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
Thanks!
There are a few who argue along most of these lines, but I've never heard anyone, scientist, D*m*cr*t, whatever, argue for the bolded position. Cites please.
placemarker
Yesterday I posted a link to a molecule of the month "Methyl Jasmonate". This is key part of the essential oil of jasmin. Like all the molecules of the month it is an interesting one.
The essential oils of plants intrigue me. Under a Darwinian worldview, the primary usefulness of jasmone in warding of predators and in warning (signalling by odor) other plants of such prddators might be a subject of obvious inquiry.
However jasmone has other properties -- like many of the plant kingdoms "essential oils" that have high-order and subtle effects on animals. Co-evloution is strecthed to explain them. And such explanations push into the border of ireducible complexity as well. So I do not think those interactions are as well studied under a different metaphysic than Darwinism.
Consider what MoM says about jasmone:
Paclitaxel (taxol), obtained from yew trees, is the most important anticancer drug in existence; it is difficult to produce enough paclitaxel to satisfy demand, since it is widely used to treat breast cancer and ovarian cancer in particular. One promising method for its production involves cell cultures from the yew tree. Scientists have discovered that adding methyl jasmonate to the cell cultures greatly increases the amount of paclitaxel produced.Excepting taxol, the investigation stays in bound of the plant kingdom, and even regarding the effective cancer fighter taxol, the investigations only concern increasing the yew tree cell cultures prodcution thereof.Another promising use for methyl jasmonate lies in prolonging the shelf-life of fresh fruit. It has been shown to reduce chilling injury as well as preventing the growth of mould on strawberries and grapes, as well as stopping bananas from turning brown. The role of methyl jasmonate is again believed to involve the production of defence proteins, which encourage formation of fungicides and antibacterial agents.
Yet if the metaphysic of Creation is Purpose, why then scientists might expect by shrewd classifications to find purposes for plant essential oils such as jsamone that have NOTHING to do with the plant kingdom, and no advantage to the plants, if only the most indirect and weak.
Plant essential oils such as cinnamon, hyssop, francinsense, lavender, jasmine, etc., etc. And more, when we are shrewd again.
We have found some, of course, by "accident of History", pre-Darwin. That would be our diets, our perfumes, and some passed-from-practitioner-to-practioner herbiology. Again, all found prior to the onset of Darwinism.
Yet, almost undoubtably, we will find many more and many more amazing uses, if we break out of the constraining metaphysic of Darwinism.
We could even start with the Australian "tea oil", which seems to have been -- by accident of history -- entered into the western herbiology at the time of Darwin.
Really. it was a pretty common claim throught the '90s. Remember the phrase "potential life"?
Anyway here:
Steven Pinker is now the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard
Be specific. Exactly what process or phenomenon do you believe is required for evolution to work that has not been observed?
It's not a matter of what I believe. It's a matter of what is claimed. What is claimed as observable has not been observed.
Exactly what process or phenomenon do you believe is required for evolution to work that has not been observed?
For uniformitarian evolution to work as it's proponents claim would take a miracle.
Of course, I'm not a proponent of uniformitarian evolution.
Now, that I answered your question, why do you believe something impossible?
Exactly what process or phenomenon do you believe is required for evolution to work that has not been observed? Be specifid.
Or even specific.
Evolution would not be considered a law. Sorry, there is an unwritten law of the universe that denies the possibility of evolution. It is simple. If I plant corn, corn and only corn will grow from the planted corn seed. This is proven day in day out zillions of times every year across millions of acres of farmland and has been so for recorded history. The same is true for any other planted seed. Change is not the law, constancy and reliability is. And that is a disproof of evolution all by itself. What's more, there is no arguing it.
And that's why I like it so much. It is an undeniable proof against evolution.
QED
Ridiculous because of what had been taught, not because of what was known. Framing an argument helps in clarifying what is said. Failing to creates a fog useful to charlatans.
We know that seed produces only after it's kind and will produce nothing else. If you plant corn you will grow corn.
In light of that, it sounds ridiculous to say that corn will give rise to tomatoes. It isn't ridiculous because of what we're taught. It is ridiculous because everyone knows better.
Framing and clarity.. makes all the difference.
Yeah, they've gone to great lengths to obfuscate on that one.
They've recently tried chopping free of macro-evolution completely and are seeking to say that all the change takes place internally till something new is ready in the genes to break forth.. kindof like Evolution is cooking something up in the background that it knows can't work yet, so it doesn't unleash it till it's perfected.. evolution with a brain as it were.. The more desperate they get, the quackier the theory becomes. And they don't seem to think the desperation is so transparent.. Morons shifting the game in broad daylight thinking they're hidden from the light..
No, the author is plainly pointing out that the definition does not and never has supported the position that science has taken with evolution as regards the word "theory". He is noting specifically that they are trying to redefine the word in order to move the goal posts on responsibility and proof.
Like it or not, you have to prove your case. Beg off if you want, it only hurts your case. Bottom line, with nothing but hot air, you can't win.
That would be saltation and was abandoned by biology around 1940.
Well, there is hardly ample proof that it took longer.
You take readings with an instrument designed to work on assumptions you can't prove to be true, then spin the results to something you want to call "evidence". The evidence is the observation - not the conclusion you reach and spin with an instrument as though the instrument buys you credibility on the assumption. Vast time is spin. The evidence is what you
wish to argue means vast time. You can't prove that unless you can prove your underlying assumptions.
The only proof you have is that we're here. We've been here a while. And in the meantime some things died and were buried in various ways. Many of you would point to the geologic column and pronounce your circular arguments about appearence of great time due to sedimentation based on layering and fossils. Problem is, fossils don't ocurr naturally. Fossils require specific conditions - rapid burial being key. A body must be well encased and protected from scavenging and from quick decay long enough for fossilization to ocurr. In flood conditions, fossils would abound. You otherwise have a great deal of explaining to do about how so many fossils exist when it rarely ocurrs today.
You could argue great time; but, that is begging the question.
There is plenty of animal life that died in the St. Helens eruption and was buried in the mudflows. I would bet that if one examined the sedimentation layers laid down in those flows, one will find modern fossils. With limited liquifaction, they may even be sorted; but, I would doubt they will be as well sorted as the ones we see today. St. Helens didn't produce a year long flood. Since St. Helens has already changed what we know with regard to a number of things (fossil forests, coal formation, rapid sedimentation and geologic formations, plantlife proliferation after the blast, etc), One can imagine that St. Helens could nearly disprove evolution all by itself. Funny how what we can observe and test seems to do that to evolution time and again.. no wonder evos need to change the meanings of things and constantly change the theory.. If it can't stand up to the observable, the only other option is to scrap it.. Hmm, what an idea.
Evolution seems most to fit that last one.
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.