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
Ummm. That's the way science works. It self repairs until the conclusions are as accurate as possible. Finding new evidence is not embarrassing but quite expected.
Pretty darn low I suspect...except it's doubtful that the first proto-life started with DNA, and many chemicals combine in a non-'chance' way. Look up chemical bonds.
Really? How so?
You've got two years on me.
The reason I asked, and not to dredge this issue up again, is because this is the second time someone has made reference to the meaning of terms/concepts/relationships in "earlier times," and in both cases, I find myself in agreement.
Survival of the fittest, from my recollection, was virtually interchangeable with natural selection, since at the very least, they both described a conclusion of the same event in practical terms.
Primordial soup, if memory serves me correctly, was the other time someone brought this issue up, and again, I have to agree that it was taught as being inferred by the theory. Certainly, there was no effort, or campaign like there is today, to disassociate the two...or in the case of the former term, to distinguish the differences, if any....and I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people who grew up circa 1960's probably have similar recollections.
Anyway, that's why I asked, and thanks for the response.
Do you really prefer an approach which cannot change even when shown to be incorrect?
I don't.
Here is a brief discusson of how science works, from an NSF abstract:
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
As if the opinions of the dumbed down products of public school education change whether or not evolution is a fact. They can make 'em as dumb as they want but they will not change the fact that evolution is based on facts.
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence. (emphasis mine)
The underlined seems more of a statement on politics, than it does any objective description of the method, or methods, of science.
It is an indisputable fact that heliocentric theory replaced geocentric theory. It is not an indisputable fact that evolutionary theory is held with a very high degree of confidence.
It seems odd at best, to advocate any particular theory when making a statement on method, unless the particular theories are referenced in historical context, as in the case of heliocentric/geocentric.
Personally, I find this very disturbing.
If it wasn't for "Monks reading John" and studying MANY other things, your "prophet" Darwin would never have sailed on the Beagle.
Incidentally, the captain of said ship didn't want to take Charles aboard, as Mr. Darwin's NOSE was considered by many to be of an undesirable personality trait. This was reasonable and sufficient grounds to beach Darwin, but a number of politicos intervened.
Shcneah!
There has been a side-discussion about the Chistian Millieu which produced science.
I have admitted it. But mythos has also held back science in the name of religion if the science challenged religious doctrines.
This continues today in the guise of Creationism.
I am interested in knowing why you think I'm challenging your understanding of the fossil record. Which I am not. To be very clear to you I am saying that the evolution recorded in the fossil record is the evolution of ideas held and acted upon by a Designer and his team of desginers.
For example archeologists find ancient sundials and water clocks. While many of us today do still have sundails as garden decorations there are no water clocks to be found. Instead we have spring wound clocks, electric clocks, electronic clocks, computer clocks, and very fancy laser and atomic clocks. Very evolved have clocks become.
And every single one -- including the ancient sundail and water clock artifacts -- designed by designers.
And that is exactly parallel to your example of the ancient horse-like fossils, imo.
The MONKEY PEOPLE remind me of all those IDIOTS who 'see' things in modern art. Some untalented nincompoop splashes paint on a canvas and all of the other 'enlightened', 'educated' individuals also 'see' all type of substance and meaning in the piece of crap called art.
THOE has tens of thousands of examples. It is so laughable. The scenario above repeats again and again and again.
"Mokius Man obviously used tools, as evident by a rock being discovered within a proximity of 500 yards to the small bone fragment that MONKIUS MAN was derived from. What we can derive from this is an advanced brain capacity of 23 centimeters. This is a breakthrough discovery upon which several thousand MORONS will write PHD thesis on, and several thousand other MORONS will sit around and claim this is SCIENCE."
I agree that theories should change when incorrect. Eintstien's theories have been subject to revision because of observed events in the universe.
However, Global Warming and Evolution's theories never need revising based on observed events, these events simply get explained as evidence to support the theory.
That is why these theories are superior, they never have to say they are sorry. What grand theories compared to the poor old relativity theory.
Are you trashcanbred? {post #81}
"Sorry, following the rules of courtesy where you ping those being discussed. Please graciously accept my apologies. :) Post #195"
The warmth and depth of your Christian charity and courtesy are duly noted this Sunday morning. Thank you again for showing us how seriously you take your beliefs that you would find it necessary to ping me to 195. It speaks wonders about the kindness of your heart. If I hadn't had a bad sinus attack last night that has left me struggling to read a computer screen, I would elaborate further. As it is, I can barely open one of my eyes and both eyes are so bloodshot and swollen it looks like I went a few rounds with Rocky. I apparently forgot to duck.
Note that the next thing, A. africanus, over from the modern chimp looks a lot like the chimp, and it's the oldest skull in the series at 2.6 million years.
The text immediately preceding the figure:
One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.From a source which should be familiar to you by now, and yet every thread is like your first thread.
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.