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
I am not making and attacking any strawmen, nor am I "going on " about more than what you twits bring up. Twits because apparently you bring it up on your side and then want to knock it down as though I did. Saltation events never came from my keyboard.
As for Corn undergoing changes from a "wheat-like" plant, some proof of that would be required. I know you guys like to proffer as factual things you cannot prove in absence of proof and then beg off of proof when called on it; but, that's not going to slide, sorry. Corn is Corn. And when you plant corn, it grows corn. Show us otherwise today and you will have something. You've been trying unsuccessfully to do so and here we are watching the pretense show.
Yes there is denyiability. I can line up things that look different and argue how similar they are. But cars don't copulate and produce new lines of vehicles. Making a case is more than having the appearance of a case.
All corn is corn. You'd like to try and argue that it isn't and that variation of corn makes it something else. I put a stop to it. deal with it.
No, and that's a lie plain and simple. Creationists did not establish the pseudo-scientific lingo that Darwinist/evos use in their explanations. Macro-evolution is an evolutionist construct - not creationinst. You guys have just been so busy trying to blur the lines between micro and macro for so long that you're believing your own lies now apparently. People rejected the leap between the two and because you knew that was the case and wanted to gain ground, you have tried to hack macro away in order to hide the problem of speciation as it was originally proferred. Something new and different arising from something prior. Instead of proving your case (which you can't), you change your story to avoid the requirement of proof.. as though it lets you off the hook. It doesn't. You're losing ground and have largely lost the debate.
The "putative" Cambrian explosion?
Behe has failed to show it is truly irreducibly complex.
Those who believe it is not IC do so because they don't want to, not because there is a reason to.
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.
The same thing would apply to Dembski. His opponents attack his claims because they don't want to accept them--not because they have a strong argument.
In light of that, it sounds ridiculous to say that corn will give rise to tomatoes."
Is this not from your keyboard? This would be a saltation event. The way it is presented makes it a strawman.
"As for Corn undergoing changes from a "wheat-like" plant, some proof of that would be required. I know you guys like to proffer as factual things you cannot prove in absence of proof and then beg off of proof when called on it; but, that's not going to slide, sorry. Corn is Corn. And when you plant corn, it grows corn. Show us otherwise today and you will have something. You've been trying unsuccessfully to do so and here we are watching the pretense show.
North American aboriginals bred maize (the corn precursor) from a native Mexican grass called teosinte and exhibits multiple cases of polyploidy.
Corn only grows corn in the short term and only as long as we restrict it from further evolution.
You put a stop to it? Are you saying that you know corn has never been anything other than the corn we put on our plate?
You seem to have missed the following sentence in my post.:
Although scientists started using the terms and some still use them the difference is of degree only, not of type as you would have.
Why would you do that?
Scientists did indeed coin the terms, however creationists have changed the terms to not mean a difference in degree but a difference in type. This difference in type when used by a creationist to attack evolution should be defined as a strawman argument.
"You guys have just been so busy trying to blur the lines between micro and macro for so long that you're believing your own lies now apparently.
When originally coined, and when in use by scientists today the difference between micro (intraspecies evolution) and macro (extra species evolution) is one of degree. Micro taken to extremes results in macro. This is not a change in meaning.
People rejected the leap between the two and because you knew that was the case and wanted to gain ground, you have tried to hack macro away in order to hide the problem of speciation as it was originally proferred.
Many do not use the terms macro and micro not because of some desire to hide anything but because they lead to misunderstandings and say little about speciation.
"Something new and different arising from something prior.
If you are suggesting that something new arises from something else in one generation, that is a saltation event. The ToE does not claim that saltation events occur. Stop reading Hovind and start reading some real scientists.
Instead of proving your case (which you can't), you change your story to avoid the requirement of proof.. as though it lets you off the hook. It doesn't. You're losing ground and have largely lost the debate.
Talking about proof, where is your proof that the ToE is loosing ground in the sciences where it matters?
The Cambrian explosion spans 10s of millions of years, it can be considered an explosion only when compared to other radiation events over geological time spans.
Those who believe it is not IC do so because they don't want to, not because there is a reason to.
Those who have analyzed Behe's science do not believe him because his reasoning is faulty. He repeatedly refuses to examine change in function during the development process. If any of the features of his ICS are the result of a change in function then removal of a feature with the resultant failure of the entire assembly is meaningless. The only way to determine if something is truly IC is to account for those functional changes within the developing assembly and show any gaps those varied function fail to cross. This is not what Behe has done. He simply yanks a subassembly from the structure and then says 'see it doesn't work any longer, therefore it must be IC'.
The same thing would apply to Dembski. His opponents attack his claims because they don't want to accept them--not because they have a strong argument.
In science, which is highly adversarial, scientists go at each others work with a fine toothed blow torch. If the work doesn't hold up it is rejected. This is all that has happened to Dembski, his work failed to pass muster.
Remember, Dembski's work is mostly probability and as such is accessible by anyone with a good working knowledge of math. It is also easy to critique in written form, no unusual lab equipment or field work is necessary. If you don't like the critiques of Dembski's work then do your own analysis of the critiques. If your grasp of statistics is good, I'm sure you could show how the critiques err.
He's saying that he continued lying over and over again until people stopped conversing with someone so shamelessly dishonest. Thus, he put a stop to the discussion, by refusing to be rational.
And the discovery of the fossils of complex creatures sans transitionals presents a problem for TOE.
Those who have analyzed Behe's science do not believe him because his reasoning is faulty. He repeatedly refuses to examine change in function during the development process.
The motive means of a bacteria are a pretty basic function. What prior function do you think should be considered as having involved into it?
If your grasp of statistics is good, I'm sure you could show how the critiques err.
The critiques I've seen don't take issue with his math, but with the philosophy -- i.e. how can you know the probability if there may be unknown forces affecting events. That's not a scientific argument. Skeptics should phrase their doubts as "Well, Dembski's right given what is known but since his conclusions are wrong, there must be forces affecting things yet to be discovered."
What lack of transitionals?
"The motive means of a bacteria are a pretty basic function. What prior function do you think should be considered as having involved into it?
Considering not all bacteria use the flagellum as a means of motion why assume that the components of this rather complex (not basic) structure were not used for separate and different functions in the bacteria's past. BTW don't mistake the bacteria for an unevolved organism, many bacteria have had much time to undergo many changes.
"The critiques I've seen don't take issue with his math, but with the philosophy -- i.e. how can you know the probability if there may be unknown forces affecting events. That's not a scientific argument. Skeptics should phrase their doubts as "Well, Dembski's right given what is known but since his conclusions are wrong, there must be forces affecting things yet to be discovered."
The critiques I've read take him to task for misuse of probability, complexity and information. W. Elsberry and J. Shallit go so far as to correct some of Dembski's probability misuse. For some reason I can no longer find the paper. I'll dig up my hard copy and check the originating link and then send it to you.
shellfish, fish, vertebrates. Some say nearly every phyla made its appearance in the Cambrian. And why do you say it occurred over tens of millions of years?
Considering not all bacteria use the flagellum as a means of motion why assume that the components of this rather complex (not basic) structure were not used for separate and different functions in the bacteria's past.
But that's the point. I'm not the one making the assumption. We have this observable natural phenomenon -- the flagellum -- and some assume it evolved even though they can't explain how it did or why it should, and that such an evolution would violate the classic evolutionary model.
W. Elsberry and J. Shallit go so far as to correct some of Dembski's probability misuse. For some reason I can no longer find the paper.
Here's Shallit's website in case you need the title :-)
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.