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
Actually, I probably value your word more than I would "talkorigins".
You ignore my entire post, which includes the basic building blocks of the argument and you post an ad hominem.
You misrepresented the entire TTOE. I can send you some links, but you will just wave it off as propoganda anyway.
Your summary of my post doesn't repreent what was posted.
Standard CRIDer technique: Logical Fallacy (a form of lying).
If evolution is bunk why does the ancient fossil records lack the remains of ALL modern day animals? If things don't evolve then we should find fossils of the single hooved horse next to the horses are five toed? We should see all types of modern day animals in the fossil record that go all the way back to the beginning of life on Earth. But we do not.
Why?
Well thanks, I think :-)
My point is a finger from that long ago would not look so "good" just because we have seen human flesh that were covered up in the same way the article suggests and they do not look like that (it would be wrinkled, darkened color, etc...). Also the article I pointed out does discuss the CT scan and such.
Besides you almost never find any animal whose flesh is fossilized so well from so long ago. It just seems very very very very very unlikely.
Now... if you found a skull... or even a jawbone that was hominid... doesn't have to be human just a hominid, that would really be something.
Are you off your meds? TTOE is silent on God (or a Creator of any kind). I have said this to you twice. Likewise, understanding TTOE is no more a sign of atheism than the choice of color of your underwear.
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.
That is because you don't understand the explanations. A standard CRIDer strawman is that evolution must proceed in some sort of stepwise, stately fixed timeframe. The fact is nature is messy, and the changes over time happen in fits and starts. It is observing the cumulative effects and seeing where they are introduce that gives significant credibility to TTOE.
"Irreducibly complex systems" is also a canard frequently trotted out by CRIDers. In a nutshell, it means TTOE is too complicated to understand in all its full presentation so instead we will have God go {poof}.
Of course things like string theory, quantum physics, etc. etc. which are equally complex are valid lines of research, but not biological origins.
Look, I understand that is easier to read and digest Genesis which can be read in a day than the nuances of TTOE, but you should have a basic grasp of what you are arguing against before entering the debate.
Someone once said that we see what we wish to see...or something like that.
Jenny already exploded that one. But it'll be back, next thread.
How you people link athiesm with TTOE is beyond me. Not only is this unverified that such a link was made, but this i a classic eample of post hoc ergo propter hoc AND non sequitur (2 fallacies in one!).
Stalin had a beard. Stalin was an athiest. Therefore if you have a beard you are an athiest. Stalin killed millions. STalin was an athiest. Therefore if you have a beard you have killed millions.
I am waiting for a SINGLE post by a CRIDer that is not full of logical fallacies and/or purposeful deception.
Just one.
Repeated encounters with such ignorance and mendacity does that to one.
See post #81.
bttt
Non sequitur. Are you reading the materials involved?
You see, the link in post 93 is a total refutation of your 81. Note also the the Glen Kuban article. Essentially none of the statements in the Bible.CA link you keep referring to are true.
The creos like to squawk about Piltdown Man, but creationist lies are never abandoned by creationists even after exposure. Malachite Man, Cretacious Hammer, various footprints, Darwin's rhetorical questions ...
That's because you are freedumb.
Follow the thread, read with comprehension, and then stop being beyond yourself.
IOW you can't answer. I have pointed out MULTIPLE TIMES the logical fallacies used for the linkage and have ZERO direct answers.
I have zero answers because I have exposed you all for the prevaricators you are.
Tell me how my logic is wrong or accept your proper label as liars.
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.
