you want to throw yourself into the world as designated word cop and demand a substitution such as “progression” or the like, then go ahead. Don’t let us stop you. But I think most everyone, including theists, will just give you a polite eye-roll.
Hee hee․ Thanks!
People make cars. This involves purpose, plan, goal, aim; teleology (notice I didn’t even use the word ‘design’?). Not the same kind of ‘process’ as biological evolution. Not among the range of events that ‘evolution’ can properly be thought to explain. Cars are not ‘naturally’ selected. They are ‘human-made.’ Category difference.
I’ve spoken with theists and atheists. It’s not about being a ‘word cop’ but about exploring potential options to move beyond the entrenched situation re: evolutionism & creationism. Both theists and atheists have been receptive and encouraging to my proposed solution. (Not ‘progression’ as alternative, nor ‘satisfaction’.) Put in black-and-white typed words on a blog to a general audience (mainly of skeptics!) is, of course, much more difficult. 😛
Not responsive. Burden of proof is yours, sonny.
I see it as defining the topic. Something that needs to be done before attempting to prove anything.
Gregory, you adequately dispelled the confusion I expressed earlier. Definitions do matter a great deal. From my perspective, you seem to be suffering an almost total inability to divide concepts based on structure.
First, change (of a system) over time is a requirement of the word ‘evolution. All systems in the natural world evolve. They simply do. The credit card number is not a system in the natural world. The credit card itself is a system. You could talk about the evolution of credit card numbers within the system of assigning credit card numbers. What I see as your quite serious confusion is the inability to distinguish between the values within models, 1+3=4 does not evolve, and the structures of models, the evolution of axiomatic systems of symbol manipulation is in fact something which could be intelligently discussed. It hasn’t been all that long since Russell and Whitehead published the Principia.
The credit card number is an abstraction which is referenced in many possible ways. It may be referenced by electrons moving through a computer, by raised parts on the physical credit card, by sloppy pencil marks on a sticky note, all kinds of ways. But the abstraction is not a system. It is a data point. Some abstractions are rules or mechanical information. Those rules or mechanical information don’t evolve. The system of rules regarding our schematic understanding of some particular system may evolve. The evolution of the automobile for example. The details in the shop manuals provide data points regarding the technologies involved with each model. That abstract information doesn’t change. You don;t wake up to find the words rewritten to reflect the day’s evolution.
So, depending on what you mean by what doesn’t evolve, the answer is, if you are talking about physical systems, nothing. If you are talking about specific instances of abstractions, the answer is, everything. And there are probably a few steps of gradations where the model may represent a chaotic system which evolves from form to form when represented such that we can see the system as forms, like a fractal or bifurcating differential equation graphed to see the evolution of the solution. But in all such cases, there will be a visible system, the lines on the computer screen or paper, regarding which we as humans can observe the process of evolution occurring. The equation doesn’t evolve but its output, when interpreted as a pattern, does.
The teleological element is irrelevant. Whether the forces are human, random, or controlled, the input of new information, both as feedback and as input from the larger system propel directional change within that system and that change can appropriately be described as the evolution of that system. Those forces can appropriately be described as causative. The direction is time. It moves one way. There is before and after in all systems no matter whether they can be run either way. If we graph an equation one way and it evolves a certain way, it matters not which direction in time the equation may have represented, we can only experience one way in time. It evolves directionally forward in time. Always. Feynman diagrams included.
And finally, the nature of the forces which drove the change are irrelevant to whether something can be called evolution. It is the word which we use.
You may not like the implication that all is physical. But it takes a very small mind not to realize that that is simply a potential, utterly unknowable. Models are not physical systems. They break down our conception of physical systems into largely meaningless recursive reflections of mind reflecting matter reflecting mind etc. In other words, there is no reason to accept that implication. I certainly don’t. But that is a far cry from trying to make a credit card number a real, physical thing. It isn;t. It can be written down and referenced but it is entirely an abstraction or else you would have a different credit card number every time you wrote it down.
You are into philosophy it says on your little about me ditty. Go out and philosophize a bit on the difference between modeled abstractions and modeled physical systems. Figure out the difference between something which requires thinking to see and something which requires looking to see.
