On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:38:07 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>>BH>No one witnessed the (hypothetical) historical process during
>>>which gravity, acting according to the (hypothetical) inverse
>>>square law, produced the oblate shape of the earth.
>>SJ>Obviously, but my point "It was also witnessed by human observers-
>>which macroevolution has not been.." was related to your point that
>>"the actual process which generated the oblate spheroid shape was an
>>historical process which could not be repeated."
BH>I fail to see your point. As I said above, no one witnessed
>the historical process.
And I said "obviously". I was referring to the expedition.
BH>[skipping a lot, thanks for the sources on Maupertuis]
That's OK.
[...]
>>>>SJ>..."evolution" is not simply just another historical science.
>>>>It is also an alternative creation story:
>>BH>...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:
BH>[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)
BH>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.
I doubt it. Darwinists often deceive themselves by using the same
word "evolution" for different things. In fact at some level the self-
deception must be deliberate because it is the piggy-backing of the
evidence for one level of evolution onto another that is a Darwinist
stock-in-trade. If they started clarifying their terms, then their
claims would lose much of their force. This is clear when the word
"microevolution" is distinguished from "macroevolution", which
Neo-Darwinists in particular resist.
[...]
>>>>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".
BH>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?
I know what you "claim" and I don't necessarily "doubt" that it
is true. But I asked you for "*evidence*" that there are
"such persons called `plasticians'". Your argument that "All
plasticians believe plasticity is a fact...", depends on there
really being people called "plasticians". If you don't post
any evidence (eg. a quote from a book or journal), that there
really are such persons called "platicians", then I will have
no alternative but to conclude that there are no such persons .
[...]
>>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...." (Gould S.J.,
>>"Evolution as Fact and Theory", in "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes",
>>1983, p254)
>>
>>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*!
BH>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."
IMHO Gould is *deliberately* using the word "evolution" to
mean two or three different things, in order to carry his
argument. I find it more difficult to believe that he is
just an incompetent wordsmith.
BH>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.
Agreed. In fact "gravity" might turn out to be a very poor
example of the "fact" of evolution, because from my reading
it is still not understood what exactly it is.
BH>Anyone else have thoughts about this?
[...]
>>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.
BH>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.
Disagree. Science in every other area carefully defines words
for different things and uses them consistently. Only a pseudo-
science would deliberately retain a word which causes lack of
clarity.
That the one word "evolution" is being made to cover too many
different things is the failure to find one satisfactory
definition for it.
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------