The Evolution of Theory: Defining the Debate

Breakpoint ^ | Feb, 16, 2006 | Allen Dobras

[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

[trashcanbred]

Sort of like the definition of "day" in the bible, where God makes the Light, Earth and Life in mere days. Now that there seems to be ample proof it took longer than that, the definition of a "day" has changed.

[freedumb2003]

Yes, "vestigial organs" were used as supporting evidence. In my high school anthropology class in 1968, vestigial organs were used as a supporting evidence to demonstrate the viability of evolutionary theory. I remember vividly the instructor pointing a fold in his ear and claiming that it was a vestigial "gill".

So, true to form, you ignore my argument. My point is, who cares if some vestigal organs have use? It doesn't invalidate anything.

The point is that evolutionists engage in "wishful thinking" in cases where they claim it is good science. Their science "evolves".

As do physists, mathemeticians, astronomers, etc. We know now that the ages-long theory of Gravity is wrong in many respects. This is because science KEEPS SEARCHING (which some may call "wishful thinking," I suppose). All branches, not just Biology. Or who do you think researched the vestigal organs more deeply? It sure wasn't Monks spending their time rereading John.

Mythos (religion) merely declares itself as truth and ends there.

Science "evolves." Mythos stagnates.

[freedumb2003]

Evolution WAS the law in all the communist countries. Let's count how many people got murdered. And that is why we keep our guns ready for the time you atheist commies try to re-educate us. Then through the law of natural selection you are going to be extinct. By the way, care to cite all the "fossil evidence" you blabber about in more detail? Go back to North Korea, Kim!

You left out the "/sarcasm" tag. No one in their right mind could actually BELIEVE what you just posted.

[bennowens]

Don't let the facts get in the way of the Truth.

[Coyoteman]

Defining terms is extremely important.

I agree. Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

[Last revised 2/9/06]

[fizziwig]

"by assiduosly ignoring the nonrandom aspect of selection"
___________________________________

What do you mean by non-random? Certainly you are not proposing an intelligent force as is the case when humans breed variations of dogs and cattle. So you must mean something else....environmental factors?

This doesn't help much in explaining the evolution of the eye or other complex organs.

And it certainly doesn't explain the cambrian explosion when fully developed creatures suddenly appeared with no ancestors in the precambrian, nor does it explain any other sudden appearance of new creatures with no ancestors, a phenomenon that prompted Gould to come up with the idea of puncturated equilibrium.

[microgood]

No, your side kept repeating the lie that evolution was random by assiduosly ignoring the nonrandom aspect of selection. When we correct your lie in public, you perceive it as us denying random mutation altogether.

I do not know what you mean by my side, but I have always acknowledged that the theory states both random mutation or recombination and natural selection as the mechanism. Natural selection, however, needs something to select. That is where the random part of evolution comes in, at least for the larger changes.

There are actually pro-evo web sites that encourage their crowd to only talk about natural selection and not the random mutation part. I think they are now depending on recombination for all the changes.

[Cicero]

Also the term "natural selection" is now preferred to the commonly used term in earlier times, "survival of the fittest," because "survival of the fittest" points toward the Nazis and the eugenists. There is a vast "social Darwinist" literature that cannot be so easily be separated from "scientific Darwinism" as its adherants pretend.

Kill off the useless eaters, the diabetics, and so forth, to improve the species.

[fizziwig]

Nice try but no go. Much to Darwin's chagrin, the fossil record at that time did not contain those gradations, nor does today's fossil record contain them. The fact is, there is no support for gradualism in macro evolution which is why Gould came up with his theory.

Why do evolutionist always jump to the gun of namecalling? Its pathetic. I am not dishonest nor is the author. Neither am I perfect or even closely so...I can and do make many mistakes.

I have been debating in these crevo threads for a long time, and I have never been so insulted by so many for no reason except that I disagree with them.

[microgood]

There is no denying the fossil evidence and the progression from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien

So if they found a modern skull that was dated at 2,000,000 years, would your theory still be true?

[05 Mustang GT Rocks]

You don't believe that evolution was king in the commie countries? you must be a victim of public education. I grew up in a former commie country and you had to even use special "speak" in biology classes lest you accidently implied that not every living thing evolved.
the evos here don't like to hear it but all repeat it every time. The Darwinian theory enabled the communosts to claim that there was no God. So all of your unalienable rights came from the Communist party and were not so unalienable after all.
When you deny the existance of God, don't complain when somebody comes along and takes all your rights away. You just "evolved".
And no, there wasn't a sarcasm tag. Because evos don't believe in a Supreme Being, they wouldn't have any second thoughts about re-educating us poor backward stupid Christians.
And I say: "Come and get it!"