I totally understand your point now. In fact, I too am often irritated by the assumptions of a broad sort of materialist paradigm being inserted into academic output as if it were unquestionably axiomatic. However, You can’t describe ‘everything’ as in ‘name what doesn’t evolve, without realizing that there are distinct domains of abstractions and physical systems about which those abstractions are designed to model.
Your aha! should be you getting your mistake.
Gregory, wrong answer․ You answered the question “why is it wrong to say cars evolve biologically? – but since no one asked that question, your answer is pointless and derailing․
Again, the question is “why is it wrong to say cars evolve”?
Use the definition in context this time, instead of the definition in your head that makes you think your answer is valuable when it’s not․
Are you not a native speaker of English?
Here, maybe this will help:
We know there is more than one sense/usage of the word “evolve” and we can keep it straight in context․ Why can’t you?
Good rules or guidelines, depending on the site owner’s determination. But insults still are not ad hominem.
In terms of the ideas, there is one set of issues. In terms of the treatment of other human beings, there is another set of issues. They do not need to relate. But people like to think they are right. Even I like to think I am right believe it or not.
But that makes the term ‘evolutionist’ into a term which most people who accept the ToE as our best model of the evolution of life based on the available data wouldn’t understand. I get the meaning intended but I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. Evolutionism is a practical belief system. There is no real requirement in holding to it. What is more appropriate is something like ‘using the best information available”-ism for the majority and “fundamentalist ideology of scientism” or something for the people who like to demand that others believe what they believe.
Arguing a point, however, is not the same thing. I tend to critique the ideas you call ‘evolutionist’ more than those you call ‘creationist’ because those called ‘creationist’ are simply irrelevant. The way models compete is through utility. ID and creationism are failed models and so I don’t see spending much time thinking about them. Also, even though ‘evolutionists’ in what I am considering a sort of pejorative sense, may not be able to see their own assumptions as assertions as anything but unquestionable truth, they are at least using models which do indeed work reasonably well and they are also quite happy to give those models up for better ones.
They may still be insufferable evangelists for the new model they pick up but at least they aren’t trying to put silly inaccurate disclaimers in science textbooks. I like creationists fine sometimes but I can’t discuss creationism with them very well because there is really nothing to discuss. They too can’t tell the difference between the ideas of words and their referents.
I don’t know why I wasn’t more explicit earlier. Anyway, the question “does everything evolve” is asking a question about how we model, how we see the world around us. If you are asking if Species evolve or if ideas evolve you are talking about how we perceive and understand, not a feature of an external world.
Which, I assume, is the source of the issue you are trying to get at here. Dealing with people who take their models as the external world, that is what religion does and it’s difficult to deal with in an academic setting especially. If my model is right, then certain behaviors are called for in certain situations. If my model is reality, then I don’t need to question that behavior which is called for by my model. I don’t think it’s so much bringing evolutionary ideology into a humanities context as it is bringing my truths into a social setting and trying to shove them down your throat.
That is pretty universally an impediment to collaborative thought. It’s like curing anti-semitism by converting everyone to judaism. The way we look at systems level modeling is in terms of the evolution of the systems. That may be changable but it will still be commensurable with the normal way of thinking even if you succeed in changing some terminology because the reason models work is that the we perceive the universe changing constantly and consistently. If there is no signal, only noise, there is no information. We have coined the word ‘evolution to describe modeling that signal and the change in the shape of the model as you run the tape. It is a meta view I guess but it is the most basic observation of observation. That change over time of the shape of a system, that directional causally mapped change, is called evolution. And it is universal in systems level views over time. Evolution is a word which describes ‘that’ we model as much as ‘what’ we model.
What petrushka said. It is not up to us to define evolutionism. It is up to you.
RB:
In this context I take “evolve” to denote replication with heritable variation and selection (etc.). Given that definition most things don’t evolve, although most things change in other ways, and oftentimes bear their histories into the present.
Gregory:
RB:
Don’t make it more complicated than it is. I’m saying that, given my definition of “evolve,” objects that don’t replicate with heritable variation don’t “evolve.” Given that definition, stars and astronomical objects don’t evolve, geological features don’t evolve, automobiles and medical techniques and symphonic compositions and (insert endless list of human artifacts) don’t evolve.
These objects and processes do change and sometimes advance through other processes (developmental unfolding, human artifice, change through physical processes etc.) and bear that change, and perhaps a record of their histories, into the present.
