[pcmaffey]

Isn’t progress quite simply, evolution? We study it so we can apply it intentionally.

The philosophical part to me is Who is this progress meant to serve? Everyone alive today? The human species as a whole? Our environment? Some greater consciousness?

[Nasrudith]

It depends on how progress is defined. Technically it implies movement towards some end-state wheather it is obtainable or not. Disease outbreaks are a progression technically but in this context it is limited to positive changes.

Evolution itself doesn't neccessarily fit - while it may progress it may also stagnate or get caught in cycles. While a result may eventually dominate it is important to remember evolution has no goals - it is literal survivorship bias manifest.

As for intent I believe the answer is an unsatisfying "it depends" as who it serves and who defines meaning changes and the question becomes originally or currently? Musket arming of minimally trained recruits may have been meant to serve aristocracy to allow fielding large armies cheaper but if it ends in them being deposed clearly it didn't serve them in the end and the purpose must change or else be abandoned.

[dredmorbius]

That's an argument to be made, but there are still questions of mechanisms, dynamics, limits, etc.

Darwin proposed evolution. Mendel hypothsized genes. Crick and Watson discovered DNA's structure. Details matter.