"Evolution, the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today, is the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology"If the clause "the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today" is an apostive to the subject noun "evolution" why did you initially say the subject noun "referred" to said clause in Post 3565?
What the subject noun "refers" to is the object of the sentence "the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology."
"Evolution," as it's being used in that sentence, is "the central organizing principle." Now, you can say that "central organizing principle" is an axiom -- which I reject but one I strongly suspect that those who claim "evolution reveals an universe without design" seek to establish. You can claim it as a law, which I don't think anyone scientifically minded will support. Or you can call it what it is -- a theory attempting to tie together the historical sciences.
A thousand pardons; sloppy choice of words on my part. I should have said the noun and the apositive refer to each other.
What the subject noun "refers" to is the object of the sentence "the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology."
Yes; subjects refer to objects, so now we have "evolution = "the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today" [by virtue of the apositive] and "evolution" = "the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology." [by virtue of the verb "is"]
Hence, by transitive property of equivalence relations, we obtain: "the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today" [which the word "evolution" stands for in this instance] = "the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology." Or to put it in concise form:
"evolution (a process of change)" = "the sequence of events...." = "a central organizing principle of ...."
"Evolution," as it's being used in that sentence, is "the central organizing principle."
Yes, now you've got it! "Evolution" [defined as a process of change], which in this instance means "the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today" IS "the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology."
Nowhere is there any suggestion that the word "evolution" is being used by the author to refer to some mythical Theory of Evolution encompassing "life, the Universe, and everything." And it clearly can't be referring to the theory of Darwinian Evolution, in as much as biological evolution can't possibly be an "organizing principle" (central or otherwise) for geology and Cosmology! The only meaningful interpretation for the word "evolution" in that sentence is as defined by Webster: "a process of formation or change; development."
Now, you can say that "central organizing principle" is an axiom -- which I reject but one I strongly suspect that those who claim "evolution reveals an universe without design" seek to establish. You can claim it as a law, which I don't think anyone scientifically minded will support. Or you can call it what it is -- a theory attempting to tie together the historical sciences.
None of the above.
It ["evolution" -- "a process of change" -- which in this instance is: "the sequence of events...."] is a "central organizing principle" common to biology, geology, and cosmology. An "organizing principle" isn't an axiom, it isn't a law, and it most definitely isn't a scientific THEORY.
That said, you keep referring to this "well-known" mystical "Theory of Evolution" encompassing life, the Universe and everything. I've never heard of it; no one I know has heard of it. I've particpated in both CREVO threads and Cosmology threads on FR for several years now, and if such a theory existed and were well known, I think I'd remember it. So, once again, I'll ask you for a citations to articles in mainstream peer-reviewed science journals describing and discussing the details of this all-powerful theory. To deliver the mail, it must provide an explanatory framework or model for the phenomona encompassed by biology, geology, and Cosmology. I will parenthetically add, that if such an extraordinary theory existed, it would surely have won a Nobel prize, perhaps in multiple categories.
But absent such definitive evidence, I must reluctantly conclude you are confabulating this "well-known" mystical "Theory of Evolution" encompassing life, the Universe and everything out of whole cloth, or are the victim of a terrible misconception.