Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Forgive me; apparently I didn't make my point clearly enough.
In the phrase:
"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"
the word "evolution" refers to "the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today," as is plainly evident by the appositive set off by commas. This conforms to Webster's first definition of "evolution": "a process of formation or change; development."
The point I'm making is that the author's use of the word "evolution" in this context is DIFFERENT than when someone uses it to refer to the biological Theory of Evolution.
It's usage here is perfectly acceptable, as long as you understand it to mean "process of change" (as in "the sequence of events...." as the author puts it). And since the author spells that out via the appositive, there should be no confusion as to what he means by it.
This brings us to the last part of the sentence:
[Evolution] ..... is the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology.
Now, if the author were refering to Darwin's evolution when he wrote that, I would agree with you that it makes no sense, because Darwin's Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with explaining geology or cosmology!
But he clearly is NOT using the word "evolution" in that sense, as I have elaborated upon above, and previously. He clearly means it in the sense of "a process of change," nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not in its Darwinian sense; a Theory of the Origin of the Species (or it modern incarnation).
Thus, its usage is perfectly proper; for surely you would agree that "a process of change" over time, i.e., "evolution" in the general sense, IS the common denominator, the common underpinning, the "central organizing principle" of the three scientific fields: biology, geology, and cosmology. There is simply no reasonable way to misinterpret this and think that he means that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the "central organizing principle" of geology and cosmology, as geology and cosmology are surely NOT organized around the principles of heritable traits, mutation, reproduction, and natural selection! No reasonable person could come such a conclusion.
As I noted previously to you, the fact that these sciences are organized around the central principle of "processes of change" over time is precisely why they are all referred to as "historical sciences."
So, in conclusion, I can find no reasonable basis for objecting to that phrase being used in school. One really has to work overtime to misconstrue it.
I regret having to dwell on this so much, but you clearly seem to think the author means something quite different than what is clear to me that he meant.
Never in the annals of science has a vegetable been used to such effect with such economy.
Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by saying it got your attention. All that I meant by it was that the "thing that collapses the wave function" has to have A name, for the sake of convenience. I really doesn't matter what we call it, as long as we all agree on the same name; even "zucchini" would work....
But I admit, "observer" is much more conventional...
But when a dust mote absorbs a photon, did the mote "see" the photon or did the photon "see" the dust mote? In optics, you can find either usage. The difference depends on whether the speaker is imagining he is the dust mote trying to intercept a photon or a photon looking for a dust mote.
Excuse me; is this the Smokey Backroom, or the Dusty Backroom?
Interesting, BB. One of the deplorable trends in education is the popular notion that there is no right or wrong, only differences of opinion. Fortunately, science education, despite attacks from multiple fronts, is still about a monopoly of truth. And so it is that the best, most scientific theories are still presented as frameworks for the facts. Facts alone don't form themselves into stories. Presenting students with reems of numbers, which is what most of these facts are, would not serve anybody's interest.
Speculation is an essential part of science, in fact it is my personal favorite. But I try not to let speculation overwhelm my spidy sense that most of it goes nowhere, or else in unexpected directions.
Some sort of marketing ploy . . . coup - - - the new constitution(pc) vs the wrong(old) constitution ! ! !
Govt money . . . funding // scchools - - - for liberals // EVOLUTION only ! ! !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.