The Evolution of Theory: Defining the Debate

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

A curious metamorphosis of the language of evolution seems to be taking place as the Darwinian theory becomes more suspect in the eyes of scientists who advocate intelligent design, and with the public at large.

The Gallup Organization has been polling the public on this issue since 1982, when 38 percent indicated a belief in the creationist explanation of life's origin, 33 percent believed in theistic (God-directed) evolution, and 9 percent chose the “no God” account. The trend has been steadily toward creationism, and by November 2004, 45 percent chose the creationist explanation, 38 percent the theistic evolutionist account, and 13 percent the “no God” explanation.

Nevertheless, the reaction by supporters of evolution has been to shut intelligent design out of the debate over origins and declare that the public has woefully misunderstood scientific terminology when it comes to the meaning of “theory.” As I have reported earlier at BreakPoint Online, “theory” in scientific parlance is said to really mean “fact”—and if the public understood this, there would allegedly be much less confusion over the “theory” of evolution. As author David Quammen said in a November 2004 National Geographic article, “What scientists mean when they talk about a theory [is] not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence.”

It is remarkable how broadly Quammen’s quote has proliferated among other commentators. His words generated over seven hundred hits on an Internet search. Other similar quotes are also widely circulated (emphasis added):

“In everyday use, the word “theory” often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.” (172 hits) Kenneth R. Miller - Professor of Biology, Brown University; The American Museum of Natural History

“When scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation. It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories.” (69 hits) Dr. Dennis O’Neil - Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College

“Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is ‘a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world’ . . . so when scientists talk about the theory of evolution . . . they are not expressing reservations about its truth.” (628 hits) Answers to Creation Nonsense - John Rennie, Editor-in-Chief; Scientific American, July 2002

These nearly identical definitions of the word “theory” have proliferated so broadly they have taken on the roll of science “talking points.” In reality, it is common knowledge—even among scientists—that a theory can mean anything from wild speculation to near-absolute fact.

Einstein’s special theory of relativity, for example, is a fairly well established theory that has been validated by numerous scientific measurements, yet it breaks down when describing motion in varying gravitational fields. On the other hand, string theory describes subatomic particles in terms of incredibly small vibrating strings whose frequency determines the type of particle. The theory attempts to connect the particle to the four seemingly independent forces found in the natural world: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

String theory exists only in mathematical formulae and requires a universe of ten dimensions beyond space and time. In an interview for the PBS program The Elegant Universe, 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics laureate David Gross admitted that physicists really don’t know what string theory is:

It’s as if we’ve stumbled in the dark into what we thought was a two-bedroom apartment and now we’re discovering is a 19-room mansion. At least maybe it’s got a thousand rooms, and we’re just beginning our journey . . .

In string theory I think we’re in sort of a pre-revolutionary stage. We have hit upon, somewhat accidentally, an incredible theoretical structure, many of whose consequences we’ve worked out, many of which we’re working out, which we can use to explore new questions… many of us believe that that [a very radical break with conventional physics] will be insufficient to realize the final goals of string theory, or even to truly understand what the theory is, what its basic principles are. (emphasis added)

The “gay gene theory,” which was offered by NIH researcher Dr. Dean Hamer, claimed that sexual orientation was passed genetically through gene position Xq28—a theory that turned out to be completely bogus, if not fraudulent.

As can be seen, “theory,” in the scientific sense, can mean anything from well established to highly speculative to nonsense, and everything in between. Nevertheless, as Humpty Dumpty explained to Alice, it is not important what one thinks a word means, it is which definition becomes “master” over any other. It seems the strategy of evolutionists is to preempt debate by assigning a narrow meaning, i.e., fact, to the word theory—especially when in union with the word evolution. Proponents of evolution have made some headway in altering the meaning of theory in popular reference dictionaries. For example:

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961: 1. Contemplation; speculation. 2. The analysis of a set of facts in their ideal relations to one another; as essays in theory. 3. The general or abstract principles of any body of facts; pure as distinguished from applied, science or art; as the theory of music or of medicine. 4. A more or less plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain phenomena. 5. Loosely, a hypothesis or guess. 6. Math. A body of theorems presenting a clear, rounded, and systematic view of a subject; as, the theory of equations.

Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary, 1967: 1. The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another . . .

Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 1983: 1. Originally, a mental viewing; contemplation. An idea or mental plan of the way to do something. 2. A systematic statement of principles involved; as the theory of equations in mathematics . . .

Webster’s College Dictionary, 2000: 1. A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Darwin’s theory of evolution. 2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural . . .

The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2005: 1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something; especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained; Darwin’s Theory of Evolution . . .

Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 2004: 1. [Obsolete]. A mental viewing; contemplation. SYN: theory, as compared here, implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of a certain phenomena; The theory of evolution.

So it seems that the “Humpty Dumpty theory” is coming through for evolutionists, in a strategy not uncommon in today’s culture war: Unrestricted abortion is really reproductive health; sodomy is a lifestyle alternative; Christmas is Winter Holiday; and family is whatever one wants it to be. Perhaps we’re approaching a time when the definition of words will no longer be important—we can just make them up as we go along.

But no matter how the language is manipulated in order to change fantasy into reality, the fact remains that the development of complex organisms by solely naturalistic processes remains a formidable, if not insurmountable, obstacle to evolutionists. Darwin himself had doubts about the viability of natural selection in his study of the human eye. His commentary in The Origin of Species is illuminating:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.