Moreover, any given object my bear witness to several levels of such change. So, for example, an individual person evidences a history of biological evolution, the history of the culture within which they are enclosed and the impact of their own personal history.
I do think there is somewhat of an analogy between cultural evolution and biological evolution, particularly with respect to technology and similar innovations vis our ways of making our livings and “the ratchet effect,” but it is a very imperfect analogy.
Mine isn’t the only definition of “evolve,” however, Other definitions will pick out other phenomena.
Gregory:
But alas…
Gregory,
If there is any unintentional ideology being conveyed via “evolutionism”, I would suggest that ID has the upper hand.
The UD crowd loves to emphasize scientists using the phrase “looks designed” because it is an acknowledgement of intentional design by an intelligent agent. Not that the scientists would agree, mind you, but it’s enough for some ID proponents to hand their hat on. So I would think the word “evolution” being used to denote intentional design would again be seen as a victory; “see, people really do know that evolution can’t occur unless its planned for by some intelligent agent, like the history of cars.” Ironically, I think your crusade would be better aimed at scientists:
DANGER! common uses of “evolution,” is dulling the definition used by biologists, allowing design ideology to corrupt its metaphysical implications.
However, like most theists, I suspect most scientists would roll their eyes or shrug their shoulders. Meh.
I’m still waiting for an explanation of the problem. I would concede that the word evolution is used to mean many different things in diffdrent contexts, but I fail to see the problem.
What, for example, is wrong with saying cars evolve?
Exactly. It is a possible and accurate use of the word so… so what?
“What, for example, is wrong with saying cars evolve?” – petrushka
Repeat answer:
In this case, a change of course occurs – pre-car to car – but it is not a ‘strictly natural’ process. It is an ‘artificial’ process, which even Darwin noted as distinct from merely ‘natural.’
BWE, you are expressing self-contradictory sentences (I wrote a longer post yesterday, but it was erased by an untimely re-fresh). First, you say “everything evolves.” Then you admit the following:
Please don’t write long posts going on about systems theory. I wrote this concisely and in small space:
Maybe you haven’t thought about this very much, BWE. But you’ve already conceded that some things don’t evolve. Why not make a small list like the one above that reflects your view?
From your view, perhaps, but not from mine.
Identifying that which is non-physical is not that difficult. You’re not a physicist, are you? Have you ever loved or cared, BWE. Voila – extra-physical!
But please let’s not distract from the OP theme; this is not a thread about physicalism. It is a thread about ‘evolutionism’ and its limits.
Reciprocating Bill 2,
I included your definition in the updated list. You wrote:
Your “endless list of human artifacts” is included in point 3) above (which I assume means that you are on board with “a whole huge life raft of people”). And I entirely agree with you about it.
Wrt “geological features,” “stars and astronomical objects,” I know people who disagree, based on theories of geological evolution and cosmological or stellar evolution. So, you’d have to take it up with them.
When you say the following, there is much to discuss, but it supports the view that limiting ‘evolutionism’ as a universal worldview that holds that ‘everything evolves’ simply makes sense, even if evolutionists themselves don’t like it:
Yes, it is an “imperfect analogy” and in most cases an inaccurate one. In my view, ‘culture’ doesn’t ‘evolve.’ Sure, it changes and develops, it grows and shrinks. It rises and falls, expands and retreats. ‘Culture’ is nevertheless a ‘non-evolutionary’ object/subject that involves a category difference from merely ‘natural’ change-over-time. (Cf. Runcimann vs. Fracchia/Lewontin – “Does Culture Evolve?”)
What’s the difference? Purpose, meaning, plan, goal, aim; teleology. The lower-level natural-physical sciences don’t include these things in their ‘theories.’ But the higher-level human-social sciences do and must. Without it, the heart of those fields are lost.
If evolutionists would argue that its all part of a whole, that a universal evolutionary ‘theory’ can be applied to everything ‘real,’ then one must challenge them by asking if the biosphere involves purpose, meaning, plan, goal, aim; teleology. Why? Because Darwin and almost all evolutionary biologists today following him don’t use that language. In fact, they deny those things are part of ‘evolution’ at all.
Category difference. This is what explodes the myth of evolutionism and leads to recognition of “things that don’t evolve (into being or having become)”.