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
TalkOrigins calls them transitional fossils
If it doesn't imply a specific relationship why put the chimp in A? If it were just a mug book why not put the chimp next to modern human and keep chronological consistency?
The chart you posted shows the latest thinking. In other words, VBS is wrong that no one denies Australopithecus to be an ancestor of man.
If you were right, there would be no paleontology at all, as nothing means anything. But when, starting in the 60s and gathering momentum through the present, we generated molecular phylogenies, they wonderfully matched the "don't mean a thing" morphological phylogenies based on the mere physical shapes of extant and fossil life. If there were nothing going on, that wouldn't have happened.
All you're showing is that there is no amount whatsoever of real-world data that will make a witch doctor give up his mask and rattle.
Do so. Some people hide behind a wishy-washy lawyerism which seems to be based upon an equivocation between "extant ape species" and "ape." Evos should be better than that and leave the weasly lawyering to the creationists.
Give it a rest already. In case you haven't noticed, we're not at Sunday school here, we're on a friggin' debating forum. If you have a problem with that, then I suggest you troll elsewhere. Otherwise, you might actually want to add something meaningful to the discussion, if that is at all possible...
Hmmmm...I made only two posts on this thread. The first was an observation of fact. The second, to which you responded, had nothing to do with the first. And you think I should 'Give it a rest already'.
As to the rhetoric I was referring to, I would hardly think it adds anything meaningful to the so-called debate.
Fair enough :-)
Why don't creationists ever know the answers to their questions? You asked me and I told you. Post 200.
Now I'll answer my own question. Creationists don't know any answers because they think ignorance is wisdom. It keeps "the controversy" alive if they never learn anything.
" Traditional (radiocarbon) dating results had caused stagnation in our understanding of modern human evolution. The introduction of more advanced dating methods led to significant revisions, which have been backed up by DNA analyses. These showed that modern humans probably evolved in Africa around 200,000 years (e.g. Ingman et al. 2000) and that an eastward migration of modern humans took place well before the population of Europe (e.g., Hedges 2000). This means that the aboriginal peoples are more ancient in the Australian landscape than Europeans are in Europe. The emerging migration patterns of modern humans are summarised in Fig. 11."
Curious, are the DNA analyses referring to Berkeley's "Mitochondrial Eve"?
If it doesn't imply a specific relationship why put the chimp in A? If it were just a mug book why not put the chimp next to modern human and keep chronological consistency?
The chart you posted [#205] shows the latest thinking. In other words, VBS is wrong that no one denies Australopithecus to be an ancestor of man.
You make a lot of points, so I'll try to deal with them one by one.
I'm not sure what you mean by "TalkOrigins calls them transitional fossils." While all fossils are transitional between something and something else, the term as usually used in the context of these crania would mean as transitional between ape and human. Many of these crania are transitional, but I don't think Neanderthal is considered by most authorities as transitional on the human line, and some of the others surely are not. Not sure if this answers the question you posed or not.
The original responses on this thread were generated by the photograph of many fossil crania, with modern chimp on one end and modern human on the other for comparison. It is a collection of crania, and the position of each shows a general progression from ape-like to human-like. That does not mean any adjacent crania are related in any specific way. That is the purpose of the subsequent chart (post #205).
If you check the chart it does show Australopithecus as an ancestor of man.
One of the controversies in paleoanthropology is what to call various fossils. Some might prefer to call Australopithecus species Homo but this is a matter of classification and does not change the line of descent.
I have not studies the fine details for some years, but from what I remember, Australopithecus is in the line of descent. The fact that some are shown as dead-enders in the chart is immaterial--so are Neanderthal, P. robustus and P. boisie.
For some numbers, try the Consilience of Independent Phylogenies section of the 29+ Evidences article.
There was a thread here about a week ago titled New analysis shows three human migrations out of Africa, Replacement theory 'demolished'.
The section you posted to me was dated 2000. A lot has changed even since then. Have fun!
That's a dump. I am not worthy, evidently.
Thanks. Along with some other things that I need to get done, this should keep me busy for awhile.
No you are correct. To my knowledge the only thing close to flesh from that age is imprints. And they are very rare.
Yes. If evolution is bunk, then all creatures today existed in the same form hundreds of millions of years ago. Am I not correct? Since animals do not change, then we should see the single hooved horse fossils at the same time we see 5 toed versions. My point is you do not see that at all.
There are lots of other animal we do see fossils for but the farther you go back... all you see are animals that do not exist today. You would think that you would see fossils of modern day animals but you do not.
Shark fossils and crocodiles do go back pretty far... but not even close to far enough to say they never changed.
Oh sorry I was not put off in the least. Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the designer created new species as time went on... that the designer made a 5 toed horse... then decided on a 3 toed one... then decided on a single hooved horse. But it was not the evolutionary process at all... it was a designer that did this.
One problem with this argument is it is scientifically lazy. People used to use God as an excuse to explain disease and mental illnesses, that people were being punished for diseases because they did not know what a virus or bacteria was. If scientists answered everything like that you and I probably would not have survived birth to be discussing this now would we?
Let me give an example. I have been to Maui and Kauai. While visiting I saw a number of birds that look EXACTLY like a Canadian Goose but it had some strange markings on the side and you could tell there was a subtle difference.(it is called a Nene by the way) Now the Canadian Goose doesn't normally fly to Hawaii so it seems that a long time ago they flew thereby accident and ended up staying there. Of course who can blame them.
Now if you saw a picture of the Nene, you would know that it was a Canadian Goose but with some subtle differences. The Nene doesn't have feet as webbed as the Canadian goose. They actually have longer toes. They don't swim and their wings are not as strong because they normally don't swim. They are a ground bird basically.
So what gives? Is this a designer at work? Or is it that geese got blown off course and landed in Hawaii and the differences in the birds are one of adaptation?
Is this conclusive proof of evolution. Well... no... but this is just one among many examples that exist that seem to support it.
The disticntion between whether one is studying purposeful design or studying design-free, purposeless patterns arised from random dyanmics is one of metaphysical splits of the big argument.
More is to be gained, scientifically, imo, by restoring a preference for purposeful design.
Here is one scientists documentation of problems with Relativity. There are many many more such sources
http://members.aol.com/carmam1534/Hollings.html
Please point me to the same list of problems with Evolution.
My main point is that Evolution, like global warming are much better theories than Einsteins. He has many problems with his theory. Evolution and global warming have none.
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.