Posted on 02/18/2006 1:21:05 PM PST by DeweyCA
“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.”
—Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
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 . . .
But in some later dictionaries, the primary definition changed:
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
Wow... at exactly 9:00am. that early :-)
Probably Greenwich Mean Time.
You would think that the CRIDers would learn they don't get to throw out uneducated assertions without a direct on point rsponse.
Of course, they never answer anything on point.
I have been trying to point out the logical fallacies to them and I get back ad hominem.
Fighting against stupidity and vacuity is a never-ending and frustrating job!
Typical postmoderndeconstructionist comments by the author. He replaces scientific inquiry by textual analysis. Then he trys to impose his own definition of terms on those actually doing the work. Creationism is the soulmate of postmoderndeconstructionism.
Especially since there were no clocks :)
Not really. Evolution is, was, and will always be a theory. Laws describe observed regularities; theories attempt to explain observations.
There is no denying the fossil evidence and the progression from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo SapienThat Wikipedia article isn't very clearly written. Besides, I suspect it's just wrong. Australopithecus, which vincentblackshadow referred to, is the genus, Australopithecus africanus is a species within that genus. The very next sentence after the ones you included in your quote, says "The gracile australopithecines first appeared in the hominid fossil record between 5.4 to 1.5 million years ago."Well, yes there is.
A. africanus used to be regarded as ancestral to the genus Homo (in particular Homo erectus). However, fossils assigned to the genus Homo have been found that are older than A. africanus. Thus, the genus Homo either split off from the genus Australopithecus at an earlier date (the latest common ancestor being A. afarensis or an even earlier form), or both developed from an as yet possibly unknown common ancestor independently.
So, the earliest australopithecine fossil is 5.4 million years old. But what does Wikipedia say about how old Australopithecus africanus specifically was?
Australopithecus africanus was an early hominid, an australopithecine, who lived between 3.3 and 2.4 million years ago in the Pliocene.Ah, interesting. A. africanus fossils range from 3.3 to 2.4 mya. OK, now what does Wikipedia say about how old Homo erectus fossils are?
It is now believed that H. erectus is a descendent of more primitive ape-men such as australopithecines and early Homo species. Before their settlement of South Eastern Asia, dating fewer than 500,000 and 300,000 years ago, H. erectus originally migrated during the Pleistocene glacial period in Africa roughly 2.0 million years ago and so disbursed throughout various areas of the Old World.So the Wikipedia articles paint a fully consistent picture to what vincentblackshadow said.
This site at Michigan State says A. africanus fossils range from 3.3 to 2.3 mya, while H. erectus fossils range from 1.7 mya to 300 kya.
It is true that some later Australopithecine fossils are younger than some of the earlier Hominid fossils. But of course that's to be expected, since they're on a bush, not a ladder.
You're not counting all the disenfranchised voters who were turned away and couldn't read the ballot :)
The non-randomness of selection is easily observed by analyzing each letter for 'fitness' in the 'monkeys typing' mind experiment.
Of course, Hays was talking about the Troping Hypothesis.
The author of the article makes this mistake willfully.
Ironically I was out in that area for vacation last year but I never heard of of the bones at all. It is educational though to hear about this but in the end it doesn't prove Creationism. Finding bones in Cretaceous layers like they did in Moab sounds like a slam dunk until you do the carbon dating on them and find they are no more than 1500 years old. Either they were buried on purpose or they were mining (the latter seems to be the most logical). Either way it seems they were natives (my guess is Anasazi).
You're completely missing the point related to VESTIGIAL FEATURES. Modern science has made claims of no use, or de-selected use and then was PROVEN COMPLETELY WRONG, as more knowledge was discovered. That's why your use of these vestigial claims have so little credibility. Truthful (and non-emmbarrasing in the future) statements should be: WE DON'T KNOW OR UNDERSTAND WHAT THE USE IS?
Except the Soviet Union, where "Darwinist Biologists" were executed and Darwin (along with Mendel) were not allowed to be taught or researched.
Getting rid of the masses would also work.
And they were 100 percent creationist, too.
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.