作为直接、现实的生产力，工程在文明史中扮演着重要的角色，参与构成并集中反映着人类社会的生产方式和生活方式。工程生成条件的多样性和动态性决定工程自身是演化的。正因工程对于改造人之生存境况的直接现实性，对工程演化动力的研究就成为一项迫切的任务。随着工程的形象被逐渐从技术和科学的复合背景中剥离出来，工程的变迁也被认为合逻辑地有别于技术变迁。尽管在近代以来的科学技术革命与工程—产业革命之间存在着密切的相关性，但鉴于工程实践所面临的信息匮乏或不确定性，我们不能简单地认为存在着一个从科学、技术到工程的线性因果关系。因此，为把握工程的本质并理解工程演化及其动力，必须直面工程，不能仅仅将其先验地还原为对既有科学知识体系中产生的技术选择的物化和确认。考虑到技术和经济研究中存在着技术的两种样貌：以科学为参照对象的知识形态的技术；以工程物为载体的实物形态的技术。对后一种样态的技术之理解使得工程演化研究可能且有必要从技术演化和经济变迁研究那里借鉴思想资源。 本文首先基于对工程创制本质的理解，对工程形态变迁及工程演化动力的既有研究历程进行了梳理和归纳。工程原初地指一个特定的外在之物是为能动者合目的地创造出来的（即人—造—物），在形态上大体经历了从“工程1.0”到“工程4.0”的历程。从技术的工程哲学、具体的专业工程、工程学、认识论、甚至技术哲学的进路对工程动力进行的研究从一定意义上看有其合理性。然而就工程的本性而言，上述进路还存在着工具理性的倾向，在不同程度上有滑向自主论的可能，进而导致“工程一般”与“工程个别”之间的背离。而那种认为自然/地理条件对工程演化的线性决定作用的观点，强调其对于工程实践者的给予性，忽视了历史对个体的超越性以及共同体对自然条件的能动性，并最终可能通向某种泛灵论。因而对工程演化动力的哲学考察需要以工程的创制本质为参考。通过对工程变迁中意识动机（信念、认知、意向性等）的描述及其为处理信息匮乏或不确定性、简化处理过程而形成的制度框架，揭示出意识不但是工程的启动力，而且在工程演化中发挥着更普遍的作用。 其次，从系统的角度构造了工程的演化动力，将其分为要素性动力及形式性动力。一方面，把异质的要素性动力从来源上分为内源性及外源性两种。另一方面，指出工程过程中生成或构成的稳定中间形态使工程系统具有层次性，构成了工程演化的结构性或形式性动力，从而解释了工程的持存性和演化速率问题。这种中间稳定形态具体地以模块化、组织化的形式实现，它不仅使工程活动在一定尺度上摆脱了随机干扰的影响，而且使工程运行和工程创新超越了对灵光乍现和简单重复劳动的依赖，还使既有成就得以流传，因而是一种历史文化现象。在此背景下，分析了创新这种现代工程演化的独特动力。当创新成为文化的自觉，便进一步获得了文明性的意义。 最后，以工程危机为背景，从实践的角度对工程的精神动力给予进一步反思，分析了工程演化之未来的可能方向。现代工程的理念正在加速破坏其自身的发展条件。内在地看，这种灾难性趋势是由工程演化系统的结构孕育的。其根源在于人类相对强大的物质生产力与依旧简单、片面遵循资本逻辑的工程观不匹配。这一状况不但是现代工程模式的危机，更是历史性的人类精神的危机。不过，此种困境也暗示着文明进步的新机遇：人类有可能不得不系统性地从对现代以物为主导性对象、工具理性的工程的迷恋中转向以事情为主导性对象、价值理性的工程，并为进一步走向以精神自身为主导性对象、整合提升前述两者，实现自然主义和人道主义统一的自由的工程。

As direct and realistic productivity, engineering plays an important role in the history of civilization. It constitutes and collectively reflects the mode of production and lifestyles of human being. The diversity and dynamic of its generate conditions determined that engineering itself is evolutionary. It is precisely because of its direct reality of transforming the living conditions of human that study on the evolutionary dynamics of engineering has become an urgent task. As the image of engineering was gradually stripped from the complicate background of technology and science, engineering changes were also considered logically different from technological changes. Although there is a close correlation between science-technology revolutions and engineering-industrial revolutions in modern times, the lack of information or uncertainty in engineering practice makes it impossible for us to simply believe that there is a linear causal chain of science-technology-engineering. To seize the nature of engineering and understand the evolution and driving forces of engineering, we should not regard it a priori as the materialization and confirmation of technology options from existing scientific knowledge system but facing engineering itself, only then can we get the essence of it. On the other hand, there are two kinds of appearances of technology in the research field of technology and economy: the technology in the form of knowledge which references to science, and the technology in the form of material object which carried by engineering objects. In the latter sense, the study of engineering evolution can share some thought resources from technology evolution and economic change studies. Firstly, based on the understanding of the creative nature of engineering, existed research process of morphological changes and evolutionary dynamics of engineering were combed and summarized. Engineering originally meant that a specific external object was created by the activist purposeful. It generally went through a course from Engineering 1.0 to Engineering 4.0. Approaches of study on the drivers