As one who has been sampling this site for some time I am truly
intrigued by the wide range of views discussed ... and the reason and
logic (or lack thereof) offered in the various presentations.
While there are frequent references to the importance of proper
"definitions" for the key terms included in many of the claimed
assertions ... I am disappointed in the lack of precision
(ambiguousness) in those definitions actually supplied. From past
experience I've found the great bulk (90%+?) of all disagreement in the
creation/evolution controversy is based more on poor semantics
(imprecise, careless, selective, deceptive definitions) than to anything
actually scientific. This appears to also be the case in many of the
messages publishes here.
To illustrate this point, let's get down to the basics. Can we spell
out mutually acceptable, scientifically unambiguous definitions for
these key terms? If we are all using the words to convey essentially
the same meaning (within the context of tax-supported high school and
college level science curricula) as we must if we hope to communicate
effectively, this should be no difficult task. To the extent we have
difficulty establishing mutually understood and acceptable definitions
for key terms (and past experience suggests we will), the semantic
nature of on-going disagreements will be identified and the door opened
for more productive dialog in the future.
Precise definition of just a few basic words as, "evolution", "science",
"religion" and "creation" will be more than enough to illustrate this
point.
While you might be collecting your thoughts on all of these (and others
of your choice), let us focus initially on just one. EVOLUTION.
Specifically, what do you intend to convey to your readers when you use
this un- hyphenated general term?... and ... is your intended definition
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 25 2000 - 22:11:50 EST