On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Gregory Arago wrote:
> Hi Gordon,
> Please excuse if I misunderstood you and that you were thinking on topics
> related to natural sciences. Since you mentioned 'language' and 'knowledge,'
> I assumed these were not topics for natural-physical sciences proper. Aren't
> they rather for human-social sciences?
> Gordon wrote: "In addition to biological evolution and cosmological evolution
> we have evolution of language, evolution of knowledge, and many others..."
> Now the issue is even further problematic. Do you personally Gordon, think
> 'evolution' *IS* synonymous with 'change-over-time' or are there significant
> differences between evolution and change? Yes, you wrote 'supposedly,'
> perhaps in order to soften the statement or to distance yourself from it. But
> I'm just trying to understand what you think, rather than to hear repeated
> what other people say (which I can discover by reading their own thoughts).
I knew when I posted it that my statement was probably too sweeping, and I
hoped to qualify it a little. I was responding to a claim that all evolution
was a single theory. I also object to YECs who classify all old-earth science
as being (Darwinist) evolutionist.
I think it is hard to find details in common to all theories of evolution in
the various fields except that they involve evolution. In most cases I find
little that couldn't have been done without Darwin's work.
I have seen 'change over time' used as a definition of evolution, especially in
the context of arguments for it avoiding mention of the particular details.
I think that linguistics qualifies as science just as anthropology does.
Gordon Brown (ASA member)
To unsubscribe, send a message to email@example.com with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 12 16:02:41 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 16:02:41 EST