of engineering such as the technical philosophy of engineering, the specific professional engineering, science of engineering, epistemology, and even the philosophy of technology has its rationality in a certain sense. However, as far as the nature of the engineering is concerned, there is still a tendency toward instrumental rationality in the above-mentioned approach. To varying degrees, there is the possibility of slipping into autonomy, which in turn leads to a divergence between “general engineering” and “engineering individual”. The view that the nature/geography condition linearly determines the evolution of engineering evolution emphasizes its givenness to engineering practitioners, while ignored the transcendence of history to individuals and the initiative of communities to natural conditions, and may eventually lead to some king if animism. Therefore, the philosophical investigation of the dynamics of engineering evolution should reference on the creative nature of engineering. Through the description of consciousness motives (beliefs, cognitions, intentionality, etc.) in engineering changes and the institutional framework formed to deal with the lack of information or uncertainty and to simplify the process, it is revealed that consciousness is not only the starting force of engineering, but also plays a more general role. Secondly, the evolutionary driving forces of engineering were constructed from the perspective of the system along with elemental and formal ones were divided. The heterogeneous factorial dynamics are divided into endogenous and exogenous sources from the source; and the composition of the stable intermediate form makes the engineering system hierarchical, constitutes the structural drivers and thus explains the persistence and tempo of engineering evolution. The intermediate stable form is realized concretely in the form of modularization/organization. It frees engineering activities from the influence of random disturbances on a certain scale, and makes engineering operations and engineering innovations surpass the reliance on epiphany and simple repetitive work, making the achievements can be carried on, and thus is a historical and cultural phenomenon. In that context, the unique power of innovation in the evolution of modern engineering was analyzed. Once innovation be a cultural awareness, it further gains a sense of civilization. Finally, taking engineering crisis as the background, the spiritual motivation of engineering was further reflected from the perspective of praxis, and the possible general direction of engineering evolution was analyzed. The growth of modern engineering is accelerated destructing its own development conditions. Internally, this catastrophic trend was bred by the structure of the engineering evolution system; its roots lie in the disconnect between the relatively strong material productivity of human beings and the simplifed concept of engineering. It is not only the crisis of the modern engineering model, but also the crisis of historical human consciousness. However, this predicament also implies new opportunities for progress of civilization: Human may have to systematically shift from a fascination with physical-focused and instrumental rationality dominated engineering to occurrence-oriented value rationality leaded engineering, and open possibilities for a further engineering that take consciousness itself as the dominant object with the former two kinds integrated and updated which may realize the unity of Naturalism and humanism.