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
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.
We can number you among those who think science is argued the way religion is argued. That is, the works of the founder are canonical and trump all subsequent scholarship. Furthermore, if any personal dirt on the founder exists then all the works of the founder are discredited.
Science is not a matter of revealed word. Darwin was only the first Darwinist. He died in 1881 and is quite out of date. It doesn't matter now if you can find evidence that he barbequeued and ate human babies, or even that he married his first cousin. It's not about that.
Evolution isn't true because Darwin is a famous scientist. Darwin is a famous scientist because evolution proved true.
You don't even know how people reason these kind of questions. That's not encouraging.
I think you're addressing the wrong person.
"I think you're addressing the wrong person."
Your humility is admirable, but misplaced. You should be proud of the sentiments you expressed this Sunday morning. I for one took them in the spirit they were given. :)
One of the big peeves of evolutionist is the claim they they believe man evolved from apes, which this chart infers :-)
How does this chart indicate that Australopithecus evolved? Agruably you can say it devolved since it's cranium is bigger than the chimps, or, more reasonably, say it was a type of primate that became extinct -- which appears to be a widely held view among scientist in good standing in the evolution club.
Regardless, the fossil record is subject to debate.
Also, J, K and L show Neanderthal man. Why would they be on a chart of the family tree of man?
That is not a relationship chart, but rather a mug book. It shows a lot of the main fossils, in relation to modern chimp and modern human, but it does not imply any specific relationship between adjacent fossils.
This chart from a few years ago attempts to show relationships:
http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
For those not blinded by religious horror it ought to be absolutely obvious. Not much of an inference.
How does this chart indicate that Australopithecus evolved? Agruably you can say it devolved since it's cranium is bigger than the chimps, or, more reasonably, say it was a type of primate that became extinct -- which appears to be a widely held view among scientist in good standing in the evolution club.
Why would you say it devolved if it is more adapted to bipedalism than any previous fossil primate and had a larger cranial capacity? You're not making any sense here.
It became extinct in the sense that there are no living representatives of that species. However, it is a fine candidate for being the ancestor of later forms such as H. habilis and, indirectly through those later forms, H. sapiens. (If some later africanuses overlapped in time with some habilis specimens, so what? There are still monkeys, fish, and protozoans, too.)
Regardless, the fossil record is subject to debate.
There are reasonable debates among real scientists and there are the relentless, discredited, back-again-dumb-as-a-stumpisms of creationism. There is no question among real scientists that humans arose from apes. The real debates among real scientists, no matter how amplified and distorted by creationists, are not about that.
Also, J, K and L show Neanderthal man. Why would they be on a chart of the family tree of man?
We may well carry Neanderthal genes. The latest genetic evidence weighs strongly against total replacement of pre-existing local by the last Out-of-Africa wave.
Also, if the chart were being made today it could just as easily have replaced one or more of the Neanderthals with early H. sapiens specimens like Homo sapiens idaltu (160 kya) and Qafzeh 9, 90-100 kya. It would be just as smooth a progression. Several closely related (probably not speciated from each other) branches were experiencing the same trend toward intelligence, tool-making, etc.
You're working too hard to not know the real evidence, to refuse to infer, to spread misinformation. This is not the path to understanding.
I assume someone will challenge this. New analysis shows three human migrations out of Africa, Replacement theory 'demolished'.
However to be able to produce such fine obviously step-wise evolution of morphological classificatiuon (ordering by shape chateristics) amoung artifacts -- where those artifacts were to be man-made, say arrow-heads, or watches made by watchmakers -- is a strong indicator of design evolution, where designers share and evolve designs for some purpose. Thus by a rule of logic and science know as induction, to have such an morphologically evolving step porgression of skulls is an indicator of DESIGN.
These skulls, per last post's reference.
Exactly what observed event or physical evidence do you believe exists that contradicts or supersedes the Theory of Evolution? If there isn't any, and the theory keeps succeeding in providing a consistent explanation of available data, it must be pretty good theory, no?
And every single one -- including the ancient sundail and water clock artifacts -- designed by designers.
Clocks, however, do not reproduce imperfect copies of themselves, and are thus not equipped to evolve on their own.
The analogy fails.
No....how about 10 to the 130th!
The analogy succeeds again!
The analogy succeeds again!
To my knowledge, no computer chip has ever been observed producing more of its own kind spontaneously. Biological organisms do so all the time, and we observe their evolution directly all the time (without the direct intervention of a "Designer"). Sorry, the analogy still doesn't work. Clocks and microchips don't have babies.
Not only is the anti-creation percentage margin greater, but it has moved over the fifty percent margin which tells a campaign the undecideds can't move this one.
I noticed that too.
The beauty of Global Warming is that regardless of a hot day or a cold, receding ice or growing, the events prove global warming. Likewise evolution. Regardless what information about fossils and the past is obtained or changed, the explanations are there to prove Evolution.
Even poor Einstein's theories are not that good.
Just how spontnaeous is that reproduction again? And even, just how "spontaneous" is the very moment of time space and existance we are in?
Just as the running program is unable to directly sense the programmer, in our animalistic mind we are (almost totally) unable to sense our Creaor and Maintainer.
Evolve!
OK, Vade. When an pro-evo objects that evolution does not claim that man evolved from apes, I'll cite you as the authority that it does :-)
Not true. The success of the Theory of Evolution, just as with relativity or any other well-established theory, has been its ability to make predictions about yet undiscovered data.
Some examples:
Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).
(source)
There are many, many more examples. Evolutionary theory has predicted (successfully) that fibrinogen (a specific blood-clotting protein) would have an analogously related protein in our closest invertebrate relatives. Evolutionary theory predicted (successfully) that the same gene that produces antifreeze in the blood of certain Antarctic fish also produces digestive enzymes. Evolutionary theory predicted (successfully) that pathogens that require host-to-host contact for survival have slower and smaller mortality rates. Evolutionary theory predicted (successfully) that the line marking differences between species would be blurry in many cases (as has been confirmed by the discovery of ring species). The list goes on and on and on...
Like relativity theory, which itself continues to be refined in its application, evolutionary theories are refined, though the basic tenets have robustly withstood the test of time and have not required any fundamental alteration - the hallmark of a solid theory.
Einstein would no doubt be impressed with the successful tests of both relativity and evolutionary theory if he was alive today. Scientists eagerly await any competing theory of origins that can even begin to match the predictive success that evolution has had - there would no doubt be a lot of money and recognition to be had there.
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.