Words have their own power. Interpretation of them requires context.
There is no significance without contextualization.
Most social sciences started trying to look like sciences, so
"scientific" words were used since then. Take equilibrium, elasticity,
system, as examples. They have been useful, they have been
misunderstood. Anyway, there is no reason to forbid the use of words,
and concepts, from other sciences, as long as they are useful in the
new context.
Evolution is one more case. Evolution, understood as "descent with
variation" or as "adaptation to new environment" includes path
dependence and change. It helps in describing the way institutions
adapt by themselves and, in some way, restrict opportunities. It also
helps to understand why organizations and individuals have to create
and develop new institutions. Finally, it helps to understand why
Russia is not very different from the Soviet Union, despite external
appearence.
Interpretation is, in fact, the key to variation in institutions.
Rules of the game change because they are interpreted in different
ways. That is why we create written rules (read formal institutions)
in order to avoid interpretation. Moreover, organizations are
developed to avoid "incorrect" interpretations. Rules may be
interpreted in a variety of ways, some survive, some not. There is
evolution in rules. Interpretation reproduces, organizations and
individuals are the environment which kills or enforces the breeding.
Is it true that some are getting tired of this exchange?
Macario