[jennyp]

There are actually pro-evo web sites that encourage their crowd to only talk about natural selection and not the random mutation part. I think they are now depending on recombination for all the changes.

I'd like to see a cite for that site.

I'll be charitable and say that I suspect your Morton's Demon is causing you to read much that isn't there into whatever pro-evo site you came across.

As far as anybody knows, the occurrences of point mutations, gene duplications or deletions, and recombinations, all happen without regard to their fitness to the organism. In that sense, they're all random mutations.

[trashcanbred]

I have a question regarding all of this. If evolution doesn't happen, then all the species that existed today MUST have existed at the creation of the Earth, right? In other words, all species started out at the same time and have not changed over the hundreds of millions of years, but some did obviously die off.

If that is the case, the fossil record should be full of animals that we see today because how else did they get here? But the fossil record only has a scattering of animals that seem to be exactly the same as they are today (sharks and crocs come to mind).

So what give? If evolution is a not real, how come there are no 300 million year old human remains? The bible doesn't say anything about creating dinosaurs first, then mammals, then humans in millions of years. It is all done in days (and of course, we have to redefine days do we not?)

[Mogollon]

The Darwin Fundamentalists are now in the same place as the advocates for a static universe were about 40 years ago when the Big Bang Theory first came on the scene. The static universe bunch arrogantly held on to the idea the universe had no beginning and no end and had simply always been here. The Big Bang theory, which I prefer to call Creation, put an end to the static universe nonsense.

Evolution is now coming to a point where it needs to be challenged to show how complex biochemical mechanisms that involve multiple complex molecules and kinetically difficult reactions such as sight, energy production / maintenance (Krebs Cycle), cellular transport, protein synthesis, gluconeogenesis, etc., etc., came about by random accident followed by natural selection. Only biochemical novices will buy into the 1000 monkey/1000 typewriter and infinite time b.s.

[the_Watchman]

Mythos (religion) merely declares itself as truth and ends there.

Science "evolves." Mythos stagnates.

There was a PBS series 30 years ago called "Connections". James Burke was showing the development of technology in history and showing the relationship between various human endeavors. It was secular and NOT an apology for religion.

In one of the last episodes, Burke points out that while the Chinese in the east had independent scientific advances, such as gun powder, they never developed the synergy to develop a scientific culture. Burke pointed out that while those in the east were capable of observing scientific truth, they did not have the religious background to build on it. They held a belief in capricious gods who did not provide order and didn't particularly care about mankind.

Burke surmised that Western Civilization was able to build a scientific legacy due a to a belief in a creating God who provided an ordered universe. The basic idea of a scientific method is predicated on a belief that the whole universe is put together rationally. Experiments are repeatable.

Will Durant, one of the most prolific historical writers of all times came to the same opinion.

So much for "Mythos stagnates"!

[jennyp]

Also the term "natural selection" is now preferred to the commonly used term in earlier times, "survival of the fittest," because "survival of the fittest" points toward the Nazis and the eugenists. There is a vast "social Darwinist" literature that cannot be so easily be separated from "scientific Darwinism" as its adherants pretend.

Kill off the useless eaters, the diabetics, and so forth, to improve the species.

Yes, eugenics is very embarrassing. Eugenics was the attempt to create microevolutionary changes to our species through the means of intelligent design. Embarrassing indeed! :-)

[freedumb2003]

You don't believe that evolution was king in the commie countries? you must be a victim of public education. I grew up in a former commie country and you had to even use special "speak" in biology classes lest you accidently implied that not every living thing evolved.

It is irrelevant. I bet they believed in Gravity and Mathemantics and all kinds of stuff. I bet they shaved. If you are a guy, chances are you shave. By your logic, that makes you a Commie.

Guilt by association neither confirms nor denies the reality of TTOE.

Your blind ranting doesn't change it either.

[trashcanbred]

I just posted something similar to this. Actually why don't we see the fossil record full of animals that are exactly as they are today? Should we not see a 300 million year old mammal? Or even a 300 million year old modern human. If you found one of those, then I would say there was a real problem with evolution.

The problem is, there isn't unless you know something I do not.

[aligncare]

Other world religions also believe there is a 'creator'. No need to single out Christians.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Evolution theory falls apart any way you look at it. They may as well be teaching the kids all about the little fairies and leprechauns.

Take for example the beginning of life itself. Those evolution theory eggheads are all full of supposed explanations for why a zebra has stripes and how come a bird chirps but here is the fact they need to always ignore:

Man can recreate in the lab any condition there ever was, yet man can never create life out of nothing.

That's because only God can, and God wanted the zebras to have stripes and the birds to chirp.

Next time some evolution nut challenges you, tell them: go ahead make some life out of nothing, monkey boy.