Itâs always a welcome opportunity to give lessons to biologists about âsocial scienceâ when they ask about it, since they donât usually get much of it in their training at university. Thus, some of their amateur sociology can be quite right, while other major parts of their sociology are so bad theyâre not even wrong, yet still not laughable because usually the biologist is sincere in trying to find an authentic social or cultural ground for their questions.
âI assume that evolution of human societies through genetic inheritance is not likely to play a key role in the short term (within a century or two).â â Kai
Yes, we are agreed. Thatâs why I used the term âdevelopmentâ instead. Itâs a far more widely used term among scholars than âevolutionâ when discussing change-over-time of human societies. Itâs not biology-centric or gene-centric, but rather humanity & society-centric, and sometimes just about economics. Do you wish to challenge this claim as an outsider to the human-social sciences? I was specifically intended toward âthe short term (within a century or two)â when I responded to âmodern societiesâ.
One of the reasons to reject or avoid the term âevolutionâ when speaking of âmodern (human) societiesâ is due to improper (translation of) time scales. My definition of âmodern societiesâ means âwithin a century or twoâ. Thus, to me âevolution in modern societiesâ is largely irrelevant, according to your nature-oriented meaning. Itâs the kind of topic only a biologist or geologist would ask about, from the back of the social sciences classroom, during a brief departure from the longer âmore humanâ conversation, which takes up the majority of community time. Do we understand each other, Kai, biologist to sociologist and back again?
âNon-genetic inheritance could play a more influential role.â â Kai
Also agreed. And not only âcouldâ, but âdoesâ. Thereâs no doubt about that. Yet âinheritanceâ is a low-order, marginal category in most human-social thinking. Are you aware we donât use that biological inheritance and indirect âpopulationâ language? We use instead sociology and âcommunityâ or âgroupâ language. Have you heard of the extended mind thesis, for example? Do you know what âgrounded theoryâ means in the social sciences? âGenetic inheritanceâ in (modern) human societies thus might indeed seem to be or even be an interesting bio-social topic for some people. It just isnât of interest for me as a sociologist exploring human development, societal change, and social movements, who steadfastly rejects calling development âevolutionâ.
âsocieties change much faster than humans evolve and the effects of the latter are likely small.â â Steve
Again, we are agreed. This is where Iâd like to invite Prof. emeritus @Sy_Garte in here to clarify and specify where he draws the line in ceasing to use âevolutionâ outside of âstrictly natural scienceâ applications. Iâm quite intrigued that he seems to be trying to do this the right way, though havenât seen him articulate himself widely on the topic in writing. If Sy were to explain to BioLogos what he sees as unwise in using the term âevolutionâ outside of natural sciences, for example, in the cultural study of human societies, then perhaps some new awareness might be raised. Would you welcome Syâs explanation of how & why he limits using the term âevolutionâ and âevolveâ to biology and other natural-physical sciences, Kai & Steve, fellow biologists to Sy?
âthe poster used the correct term, since he or she was in fact asking about the biological evolution of modern humans.â - Steve
Carry on discussing âthe biological evolution of modern humansâ with Kai then, and I will absent myself from that conversation, if thatâs all Kai meant to inquire about. My concern instead is with claims about so-called âevolutionâ when it comes to âmodern societiesâ, as thatâs a field Iâm trained in. My belief that it is the wrong term to use âevolutionâ there must be faced on sociological grounds, not on biological or linguistic (semantic) grounds. There are other more accurate terms to use to understand how, when, where, and why societies change. If you donât want to discuss human societal change, but only animal âsocietalâ change or plant âsocietalâ change (or linguistic âsocietalâ change), then please carry on with me absent also.
Kai seemed to be alluding to more than âjust biologyâ, however, when he asked, âBut what about evolution in modern human societies?â. But maybe Steveâs right, and it was just a âbiological view of human societyâ that Kai was speaking about, and thus only a fraction of a portion of a conversation about âmodern societiesâ that all sociologists, and other social scientists are accustomed to.
Shall we call a spade a spade and recognize that the question was biologistic in orientation and not well stated? In any case, it could both please Steve and raise immediate and easily explainable concern with me.
âEither side of biological evolution, the term is an analogy and I agree itâs best not used in the psychology and sociology of the past 100 thousand years, or done so in inverted commas.â - Klax
We are agreed in removing âevolutionâ when talking about âmodern societiesâ for âthe past 100 thousand yearsâ. That would improve the conversation immensely!
So, what is the argument then really about here? Is it about how (some/most) biologists strongly wish to have their voices heard by co-defining âmodern societiesâ with sociologists? Or is it asking a sociologist to defer to the language of a biologist in describing âmodern societiesâ? (Or is it for some here mainly about how a linguist can always enter a conversation with âgracious angerâ and âpoliceâ peoplesâ words involving biology and sociology as a form of âmoderationâ?)
Weâve heard talk of âevolution of modern societiesâ before with E.O. Wilsonâs sociobiology, right? Did BioLogos like sociobiology? Probably not, but perhaps not really. Where is itâs position on sociobiology explained, one way or another?
Can we agree that â[biological e]volution in modern societiesâ is a marginal nature-oriented specialist topic that barely addresses the varieties of human-social change happening around us? Kai, why do you think theyâre called âHuman Development Goalsâ, instead of âHuman Evolution Goalsâ by the United Nations? It would be VERY helpful if you would answer this question directly as a practising biologist. Would you please share your thoughts about this with us?
âSociology and biology are two viewpoints to societal change.â â Kai
Well, theyâre âfields of knowledgeâ or âdisciplinesâ, at least, not just âviewpointsâ, donât you think? What is being requested of you, Kai, is to step up your game acknowledging the âedge of fields of knowledgeâ that youâre familiar with, educated as a biologist, which requires some philosophy of you (did you do your PhD in biology, or a master or bachelor?). Once/if this is done, then âevolutionâ becomes a more humble natural scientific theory (cf. fact of natural history), instead of a universalistic ideology that sucks in non-biological disciplines, like with the arrival of a Wilson, or a Wilson or a Jablonka/Lamb or a Laland or Mesoudi. Without doing that, since none of those are Christian paths, you instead to me as a sociologist sound ideological promoting âevolution of modern societiesâ as a biologist who doesnât primarily study how, when, where, and why human societies change. Thatâs âivory towerâ distance from reality that biologists sometimes commit, unfortunately. Please be gentle in response if you find that to be an unfair characterization of this âevolution in modern humansâ thread.
Itâs a question of weights and measures regarding human change & who studies it primarily vs. who studies it peripherally, or as a hobby in their spare time. My suggestion is: listen to the people who study âsocietal changeâ primarily, as their main focus of work, rather than those who study it peripherally, or who just repeat pop academia on the topic, instead of showing and sharing a more informed and inquisitive understanding.
In short, my argument is that between biologists and sociologists, by âweightâ and âconcentrationâ, it is the sociologists who are the scholars trained to study, both in the field and wrestling with theories, social and societal change. Biologists largely learn about or study âhuman societal changeâ peripherally, as that is not the primary focus of their field of study, while studying âbiological changeâ primarily. Do you disagree, Kai, Steve, or Mitchell?
It would be great if we could at least agree it is a good idea to âlisten to the specialistsâ who primarily focus on âmodern societiesâ, instead of the amateurs with their sometimes wild ideas, unless only âbiological humansâ, instead of âmodern societiesâ is what Kai really meant to address in this thread.
p.s. Happy non-evolutionary Thanksgiving to those giving thanks today!