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
Why don't fossils form today at the rate they seemingly used to? And are there fossils of everything that ever existed, or just of the things you've uncovered in the places you've dug so far. I'd venture to say, you'd find what you're looking for if you were to dig up the whole planet. On the other hand, with the trillions of fossils in existence to date, there are no transitional forms.. funny that. Oh, wait, what was your question *chortle*
Apparently, it's had new life breathed into it as it was proffered on another thread here in the past week. Evolution version x.xxx.xxx.xxxx.x.xxx.. (x indicates constantly moving numbers)
I could not agree more... so could you clarify what you are talking about and frame your argument for me?
I sort of assume you gave the corn and tomato analogy to prove that changes in a species never happens. Well... why is it we see things like 5 toed horses in the fossil record... but no single hooved horses until later? Did a change take place? If I read your statement correctly, you think a 5 toed horse would never change to s single hooved horse. So what gives? The same can be said for a number of species. Why do I not find modern day human skulls from 10 million years ago? Why do I not find hardly any modern day remains in the fossil record the farther I go back if nothing changes?
You appropriately point out the issue with evolution. Where are the transitional fossils? It is a very valid criticism of evolution as it is taught today. However... that said... it doesn't disprove evolution completely but is does mean that scientists haven't gotten to the bottom of it yet. That is how science works... well... in the long run it does... in the short term things that sometimes seem to be fact get proven wrong or are incomplete theories. There is nothing wrong with that is there?
. I'd venture to say, you'd find what you're looking for if you were to dig up the whole planet.
Well it is odd that we find less and less modern day fossils as we go farther back but we find creatures that are "similar". It does, in my humble opinion, support the evolutionary theory. What I find interesting is there seem to be three different arguments I am debating on this thread.
One is evolution doesn't happen.
The other is what we think of as Evolution is a designer making the changes, not natural selection.
The other argument is that evolution exists but the very beginning of life designed and created and evolution took over.
In my humble opinion we have spent a relatively small amount of time trying to study what happened with life for the last half billion years on Earth. I think there is a lot more to learn and discover and these answers probably will not be answered scientifically within my lifetime.
Now, that I answered your question, why do you believe something impossible?
Something else why are you asking that I propound a replacement model when I point out the existing one fails?
It's like me watching you trying to jump to Alpha Centuri, then telling you that you aren't going to make it, then you turning around and saying "well, show me how, smart guy."
When I was taught the origin of life (beyond what my YEC family taught me) it was touched on very briefly and as a supposition with supporting data from evolution. Unfortunately most pre-university level teachers are not scientists and tend to use the 'common' definitions of terms used in science. I think that back then real scientists were not too concerned with what terminology was used by the common populace; there was a 'separation' between real life and research that was seldom crossed.
The current concern by scientists in terminology has been triggered by the vocal attacks on science by various religious groups (primarily lead directly or indirectly by Phillip Johnson). Because the misuse of terms seemingly gives the detractors of science a bit of an edge when communicating to those unaware of or unconcerned with science, the science community has been forced to awaken from their complacent slumber. The correct terminology should have been in every class that desired to teach science from the very beginning.
And of course language evolves constantly which is why dictionaries scramble to keep up and include multiple definitions for many words.
Time to teach Astrology, Astral projection, Homeopathy, ID and other pseudoscience in schools.
Again I ask - Why do you distrust talkorigins?
Undoubtedly you have been told that evolution has no direction, features change shape, size, placement, and function subject to the available alleles and selection. The type and number of allels within a population is not constant but changes over time, this is observed; selection processes do not stay stable, indeed the type (natural, sexual, kin, etc.) not just the intensity of selection operating on a population changes over time and again this is observed. As the selection type changes or the selection intensity changes, different alleles will fix in the population. The only direction to evolution is determined by the selection forces in play in a population (there can be many at work concurrently in a population) but since that can change, so can the features of an individual within that population. Whether a hominid's cranium is bigger or smaller than a modern ape's does not reflect some 'devolution' unless you claim that a bigger cranium is a 'goal' of evolution rather than what it is, a 'result' of evolution.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is in the collection because it is a known cousin to Homo sapiens sapiens. In extant humans, even cousins can give insight into the DNA of a member of the immediate family. Why should it be different in extinct species?
talkorigins?
The circular reasoning makes me dizzy.
Your entire argument is based on 'Assuming your conclusion'.
"No....how about 10 to the 130th!"
I believe that should be 1 in 10130 which is extremely low.
However that figure is meaningless as is any other probability calculation applied to abiogenesis.
You are playing games. No pro-evo has claimed we didn't evolve from apes, we are apes. We state that man did not evolve from other modern apes.
As a comparator. The common ancestor we share with chimps is thought to morphologically be more similar to modern chimps than to modern humans. Since we do not as yet have a fossil of that common ancestor a chimp is placed to allow us to see the similarity and the connection between humans and our nearest extant relative, the chimp.
Assuming there is a conclusion is not the same as assuming a conclusion. Too subtle for the Darwinium addicted mind, but there it is.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of the difference between 'transitional features', meaning features that are between two other species but from a species possibly not on the direct lineage and a 'transitional species' meaning a species that is in the direct lineage of two others. The term 'transitional' seems to apply equally often to both definitions.
Perhaps you'd like to find a published scientific source from the last hundred years that suggests speciation takes place suddenly, in one or a few generations.
Exactly what process or phenomenon do you believe is required for evolution to work that has not been observed? Be specific.
Now, that I answered your question, why do you believe something impossible?
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.