Hi there,
So my immediate reaction to this idea, was that it's not possible to evolve a fact. I admit that. You can change the context in which it is viewed or how its interpreted, but that fact itself remains the same. I recognise that. Once I recognised that, I started to think: "maybe the fact can change", then I realised that the subtext would have to change first. But this (changing the subtext) would have to agree with some sort of parallel between the initial fact and the fact it became. If the fact was weak, then it might have some capacity to be polymorphic; if the fact was strong, it might remain unomorphic - that is, the subsequent evolution may be indistinguishable from the original.
What does all this establish? It establishes that facts have an anchor in what conditions they are affected by. Does a fact limit how it can be interpreted? Does a fact reach out to other facts? This is all by interpretation! A fact may need to limit how it is interpreted, even if this is not wanted - a fact may reach out to other facts, even if it is rejected: becoming strong at interpretation is very much the point! Intially then, you may say that any change to fact will do, but when you consider getting better at the interpretation of facts, suddenly which change you effect with a fact, becomes very important. It is important to be sober about this, but not rule it out.
So can a fact save? Some facts can, a commitment to more facts than all does not. It is not a competition to see who has the most facts - that is never the case. The strength of relationships is a gain, if they encourage one another (as the Bible points out that good relationships, are like iron sharpening iron - letters, from memory). So when it comes to Evolution, there is a limit to how many facts need to be involved. As Jesus said "Sufficient for the day is its own trouble" (gospels, from memory); you might imagine Jesus saying "sufficient for the theory, is its own facts". What you can't do is read this as an expectation that facts have no end. That just does not make sense.
So we have a commitment, to incorporate facts, whether they are evolved or not, primarily welcoming those that others find relevant. Just the way that the faith (the Church) embraces verses others of the faith are listening to - and by "listen" I imply doing the works associated with those verses. The aim is to become familiar with facts that help more people than not. If you change them, yes you may discover new things, but you may obscure other people's relationship to you and the facts you stand for, if you go too fast (something I struggle with almost continually). Realistically, if you get stuck in this respect, you need to restart (reboot if you will) - just expecting fact, is a snare!
There should be a connection to fact, but that requires the truth, which is beyond the scope of this discussion - as soon as you introduce the notion that remembering "fact" is 'for' someone or something, you introduce the notion of "truth" and if we are obedient to the framework in which science operates, we do not need a great truth to hold it all together. A truth may be there, but we do not need it. This is I think what everyone has been telling me is the problem with giving agency to the process (that Evolution extends), in the attempt to study it: truth distorts the interpretation of fact, in teleological ways, whereas what we want to establish is that facts keep people together, until experiment verifies the value of that relationship remaining at least mostly true.
The person can hold facts together, and the person can be the truth, but that does not make them great. God can be great in a person, even a person who is the truth, but that does not make facts "great". That is the truth.
I hope you are able to learn something from this, or at least get a perspective that you can use to the end.
So my immediate reaction to this idea, was that it's not possible to evolve a fact. I admit that. You can change the context in which it is viewed or how its interpreted, but that fact itself remains the same. I recognise that. Once I recognised that, I started to think: "maybe the fact can change", then I realised that the subtext would have to change first. But this (changing the subtext) would have to agree with some sort of parallel between the initial fact and the fact it became. If the fact was weak, then it might have some capacity to be polymorphic; if the fact was strong, it might remain unomorphic - that is, the subsequent evolution may be indistinguishable from the original.
What does all this establish? It establishes that facts have an anchor in what conditions they are affected by. Does a fact limit how it can be interpreted? Does a fact reach out to other facts? This is all by interpretation! A fact may need to limit how it is interpreted, even if this is not wanted - a fact may reach out to other facts, even if it is rejected: becoming strong at interpretation is very much the point! Intially then, you may say that any change to fact will do, but when you consider getting better at the interpretation of facts, suddenly which change you effect with a fact, becomes very important. It is important to be sober about this, but not rule it out.
So can a fact save? Some facts can, a commitment to more facts than all does not. It is not a competition to see who has the most facts - that is never the case. The strength of relationships is a gain, if they encourage one another (as the Bible points out that good relationships, are like iron sharpening iron - letters, from memory). So when it comes to Evolution, there is a limit to how many facts need to be involved. As Jesus said "Sufficient for the day is its own trouble" (gospels, from memory); you might imagine Jesus saying "sufficient for the theory, is its own facts". What you can't do is read this as an expectation that facts have no end. That just does not make sense.
So we have a commitment, to incorporate facts, whether they are evolved or not, primarily welcoming those that others find relevant. Just the way that the faith (the Church) embraces verses others of the faith are listening to - and by "listen" I imply doing the works associated with those verses. The aim is to become familiar with facts that help more people than not. If you change them, yes you may discover new things, but you may obscure other people's relationship to you and the facts you stand for, if you go too fast (something I struggle with almost continually). Realistically, if you get stuck in this respect, you need to restart (reboot if you will) - just expecting fact, is a snare!
There should be a connection to fact, but that requires the truth, which is beyond the scope of this discussion - as soon as you introduce the notion that remembering "fact" is 'for' someone or something, you introduce the notion of "truth" and if we are obedient to the framework in which science operates, we do not need a great truth to hold it all together. A truth may be there, but we do not need it. This is I think what everyone has been telling me is the problem with giving agency to the process (that Evolution extends), in the attempt to study it: truth distorts the interpretation of fact, in teleological ways, whereas what we want to establish is that facts keep people together, until experiment verifies the value of that relationship remaining at least mostly true.
The person can hold facts together, and the person can be the truth, but that does not make them great. God can be great in a person, even a person who is the truth, but that does not make facts "great". That is the truth.
I hope you are able to learn something from this, or at least get a perspective that you can use to the end.