Nevertheless, Darwin steadfastly clung to the belief that natural selection was somehow at work in the complex process of sight. Modern science suggests this conundrum began with a “freckle” that in some mysterious way offered an ancient organism a selective advantage over its competitors until only the freckled mutations remained.

Over time, the spot evolved into a freckled “depression” with a similar competitive advantage, which over the ages evolved into the human eye, complete with lens, iris, vitreous humor, retina, cornea, adjustable pupil, macula, eye lids, tear ducts, and an optic nerve connected to the brain. Yet the eye is but one of a multitude of similarly inexplicable organic complexities—a formidable challenge, indeed, for evolutionists. But there is an alternative:

“The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Genesis Chapter 2, verse 7

Defining terms is extremely important. Often, it seems, some evolutionists will say that evolution does not rule out God. Other times, other evolutionists. like Richard Dawkins, forthrightly say that evolution presupposes, and then proves, that there is no God. The same is true sith the word, "theory." What is really meant by theory. If you look at the examples that the author cites, you see that this has also been "evolving." It's hard to have an intelligible debate when basic definitions are agreed upon. And from my viewpoint, it's seems to be more often the evolutionists who keep changing the terms of the debate.

Terminology is not the only thing that "evolves" with evolutionists. For instance, look up all the vestigial organs claimed by evolutionists to prove their theory. Most have now been proven to have uses and not be so vestigial at all.

That is at the periphery of the discussion. It is used as supporting evidence.

To use that as a refutation is like me saying "well, the Shroud of Turin is probably not real, so there is no God."

IOW: Standard CRIDer Strawman.

The theory is silent on God.

Different scientists interpret God differently but to suggest that somehow redefining a "theory" says anything for or against either evolution or its proponents is disengenuous at best and libel at worst.

Very interesting. Maybe we should change it from Darwin's theory to Orwell's theory.

If the facts don't fit, change the language. Just one more way that the Darwinists take a leaf from the leftists' ideological playbook.

If the facts don't fit, change the language and send in the ACLU to enforce it.

Evolution would be considered a law if it wasn't for Christian Fundamentalists. There is no denying that Africa was once full of trees. When the climate became more arid and the trees in Africa became scarce, arboreal pre-hominids became nomadic. Fossil records prove the transition from arboreal 'ape like' species to a bipedal hominid.

1. big toes become larger and begin to position for balance

2.spine becomes more curved, providing cushion for walking
3.muscles in legs grow stronger in certain places to support long distance walking
4.cranium begins to grow larger (signs of spatial thinking growth) and eyes position to enable better peripheral vision.
5.hips widen to support torso

There is no denying the fossil evidence and the progression from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien

If a certain Freeper denies those fossil records, do you also refute the existence of dinosaurs?

Evolution might be a theory and it likely is still incomplete in a number of respects, but it at least seeks to answer how life exists today scientifically.

It sounded ridiculous when someone suggested that the Earth went around the sun, go figure.

I see the "ignorance is truth" squad is starting to arrive

So are you going to hit me with strawman, argumentum ignoratum, non sequitur or yet a new logical fallacy?

As the first poster said, if you win the definitions, you win thr debate.

This thin attempt to redefine "theory" is a forensic analogy to having software viruses attack the anti-virus programs.

If the facts don't fit, change the language and send in the ACLU to enforce it.

Another area they have changed the language is in explaining the mechanism. Neo-Darwinists are being told to deemphasize the randomness of evolution and spin natural selection as the main guiding force. Random mutation is not being mentioned as part of the mechanism much anymore.

The same is true sith the word, "theory." What is really meant by theory

I must say it's been amusing to see the way orthodox, lock-step evolutionists on FR have insisted on their own defintion of "theory." It's something like playing Scrabble with a guy in the parts department.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible."
___________________________________________

This is where faith in naturalism comes in. Evolutionists have faith that natural selection created the eye.

It may have but we will never have sufficient supporting evidence to provide a reasonable explanation as to how natural selection accomplished this daunting task. As it stands now its mere speculation.

Yes, "vestigial organs" were used as supporting evidence. In my high school anthropology class in 1968, vestigial organs were used as a supporting evidence to demonstrate the viability of evolutionary theory. I remember vividly the instructor pointing a fold in his ear and claiming that it was a vestigial "gill".

The point is that evolutionists engage in "wishful thinking" in cases where they claim it is good science. Their science "evolves".

Another area they have changed the language is in explaining the mechanism. Neo-Darwinists are being told to deemphasize the randomness of evolution and spin natural selection as the main guiding force. Random mutation is not being mentioned as part of the mechanism much anymore.

No, your side kept repeating the lie that evolution was random by assiduosly ignoring the nonrandom aspect of selection. When we correct your lie in public, you perceive it as us denying random mutation altogether.

This Harry Truman quote comes to mind: "I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell."

If the facts don't fit, change the language and send in the ACLU to enforce it.

Um, reread the article. The author is trying to make a more rigorous definition of "theory" and saying evolution doesn't measure up to the new definition.

It is true the author is using a play from the Left's playbook, though.

Evolution WAS the law in all the communist countries. Let's count how many people got murdered. And that is why we keep our guns ready for the time you atheist commies try to re-educate us. Then through the law of natural selection you are going to be extinct.
By the way, care to cite all the "fossil evidence" you blabber about in more detail?
Go back to North Korea, Kim!

Gee, I wonder why you creationists never post the very next sentence?

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Dishonesty on the part of creationists? The objective lurker will decide.

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.