“Being” is really the evolving
The auspicious question of Being should be seen to have been transposed by “history” (epistemic advances of social evolution) into questions of “evolving”.
“Evolving,” in the ordinary sense, implies purpose. It isn’t a biologistic notion, yet it’s as biological as intelligence, which presumes intentionality, and natural selection does not.
Since purpose only pertains to intelligent life (life with intentionality), evolving primarily pertains (should be understood to pertain) to the human sense of the universe, rather than largely pertaining to natural selection (which is ecologically “intelligent,” but largely shows no intentionality in its functions, thus no purpose—“largely,” i.e., apart from a few genuses: the likes of crows, dolphins, and primates—and “many” other exceptions that prove the rule of intelligence's rarity among the millions of species). Attributing “evolution” to non-intentional life is always derivative of the purposive, progressive sense of durable change that ‘evolution’ has always had for us.
Intelligence, Purpose, Humanity, evolving—they all belong together.
Even “God”: the perfectionistic Face of evolving Humanity, concept of intuition that we’re evolving relative to the universe.
So, “evolving” provides an ordinary (lexical) sense, as well as any range of difficult senses that may altogether orient pathways of thinking about ultimacy relativized to our ordinary interest in finding developmental significance or progress in history. The lexical normativity of ‘evolution’ is metonymical of the social evolution that derived it. ‘Evolving’ is an excellent bridge concept between specifically humanistic views of progress and overtly philosophical ventures in postmetaphysicalist metabiology (e.g., interest in “anthropic” conceptions of the universe as our universe among innumerable ones) .
Conceptual evolution is polygamous.