;)
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 all true. It also means nothing. In fact, I will use your example the next time a CRIDer says that Evolutionists are anti-God. You provide proof of the opposite and for that I thank you.
Is this a hypothetical or do you have evidence of such?
You are new to this debate aren't you?
Everything you say is false. Actually Creationism is myth, which is EXACTLY the same as little fairies and leprechauns
The origins of life have been postulated, based on following evidence. The mechanism has been replicated, but we don't have the ability using present technology to model the Earth billions of years ago and then move along that timeline.
We see evidence of varying aspects of evolution from many areas.
You need to read up on the theory before popping up in a thread and essentially lying by posting misrepresentations of TTOE.
I disagree. What distinguishes a scientific theory is primarily form (it connects a formal deductive system with observable phenomena) but also reach (it explains lots of phenomena often in surprising ways). A theory can be wrong and still scientific (e.g. Newtonian gravity) but it can't be non-predictive and still scientific (e.g. ID as presently proselytized).
There is no obvious reason that ID can't be reconstituted in the proper form of a scientific theory. But it won't be because the purpose of those pushing it is fundamentally religious and, if it were properly formed, it would reduce the "designer" to mechanism - hardly satisfying from a religious point of view.
If you are right and animals do not evolve, then I should be able to see modern plants and animals from 100, 200, and 300 million years ago.
;)
"You need to read up on the theory before popping up in a thread and essentially lying by posting misrepresentations of TTOE."
Oh yea an idiot like you is a true expert, in your own mind.
Your post can be summed up as the usual childish rebuttal: "No you!"
Obviously a few of your buttons got pushed, go whine to your momma all about it while the adults continue the debate here. Thank you.
You evos have a very thin skin when your religion is discussed. Gravity and Math don't have anything to do with whether you have God given rights or not. I'll repeat again, if you don't believe in a Creator, don't bitch when your freedom is taken away. Blind ranting as it may be...
By the way, a lot of evos seem to have a case of logorrhea but no one has yet been able to explain away the Cambrian explosion, the irreducibly complex systems, etc., etc.
Ah, the ignorance of creationists is as vast as space. You have it exactly backwards.
You must have been educated after the heyday of Communist-enforced Lysenkoism, then.
The Darwinian theory enabled the communosts to claim that there was no God. So all of your unalienable rights came from the Communist party and were not so unalienable after all.
When you deny the existance of God, don't complain when somebody comes along and takes all your rights away. You just "evolved".
If our rights come from a supernatural authority figure, then they're no more inalienable than if they come from a human-led government. In both cases they're contingent upon the whims of whoever is in charge: God can change His inscrutable mind at any time, and who are we to judge God or His motives?
No, we get our inalienable rights from the unchangeable facts that we are human beings and that individual rights are necessary for our survival as human beings. These are things that will never change as long as Homo sapiens exists.
Are you trying to say that there is a connection between the official religion of Communism, i.e. Atheism, and the fact that Communism is also the most murderous form of government that ever existed? I know, I know... 100 MILLION DEAD PEOPLE in the 20th century alone is not statistically significant.
Too late to ping the evolution list, but I'll ping to a few.
Sure the cambrian explosion has not been answered yet. You are correct. But I will ask again, if evolution is wrong then why don't we see modern day animal in the fossil record? Why do you not see modern day humans from 10 million years ago, or even 100 million years ago? Why do you not see modern day plant life in the fossil record from 200 million years ago?
If you can answer that (and I mean an answer that makes sense) then I would say evolution has a problem.
I guess you're right. The Founding Fathers must have been all IDIOTS! Too bad you were not there to instruct them.
No, we get our inalienable rights from the unchangeable facts that we are human beings and that individual rights are necessary for our survival as human beings. These are things that will never change as long as Homo sapiens exists.
Just look what the human beings did just in the 20th century. Especially, the ones practising the religion of Atheism.
Like the Protest Warriors sign says; "Communism killed only 100 milion people, let's give it another chance."
Anyway, I know better than to waiste my time and energy arguing with evos. Have better things to do...
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.