[DeweyCA]

Defining terms is extremely important. Often, it seems, some evolutionists will say that evolution does not rule out God. Other times, other evolutionists. like Richard Dawkins, forthrightly say that evolution presupposes, and then proves, that there is no God. The same is true sith the word, "theory." What is really meant by theory. If you look at the examples that the author cites, you see that this has also been "evolving." It's hard to have an intelligible debate when basic definitions are agreed upon. And from my viewpoint, it's seems to be more often the evolutionists who keep changing the terms of the debate.

[the_Watchman]

Terminology is not the only thing that "evolves" with evolutionists. For instance, look up all the vestigial organs claimed by evolutionists to prove their theory. Most have now been proven to have uses and not be so vestigial at all.

[freedumb2003]

The theory is silent on God.

Different scientists interpret God differently but to suggest that somehow redefining a "theory" says anything for or against either evolution or its proponents is disengenuous at best and libel at worst.

[Cicero]

Very interesting. Maybe we should change it from Darwin's theory to Orwell's theory.

If the facts don't fit, change the language. Just one more way that the Darwinists take a leaf from the leftists' ideological playbook.

If the facts don't fit, change the language and send in the ACLU to enforce it.

[RunningWolf]

Great article bump thanks,

I find the articles much more informative provocative enlightening educational than the 'education' I get from the FR evos LOL

Wolf

[vincentblackshadow]

Evolution would be considered a law if it wasn't for Christian Fundamentalists. There is no denying that Africa was once full of trees. When the climate became more arid and the trees in Africa became scarce, arboreal pre-hominids became nomadic. Fossil records prove the transition from arboreal 'ape like' species to a bipedal hominid.

1. big toes become larger and begin to position for balance

2.spine becomes more curved, providing cushion for walking
3.muscles in legs grow stronger in certain places to support long distance walking
4.cranium begins to grow larger (signs of spatial thinking growth) and eyes position to enable better peripheral vision.
5.hips widen to support torso

There is no denying the fossil evidence and the progression from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien

If a certain Freeper denies those fossil records, do you also refute the existence of dinosaurs?

[trashcanbred]

Evolution might be a theory and it likely is still incomplete in a number of respects, but it at least seeks to answer how life exists today scientifically.

It sounded ridiculous when someone suggested that the Earth went around the sun, go figure.

[farmer18th]

The same is true sith the word, "theory." What is really meant by theory

I must say it's been amusing to see the way orthodox, lock-step evolutionists on FR have insisted on their own defintion of "theory." It's something like playing Scrabble with a guy in the parts department.

[fizziwig]

"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."
___________________________________________

This is where faith in naturalism comes in. Evolutionists have faith that natural selection created the eye.

It may have but we will never have sufficient supporting evidence to provide a reasonable explanation as to how natural selection accomplished this daunting task. As it stands now its mere speculation.

[mugs99]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Coyoteman]

Defining terms is extremely important.

I agree. Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

[Last revised 2/9/06]

[Mogollon]

The Darwin Fundamentalists are now in the same place as the advocates for a static universe were about 40 years ago when the Big Bang Theory first came on the scene. The static universe bunch arrogantly held on to the idea the universe had no beginning and no end and had simply always been here. The Big Bang theory, which I prefer to call Creation, put an end to the static universe nonsense.

Evolution is now coming to a point where it needs to be challenged to show how complex biochemical mechanisms that involve multiple complex molecules and kinetically difficult reactions such as sight, energy production / maintenance (Krebs Cycle), cellular transport, protein synthesis, gluconeogenesis, etc., etc., came about by random accident followed by natural selection. Only biochemical novices will buy into the 1000 monkey/1000 typewriter and infinite time b.s.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Evolution theory falls apart any way you look at it. They may as well be teaching the kids all about the little fairies and leprechauns.

Take for example the beginning of life itself. Those evolution theory eggheads are all full of supposed explanations for why a zebra has stripes and how come a bird chirps but here is the fact they need to always ignore:

Man can recreate in the lab any condition there ever was, yet man can never create life out of nothing.

That's because only God can, and God wanted the zebras to have stripes and the birds to chirp.

Next time some evolution nut challenges you, tell them: go ahead make some life out of nothing, monkey boy.

[edsheppa]

"... 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." Kenneth R. Miller

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.

[RightWhale]

it's seems to be more often the evolutionists who keep changing the terms of the debate

How so? It seems the deniers of evolution change the debate every day, yet the debate keeps going over the same track. But, going around and around is also evolution.

[bvw]

First everyone agrees that IDEAS evolve. And second everyone agrees that DESIGNS evolve into better designs because the DESIGNERS have a purpose to be achieved with the designs, and (1) their ideations of how that purpose can best be acheived evolves, (2) the available resources to achieve that purpose through changes in design evolves (eg. the evolution of bronze, iron smelting), (3) they learn from other designs -- cross-polinate.

Those are my prefacing remarks.

Yet here you have brought a wonderful example of another type of IDEA evolution -- that of a infection, a disease, a virus so to speak.

The changes to published definitons of the word THEORY indicate that "Darwinism" is a serious viral infection -- the viruses genetic markers are obvious in the defintions themselves.

Darwinism is a virus of the idea space, and it has sickened not only dictionaries, but Science itself. In all fact, Science is very much infected.

[b_sharp]

"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:

Apparently the author has not kept up to the science. Light sensing cells have been found on a number of organisms.

Beyond that single cell, many different 'transitional' versions of an optical device have been found on diverse organisms. The eye is not the same mystery it was in Darwin's time. Funny how the anti-evos can't keep up with these findings?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Typical postmoderndeconstructionist comments by the author. He replaces scientific inquiry by textual analysis. Then he trys to impose his own definition of terms on those actually doing the work. Creationism is the soulmate of postmoderndeconstructionism.

[Revolting cat!]

Dude, I got in before 1,000, why, before 150 even! Whew!

[patriot_wes]

"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."

LMFAO! and let's see; the statistical probability of the components in a single DNA molecule coming together by chance is???

[TheBrotherhood]

Evolution is all speculation. And, speculation is NOT a theory. Therefore, evolution is NOT a theory.

It's only logical.