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
Well first you have to prove that the changes that took place was designed. There is no proof that says for example the Nene that I mention was "changed by a designer". None. Zippo... Nil...
We know genes can mutate from each generation. We know that in nature a small advantage can be the difference between survival and death. We know that the survivors are the ones who get to pass down their genes while the other do not. Over time it seems pretty logical that the changes that take place are going to be because of the environment, not because someone wants to make it happen that way.
Another point I want to make is if what you say is true, this designer of yours is trying to kill us by designing drug resistant bacteria. The bacteria that used to be cure by penicillin, like Staphylococcus aureus and Pneumococcus, now are resistant to it. Now why would a designer do a thing like that?
How much, at what rate?
That answer is critical for knowing if the theory is worth pursuing further.
We know that in nature a small advantage can be the difference between survival and death.
An advantage to one slightly mutated offspring born at t0, can randomly be a disadvantage to the exact twin brother born at t0+1 minte. A slight change in circumstance and nearly all such slight muttaional "advantages" are of no effect -- why? Because they are slight changes. So what is the rate of increase for that one mutant? We live in a world of only finite time. And the fossil record speaks of bursts of change and exceptionally long periods of sameness.
Sorry, this theoretical step has no bite.
We know that the survivors are the ones who get to pass down their genes while the other do not.
You are confusing survival with reproduction rate. Fruit flies and mice both have staggering reprodction rates and short lives. Long-lived survivors may be infertile. Please re-evaluate and re-express what you mean here.
Over time it seems pretty logical that the changes that take place are going to be because of the environment, not because someone wants to make it happen that way.
Sorry, so far your walk into the forest of logic has gotten a bit lost. Don't borrow so heavily from the "The Blind Watchmaker" nest time -- blindness is not a survival trait in wanders into the woods.
These are rational questions. The designer gave us His answers to these questions for you to know and understand
Genesis 3:21-23 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."Was it part of the curse to keep man from living for ever? Or was it a blessing to make us have finite lives if we will live apart from God?
But not all fossils are transitional. Think of scallops or dragonflies.
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.
They don't. That's why I think TalkOrigins is using the chart disingenuously.
If you check the chart it does show Australopithecus as an ancestor of man.
You are right.
What do you mean by evolution? Animals absolutely change. The question is to what degree. For instance, should one insist that all life descended from a single cell? How about solely via random mutation and recombination, and natural selection?
Whoever wrote the web page you linked to has a very poor understanding of relativity theory (i.e. they don't seem to have any grasp of differing concepts of simultaneity in different reference frames or the limit between the special and general theories of relativity).
Neither relativity nor evolution are theories with any serious "problems". Both are subject to empirical verification and both are potentially falsifiable. There are specific details of both theories that are disputed, but the basic tenets of both are well established.
The blind what? What are you talking about?
Um... with all due respect and without attempting to personally belittle you I believe your last post was rather nonsensical. This isn't a personal attack on you and it is not name calling... I sincerely mean that and I don't want you to take it personal because that is not what I am trying to do. I just think it is you who is a little bit lost in the forest of logic.
Well I seemed to have been involved in two arguments. One is evolution doesn't exist at all. The second one is what we think of as evolution is really a designer making changes over time. Am I phrasing these properly? If so... then I have been arguing against both.
should one insist that all life descended from a single cell?
Well...is that so hard to believe given we all individually start out conceived as a single cell when a sperm and egg meet?
Evolution and global warming nver have any problems serious or minor, while relativity falls short and needs such things as dark matter to keep it going. Evolution is a more perfect theory.
The differences between Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens are quite large...enough (as shown by the names) to qualify as each an entirely different species. Transitional forms between them...showing direct lineage are absent; quite a different matter than the existance of dinosaurs.
Your logic about evolution is fine, but based on a whole lot of assumptions.
Interestingly the USA and England have some of the most fundamentalist Darwinists in the world. Places in the developed world which are MORE secular, with almost no fundamentalist Christians, like France and Germany, have more scientists who openly question strict Darwinism today. Your theory blaming Christians is bogus.
Nobody is arguing that. It's just a question as to how much it explains.
should one insist that all life descended from a single cell? . . . Well...is that so hard to believe given we all individually start out conceived as a single cell when a sperm and egg meet?
It's not a matter of it being hard to believe, it is a matter of it being reasonable. The human zygote starts with 3 billion chemical base pairs making up its DNA. It's protected in the perfect environment for 9 months, then for many years before it can reproduce.
Now, why would you believe that a single cell can acquire the DNA to produce all life, survive for the appropriate amount of time in the appropriate environment, then solely through natural selection and mutation/recombination evolve into all known life?
