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
That is quite the over simplification and misrepresentation. Great age is determined by a number of methods, all of them cross referenced and calibrated by other previously verified dating methods, all the way back to simply counting the years in varves, tree rings, and ice layers. For you to suggest that fossils are used to determine the age of the stratum they are found in and the age of the stratum is used to determine the age of the fossils is a bit on the disingenous side isn't it? Strata forms a type of 'bar code' which identifies it as belonging to a specific geologic grouping. This bar code is consistent enough to enable identification of geologic groupings even if a few 'bars' are missing as frequently occurs due to local erosion, local catastrophic events such as volcanoes, or simply did not exist.
Here is the kicker. Representative 'bar codes' are dated using a number of different methods, radiometrics being but one. After the representative stratum is dated, diagnostic fossils are determined; these are fossils which only occur in that stratum or strata. If they are found to not occur in other strata, or if they are exceedingly rare in other strata, they are used as index fossils. When a new fossil bed is opened, any diagnostic fossils found as well as the 'bar code' of the strata are used to date the open stratum. It is not alway necessary to date each and every fossil bed using more expensive methods such as radiometry.
From this you can see that the dating of fossil beds is not circular in any way, the initial dating is by proven calibrated methods.
BTW, speed of fossilization has nothing to do with it.
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.
That is only one scenario where fossilization could occur. Underwater and above ground landslides produce their own fossil beds. As has been witnessed the last few years, many things produce material slides of all types including tsunamis, heavy rains, earthquakes, melting snow, differential snowfall, volcanoes, etc., none of which require a global flood. BTW, local floods are exceedingly common in areas where ancient people lived.
Your global flood scenario would leave evidence of itself including but not limited to fossil beds containing random fossils of all types, without the sorting we see, despite the creationist attempts to skew fact.
You otherwise have a great deal of explaining to do about how so many fossils exist when it rarely ocurrs today.
Fossil beds are found in places where ancient events are mimicked by modern events. We observe events today that will result in fossil beds in the future, including massive mudslides underwater and on land. The rate of burial in the past should tend to an average that can be determined by events witnessed and relatively recent events known by their 'spoor' so to speak. I suspect that the fossils thus found are but a hint of the number of fossils produced, a number that is more reflective of the accumulation of multiple burials over great time than of a single burial event(that leaves no other evidence).
"You could argue great time; but, that is begging the question.
How is great age 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.
In all likelihood there will be many partially fossilized remnants, just as there would be every time a volcano erupts. What is your point here?
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.
How has Mt. St. Helens changed any of the things you mentioned? Where is the coal formation, and the fossil forests?
You mention that a longer flood would result in sorting closer to what we find in the ancient fossil beds we dig up today. Are you saying that sorting will occur where one species is found in only one stratum, another species in a stratum separated by many other strata from the first, but a third species will straddle all strata? What possible liquefaction would cause that? Spell it out for me.
"Funny how what we can observe and test seems to do that to evolution time and again..
Funny how its only the 'creation scientists' who come to these conclusions while trying to fit the evidence to the Bible.
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.
Why would scientists change or scrap any theory based on the ramblings of a few charlatan 'creation scientists'?
...and when do the black daisies sprout wings and fly?...ok, I'm trolling...sorry
You fool, that is a common example of the variation in species. Environmental changes then bring these variations into dominance.
Reading this thread and others, with their flowery and creative evolutionary arguments, strikes me that the explanation of evolution seems, at times, to be more art than science.
How can you prove that a miracle did not occur? I can't think of any possible line of reasoning.
I'm asking for you to stat the place in the evolution scenario where a miracle is required. The specific point in the history of life.
The theory they've come up with is falling apart because they can't support it. Not that they don't try -- The Cambrian Explosion? Well, well, the environment changed. Yeah, that's right and things evolved to adapt just like the theory predicted.
The irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum? The flagellum has a protein sequence similar to the TTSS found in some pathogens so you see the TTSS came about to infect future multi-celled organisms which allowed the evolution of the flagellum power pump.
William Dembski's mathematical formulas showing how chance can be eliminated through small probabilities? He's a religious crackpot. Don't listen to him.
Now, in this "robust and well-supported theory" why do you take in on faith that the first cell had enough information content to spawn all life?
You show the event occurs consistantly in the proper predicted circumstances.
What specific phenomenon required by the modern synthesis has not ben observed?
The evolution of the flagellum.
They aren't? What is your statement based on, personal conjecture?
"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.
It is doubtful that every species left fossils, the circumstances of burial is fairly rare.
" I'd venture to say, you'd find what you're looking for if you were to dig up the whole planet.
Doubtful since much rock gets modified and or recycled.
" 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*
Transitional forms abound, unless of course your version of a transitional is carefully chosen so as to not possibly exist. Perhaps if you would give a description of what a transitional would look like, such as a transitional species between a dinosaur and a bird. I'm sure you could give a good verbal rendition of what would be required.
Fair enough. What will your response be when the evolution of the flagellum is shown to be the result of accumulated changes?
I still don't follow. What circular reasoning does talkorigins contain, which author or group of authors there uses circular reasoning?
I have not personally observed the circularity there and am very interested to find out what portion of the site uses such bad reasoning. If you could direct me to an specific article or two I would be quite happy to bring it to their attention for correction.
This is indeed quite the fun game you have going... but you are still assuming your conclusion.
No need. All an interested person has to do is read a few threads.
No sweat,... 'Christian Science' will not change because it is too busy changing the data to fit its particular interpretation of the Bible.
Oops, silly me, you said 'Science', not charlatan pseudoscience,... my bad.
Why is the application of a mechanism that dates to Darwin wrong when applied to the putative Cambrian explosion?
"The irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum? The flagellum has a protein sequence similar to the TTSS found in some pathogens so you see the TTSS came about to infect future multi-celled organisms which allowed the evolution of the flagellum power pump.
Behe has failed to show it is truly irreducibly complex. He has also failed to address a change in function of a specific feature in any given ICS.
"William Dembski's mathematical formulas showing how chance can be eliminated through small probabilities? He's a religious crackpot. Don't listen to him.
No, the reason no one should listen to Dembski's math is because it is faulty as has been shown by a number of mathematicians/Computer scientists.
"Now, in this "robust and well-supported theory" why do you take in on faith that the first cell had enough information content to spawn all life?
Where did you get the idea life had to pop into existence as a complex molecule? Because modern life uses DNA does not mean proto-life was anything more than a self replicating, very simple molecule protected by a naturally occurring sheath. If it can be shown that self-replication is possible in simple molecules and that replication produces variants of the molecule, then we apply evolution theory to its development into more complex molecules.
The following is in anticipation of a possible response.
As for the idea that information is not added to RNA or DNA by mutation (I include all changes possible during meiosis under the catchword 'mutation'), it has been shown that a simple modification of a gene can result in a new feature/function for the gene especially if it is a homeobox (or other control) gene. Depending on the version of 'information theory' used this is additional information (Shannon - surprise factor), a reduction in information (Chaitin, increased description size reduces the difference between description size and described string size) or is unchanged.
If you want to consider complexity as a function of the number of genes then something as simple as a gene duplication adds information.
I will say that you are a man of great faith.
Why would I? I have to respond to the nutball arguments as they come at me. The story I'm dealing with re: evolution is different depending on who is doing the talking for the evolution side. I would suggest that so many things have changed in the evolution story that none of you are on the same page as a result. Just a guess; but, likely accurate.
It also fits the smoke and mirrors ploy.
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.