Stephen : <<Good point. The fact is that Pim does *not* state what are "the defns
you're using for `evolution' and `creation'".>>
I am merely pointing out that you are using poor definitions. If you want better definitions for science then stay away from dictionaries.
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).
Stephen : Thanks again. I don't take Pim's "straw man argument" assertions seriously
because he never provides any *evidence* to support his claims.>>
I am glad to hear that you agree that your argument was not something commonly accepted ?
Stephen : <<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".>>
Dictionaries make for poor evidence of such. Perhaps you could show an example ? And even then all you have shown is some examples of people. Does they make a representative example of what evolution is ? By focusing on the few outliers, you are trying to generate an impression of agreement.
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.
Stephen : << But then "evolution" would lose much of its power!>>
Would it ?
StepehN : 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:
>>
Perhaps one should not confuse the fact versus the theory of evolution ? Well Stephen >>
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.
Stephen : Heartily agree!>>
So no more 'dictionary' definitions then ?