I fail to see your point. As I said above, no one witnessed
the historical process.
[skipping a lot, thanks for the sources on Maupertuis]
>
>>>BH>...Would you extend your criticisms to
>>>>other historical sciences such as cosmology, abandoning
>>>>in the process the various arguments from design based
>>>>on cosmology?
>
>>>SJ>...You seem not to understand that "evolution" is not
>>>simply just another historical science. It is also an alternative
>>>creation story:
>
>BH>I'm trying to understand your point of view on this. As far as
>>I'm concerned, when we are discussing science, evolution is just
>>another historical science. In fact, the word evolution is
>>commonly used in cosmology. It seems that a lot of people
>>would like to reserve the word evolution as applying only to
>>biological evolution. It seems to be too late for that.
>
>SJ>Agreed. "Evolution" originally meant "unrolling" but now its
>acquired a meaning of its own:
>
[deleted Jaki quote]
>
>SJ>Indeed it is too late. The word "evolution" has become a loaded word
>that in today's parlance means a naturalistic, materialistic,
>mechnanistic process, in which there is no room for the supernatural,
>as Julian Huxley, co-founder of Neo-Darwinism declared:
>
>"...all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars
>to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and
>values- indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution...In the
>evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room
>for the supernatural." (Huxley J., in Tax S. (ed.), "Evolution after
>Darwin", Vol. 3, 1960) in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
>pp152-153)
>
OK, so the context makes it clear what Huxley means when he says
evolution. This doesn't mean that evolution always means
this. Just pay attention to context and it should be clear,
as it is above.
[...]
>>>SJ>>Interesting. But are there really "plasticians"?
>
>BH>Yes.
>
>SJ>In this case I am not prepared to accept your "authority". Please
>post *evidence* that there are such persons called "plasticians".
>
I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem is,
perhaps I'm using unfamiliar terminology. I have used this
type terminology all of my (professional) life so perhaps
I jumped to the conclusion that people would automatically
know what I mean. Anyway, a plastician is someone who is
specialized in the field of plasticity. My general area
of expertise is mechanics so I would call myself a
mechanician. Someone specializing in the theory of
elasticity would be an elastician, etc.
So, I claim that there is a community of individuals whose
professional expertise is plasticity. Do you doubt that
this is so?
>>>BH>...You seem to be wanting to counter the statement that most
>>>>scientists believe evolution is a fact...
>
>>>SJ>No. I want to counter the implied argument that *Darwinian*
>>>"evolution is a fact". I suggest the reason my argument seems
>>>"incoherent" to you is that you have so internalised the
>>>evolutionary paradigm (no offense intended), that you genuinely
>>>cannot see the point of those who haven't.
>
>BH>Where ever I have seen the "fact of evolution" discussed it is
>>always contrasted with theories of evolution which are not
>>facts. There are facts and there are theories that attempt
>>to explain those facts. We find this distinction in all of
>>science, not just evolution.
>
>SJ>Darwinists claim that evolution is *both* a theory *and* "a fact":
>
>"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and
>theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing
>certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of
>ideas that explain and interpret facts. Fact do not go away while
>scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's
>theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend
>themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved
>from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed
>mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." (Gould S.J.,
>"Evolution as Fact and Theory", in "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes",
>1983, p254)
>
>SJ>The problem is that Gould is using the same word "evolution", in the
>one sentence, to mean two entirely different things: 1) history and
>2) mechanism. Gould is arguing that if "Darwin's proposed mechanism"
>fails, the history is still a fact and that another "mechanism...yet
>to be discovered", was responsible. But the point is that if the
>"mechanism...yet to be discovered" was supernatural intervention by
>God, then it wasn't "evolution" but *creation*!
>
Well, I also have some problems with this quote, perhaps not
the same as yours :). If indeed he had used the same word to
mean two different things I would say "of course, that's the
point." He's trying to explain how the same word can be used
to talk about the facts of a subject and the theory which
attempts to explain those facts. This is common practice in
science. Unfortunately, Gould uses the word three different
ways 1) fact 2)theory 3) mechanism. I would be much happier
if his last sentence read "And human beings evolved
from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed
theory or by some other, yet to be discovered theory."
IOW, Gould seems to be using theory and mechanism interchangeably,
which, IMHO, is a boo boo. Mechanisms would be part of a theory,
but not all theories have mechanisms. Interestingly, the two
theories of gravity which Gould mentions do not have mechanisms.
It is true that Darwin's theory is mechanistic, but there's no
reason to suppose the yet to be discovered theory would be
mechanistic.
Anyone else have thoughts about this?
>>>SJ>The only way out is for you to start giving clear and consistent
>>>definitions of words, particularly the word "evolution". It is such
>>>an all-purpose word that it can mean just about anything, and hence
>>>is an almost certain way of becoming verbally self-deceived (no
>>>offense intended).
>
>BH>It is true that evolution is used in many ways. One must always
>>be careful to look at context to see what is meant by the
>>word. The same is true for other oft used words like freedom,
>>love etc.
>
>SJ>But in *science* every effort is usually made to assign specific
>meanings to words for utmost clarity. The fact that Darwinism
>insists on using such an ambiguous word as "evolution" is a
>sure sign that it is a pseudoscience.
>
Clarity is maintained by the context. Words are only words,
endeavor to find out what an author means by the words
she uses. It's hard work, but there's really no way around it.
>[split here]
>
Good idea, I think I'm going to split and go home :).
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It is not certain that all is uncertain,
to the glory of skepticism." -- Pascal