On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 22:57:29 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
[...]
>PM>Why not adhere to how scientists use the term rather than rely on
>>secondary sources that suit your argument ?
JR>You know I've had -plenty- of frustrating disagreements with Stephen,
>but isn't he quite right in saying that definitions of evolution and creation
>from leading science dictionaries show at least what many scientists
>believe?
Thanks for this.
JR>It's more than fair enough for either of you to point out their
>inadequacies, and to stipulate that they're not the defns you're using for
>"evolution" and "creation".
Good point. The fact is that Pim does *not* state what are "the defns
you're using for `evolution' and `creation'".
JR>But it hardly seems fair to call that a straw man argument, unless he's
>claiming against your assertions that this is what -you- or -all scientists-
>believe (versus many, -maybe- even most, or most non-specialist scientists,
>or the most aggressively polemical, or.... I'll let him specify his scope).
Thanks again. I don't take Pim's "straw man argument" assertions seriously
because he never provides any *evidence* to support his claims.
But I was not even claiming anything "against" Pim's "assertions". I
originally posted the science dictionary definitions of evolution to Donald
Howes to support my claim that "naturalists" define "evolution so broadly
that it cannot be false and creation so narrowly that it cannot be true".
JR>And as one sympathetic to evolutionary creationism I have to agree that
the >many definitions of "evolution" -are- sometimes used by proponents
>misleadingly, sometimes willfully, more often sloppily (scientists aren't
>philosophers, and sometimes they don't write very clearly). (Both can
>happen at the same time, too: inadvertent sloppiness that yields highly
>desired rhetorical results can be easily missed in all sorts of discussions,
>the deep pleasure of victory swamping the minor pain of subtle
>equivocation.)
Indeed, it is hard to find a definitions of "evolution" that is not "used by
proponents misleadingly" and "sloppily". This is the mark of a pseudo-
science. One of the hallmarks of true science is the careful defining of key
words to facilitate clear thinking.
JR>I think the innocent component of the problem is partly a matter of there
>not being enough agreed upon qualifiers of "evolution". Philosophers will
>often very clumsily but precisely number of the different meanings of a
>given single word (e.g., "know [sub]1", "know [sub]2", etc.). It'd be nice
>if philosophers and scientists would do this type of thing with "evolution",
>but use verbal rather than quantitative differentiators. Terms like "macro
>evolution", "micro evolution", "naturalistic evolution", "theistic
>evolution", etc. are helpful, but as the first two terms show, the defns are
>not widely shared, and so the terms aren't too useful.
But then "evolution" would lose much of its power!
JR>(Didn't Walter ReMine do this? I can't check this instant.)
Maybe you had this in mind:
"Evolutionists commonly define evolution as biological change or a change
in gene frequencies. Such definitions allow illusion to thrive by
equivocation. Evolutionists argue that if you accept change in gene
frequencies, then you must also accept evolution since these are the same
thing. Mayr provides an example:
`[E]volutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the
content of gene pools from generation to generation. It is as much a fact as
the observation that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the
reverse' (Mayr, 1991, p162-163)
In a similar way, Fox argues that the difference between human offspring
and their parents proves evolution:
`The fact of evolution...can no more be denied than one can deny his own
senses. Each of us need only examine human offspring and their parents to
attain this inference.' (Fox, 1984, p209)
In a similar way, Saladin misused the word evolution for rhetorical force
during an oral debate:
`Now, maybe the funniest thing about tonight's debate is ... that the
evidence for evolution is so convincing even Dr. Gish [a creationist]
accepts almost all evolution! He's a closet evolutionist!' (Saladin, 1984,
p17)
Along the same lines, Kitcher mistakenly claims:
`The main thesis of evolution is that species are not fixed and immutable.'
(Kitcher, 1982, p7)
The disparity between public interpretation and the evolutionists' technical
definition is ideal for creating illusion....Evolution refers to large-scale
biological change, effectively from atoms to accountants. Anything failing
to make that ultimate claim is not evolution (and is open to acceptance by
creationists). Evolution is either all the way-or it is creation. This is already
its defacto meaning within the origins debate, at least among the thoughtful
public." (ReMine W.J., "The Biotic Message," 1993, p298)
JR>Until then, it might be useful to use abbreviated versions of the defns
>themselves instead of "evolution" where confusion is otherwise likely to
>result.
Heartily agree!
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------