The Evolution of Theory: Defining the Debate

Breakpoint ^ | Feb, 16, 2006 | Allen Dobras

[DeweyCA]

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.

[the_Watchman]

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.

[freedumb2003]

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.

[freedumb2003]

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.

[Cicero]

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.

[RunningWolf]

Great article bump thanks,

I find the articles much more informative provocative enlightening educational than the 'education' I get from the FR evos LOL

Wolf

[vincentblackshadow]

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?

[trashcanbred]

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.

[freedumb2003]

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?

[freedumb2003]

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.

[microgood]

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.

[jennyp]

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

Except that the facts DO fit. Sorry.

[farmer18th]

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.

[fizziwig]

"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.

[the_Watchman]

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".

[jennyp]

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."

[freedumb2003]

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.

[mugs99]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[05 Mustang GT Rocks]

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!

[jennyp]

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.