Your logic about evolution is fine, but based on a whole lot of assumptions.
Perhaps Homo habilis is a transitional fossil???
It is between the Australopithecines and H. erectus.
And your statement about assumptions...is based on an assumption. You give yourself away with statements like "most fundamentalist Darwinists in the world" and "strict Darwinism."
The only people I see using these terms are predisposed to ignore or discount any evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution--and there is a lot.
Actually the people I was talking to on this thread were saying that evolution did not exist. If you look back at some of the replies to my posts they were sending me links about modern humans being found in cretaceous deposits. So when you say Nobody is arguing that I have to say that is not true, plenty of people are.
Now, why would you believe that a single cell can acquire the DNA to produce all life, survive for the appropriate amount of time in the appropriate environment, then solely through natural selection and mutation/recombination evolve into all known life?
I never made any references to the actual creation of life, so why do you think I have this belief? I was simply arguing that life evolves through natural selection. You seem to agree (?) on this so.... why are we having this discussion?
Of course, if you wanted to discuss this that is fine. My official statement is: "I really don't know how life started." I think there are a lot of missing pieces that fail to explain scientifically how life was created.
Do I think that scientists should just throw in the towel and say "Hey... it must be God!". Well, no I do not. Why? Well if scientists did that everytime they hit a stumbling block then whey would never really get very far, would they?
Remember that at one time, people yelled at Benjamin Franklin regarding the lightning rod. They thought that lightning striking a house for example was God's punishment and that anyone who tried to thwart God wrath was a bad person themself. Franklin was blamed for all sorts of bad stuff because of his lightning rod but in the end... the lightning bolt isn't God's wrath is it? If it was, I do not think that we could stop it (or in this case redirect it).
My point is science doesn't (or shouldn't) use metaphysical reasoning to explain things. If we stayed in that mindset we would never have gotten to the technological level where you and I are discussing it from miles apart.
"All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
Actually, the intergrading of the hominid series tends to make a mockery of the sort of bin-lawyering you attempt. The later australopithecines are considerably advanced over the early ones and there is considerable dispute over the dividing line between them and the earliest of genus Homo, the habilines.
There are some disputed species, (e.g. rudolphensis) between the later habilines and erectus/ergaster, ergaster itself being a disputed classification. Some of the later skulls (Atapuerca in Spain particularly) are thought to show "incipient" neanderthal characters, etc.
What you're doing is just "bin-lawyering." Everything taxonomically lumped in Bin A is "An 'A,' just an 'A!'"
For a fine deconstruction of such obscurantist tactics, click here.
Because when I asked "should one insist that all life descended from a single cell? " you answered " Well...is that so hard to believe given we all individually start out conceived as a single cell when a sperm and egg meet?"
I was simply arguing that life evolves through natural selection.
Life certainly evolves through natural selection. Natural selection, however, even mixing in genetic mutation/recombination, does not adequately explain biodiversity as the Theory of Evolution claims.
My point is science doesn't (or shouldn't) use metaphysical reasoning to explain things.
Science shouldn't use metaphysical reasoning to explain things. There are those, however, speaking in the name of science who claim a certainty of understanding on things they can't explain. Even worse, there are accredited members of the scientific community who make metaphysical claims -- sacrificial love is simply a product of evolution (except of course when it's convenient to claim it's not), sexual misbehavior is not a matter of choice, children in the womb are not alive, animals have rights etc.
Well... I believe you are certainly correct here. Your examples are also on target. There are many many types of people and professions this statement may also be applied to and I find it very disheartening. I cannot express how disturbing it is for me to read a paper that is just plain "hogwash".
I know that science is not perfect. Its flaws are sometimes reflected in the flaws of leading proponents. But I am not giving up on it yet. Science, like Capitalism, has it flaws, but both are certainly better than the alternatives.
Have a good night
Science is a wonderful gift from God and absolutely worth defending. You have a good night too :-)
The ERVs in the primates will be there, no matter what the researchers' "preferences" are. They will have the same distribution among species.
In particular, the presence of the same ERV in gibbons and orangutans (Asian apes) implies that it will be found in all African apes, including us, as well.
So what is the purpose of this design? Wouldn't logic dictate that Asian animals, being surrounded by different foods, predators, parasites, diseases, etc, share things not found in African animals?
What is to be gained by hypothesizing a "purpose"? Scientifically gained. The more specific the examples, the better.
In fact, isn't it possible that if there is no purpose, valuable time and energy could be wasted in the vain hunt for it?
And finally, any idea why Discovery Institute isn't doing research in this area? It doesn't appear to me like it should be very expensive.
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.