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
And no, it does not paint "a fully consistent picture to what vincentblackshadow said"
What VBS said was "There is no denying the fossil evidence and the progression from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien".
The reality is that it is a subject of dispute, in other words There is no consensus among the experts concerning the evolutionary relationship among the various australopithecines, or between the australopithecines and Homo habilis, which is considered by many to be the earliest species of the genus Homo.
Evolution is all speculation. And, speculation is NOT a theory. Therefore, evolution is NOT a theory.
It's only logical.
There is a very visible progression. It is not a certifiable progression of ancestor to descendant, but it shows the most advanced primates known for each age becoming increasingly humanlike until they are human. You really, really, really have to strap on blinders not to see what the fossil record is showing you here.
Good picture as an analogy of a broken "theory" of evolution.
Yes, VESTIGIAL FEATURES do indeed provide evidence of evolution "either way", because if they linger from a common ancestor, they indicate the link to that common ancestor, and if they have been "de-selected" as you say, they also provide evidence for evolution because they leave traces of their passing, such as the fact that birds do not have teeth, but still have "broken" genes to produce teeth (which can and have been chemically triggered to produce chicks with reptile-like teeth). Even though birds have lost the teeth of their reptile ancestors, they retain clear evidence that they *did* have teeth in a distant ancestor. emphasis mine
Concerning the emphasis, I think your readers should know this:
"Cells were transplanted from mice into the chicken embryos..." source
Here's a critique of the reaserch for anyone interested.
Something the MP's don't like to discuss...
Suicide rates are higher among nations with higer rates of atheism.
Birth rates are lower among atheists.
So. Looks like there might be something to evolution afterall. The atheists and homosexuals will extinct without evangelizing to spread their beliefs. (And they think we're the ignorant ones?)
MSM and public education - the only means of survival for atheism.
And now some want to inject a supernatural who is not only capable of tweeking DNA on a regular basis but does so on a whim whenever he/she/it wants a new species to play with, into science. Go figure.
We can? Really?
Do we know the initial conditions where pre-life started? No. Do we know where pre-life started? No. We know the conditions that may have existed where pre-life started but there may have been many other necessary conditions we know nothing about. This is why we spend time trying to determine those conditions - because we are unsure.
Do we know the chemical composition of the initial pre-life? No. We know the composition of current life, we know about RNA and DNA, but are these the only combinations of chemicals that self-replicate? Are these the only structures that life could possibly start with? Are there any other combinations that could begin proto-life? We do not know. That is why abiogenesis is being studied, to learn how things got started.
Do we know what if any selection process was applied to the original pre-life? No. Based on current observations, we can suppose that selection can be applied to any proto-life that suffers replication errors but is this selection even necessary at that early a point? We do not know. This is why the study of abiogenesis is going on, to learn.
We haven't replicated life in the laboratory because there are an almost infinite number of possible combinations of elements and conditions, and we have barely begun our version of the selection process.
Can we recreate any condition there ever was? Doubtful. Even if we could, how many billions of conditions are there for us to iterate through?
Your claim that we can do anything we want in the lab but have been unable to recreate life sounds very much like the meanderings of a person with very little knowledge of the world around him. Before you go claiming knowledge of what we can and what we can not do in research, spend a little time doing what science does and in fact is all about, learn something.
From a modern chimp??????!!!!!!
What? What the heck are you ranting about?
"Blind ranting as it may be...
"By the way, a lot of evos seem to have a case of logorrhea but no one has yet been able to explain away the Cambrian explosion, the irreducibly complex systems, etc., etc.
Every ICS so far proposed by IDists has been soundly debunked. The Cambrian Explosion is an explosion only when considered in Geological time, it covered ~40 million years. In fact the range of 'body' styles found in the Cambrian contains less variation on average than the original organism in a phylum does to extant members. There are some exceptions to this but over all the phyla are not as radically diverse as you would like them to be. Many can simply be considered variations on others. For example, we humans can be considered to differ more from the 'worm' that started the Chordata than that worm is to the worm that started Hemichordata.
Of course this all depends on how the divisions between the ~36 Phyla are determined. It is possible to reduce the ~36 down to 9 major Phyla, not all of which started in the Cambrian.
Explosion? Only when compared to other radiations, hardly instantaneous.
I'll assume your etc. etc. is as empty as the rest of your points.
You must have a very tiny perspective if you think the 'holes' in the ToE are giant.
Why?
Because the ToE is not bunk.
It would be quite a surprise to find external flesh fossilized at all. We have a very few skin fossils (imprints) of that age, none of which (if memory serves) have associated fossil flesh.
I suspect if wrong I will be soundly corrected.
Lack of a fossil doesn't mean something was not there. A fossil can *prove* that something existed but after all we hear about how difficult it is for something to be fossilized that it's remarkable that there are any fossils at all, you can't prove that something didn't exist because of a lack of a fossil. What do you mean by *modern*? Something that is alive today? If that's the case, a google search on *living fossils* and *bat fossils* will provide some links to discuss this.
Sheesh! Did ya havta say it that way?
I'll get started on the washroom right away...
Well my daughter once asked my wife if she remembered dinosaurs, I responded with a hearty 'Yes'. I'm two years younger than my wife.
Seriously, I'm 50.
Not so seriously I feel 80.
By the way, most of us gave up on logging the fallacies used, the logs get to be huge.
. . . and you have no basic understanding of the word RUDE!
I do happen to understand the meaning of the word "vestigial".
You have no idea how educated I may or may not be.
I do not need YOU to provide me with an education.
Do you always so severely abuse the people with which you converse? If you do, I would suggest that you not venture out of doors and continue to interact behind the privacy of your keyboard where you will be safer.
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.