As one who has been sampling this site for some time I am truly
fascinated by the wide range of
positions stated ... and the reason and logic (or lack thereof) offered
in the various presentations.
While there are frequent references to the importance of proper
"definitions" in many of the
claimed assertions ... I am disappointed by the ambiguousness in
definitions actually supplied.
From past experience I've found the great bulk (90%+?) of all
disagreement in the
creation/evolution controversy is more reflective of poor semantics
(imprecise, careless, selective,
deceptive definitions) than on actual scientific differences. This
also appears to be the case in
many of the messages published here.
To illustrate this point, we revert to basics. Can we spell out
mutually acceptable, scientifically
unambiguous definitions for key terms used? 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 is it that
you intend to convey to
your readers when you use this un-hyphenated generalized biological term
in the context stated
above? Is this intended definition scientifically (ambiguously) precise
and one generally understood
by your audience?
Ms. Brassfield responsibly states her intended definition for evolution
in several recent exchanges
as being .... "a change in the gene pool of a population through
time.". While this broad,
imprecise criteria is often cited by evolutionists as supporting their
contention that evolution is
'scientific', it is generally considered too ambiguous to be accepted
by non-evolutionists or others
who deplore careless use of language. The undefined 'changes' as
referenced are equally
(ambiguously) descriptive of other more limited terms (as 'variation',
'artificial' selection,
'extinction', etc.) and about which there is indeed NO argument.
Non-evolutionists generally understand, and require, a more rigorous
criteria when defining the
term 'evolution'. They hold that the 'changes' involved must be
totally the result of non-intelligently
directed random matter/energy interactions (which excludes 'artificial
selection') and that the
'changes' must, over time, result in the accumulation of increasingly
complex, biologically
beneficial DNA code in a pre-existing gene pool (which precludes
'variation' and degrading
changes leading to 'extinction').
In the realm of scientific verification there is a world of difference
in establishing the compelling
level of certainty required of "scientific" "theory" (both terms also
requiring precise definition) for
Ms. Brassfield's definition of 'evolution' as compared to the more
rigorous (less ambiguous)
definition followed by non-evolutionists. We hope this hasty example
will encourage others to
participate in the drafting of at least a minimal GLOSSARY OF TERMS
clearly expressing the
precise criteria that are both necessary and sufficient to unambiguously
differentiate various key
words from all other words ... particularly from their opposites.
Should a number of reasonably intelligent and articulate folks share
their thoughts, this shouldn't be
much of a task. But should reaching a consensus of meaning mutually
acceptable to both
evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike prove more difficult than most
folks anticipate, the
magnitude of the roll semantics plays in this dichotomy will at least be
better understood and
openly established.
Please do take a moment at your early convenience and forward me as
concise a definition for
'EVOLUTION' (what the term is intended to convey when appearing
unhyphonated in the high
school - college biological science curricula context) ... along with
any other constructive
comments suggestions you may have. The following may be helpful in
further explaining where
I'm coming from.
"An important operational rule is that each word in a scientific
statement must carry exactly
the same meaning to all scientists, at least to all who practice in a
given field or area of
science. This rule requires that all words be precisely defined.
Scientists must be very fussy
about definitions, even if that seems painful to others. (Strahler, Dr.
A. N.; Science and Earth
History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy; Prometheus Books; Pg.6;
1987)
"The truth or falsehood of all of man's conclusions, inferences, thought
and knowledge rests
upon the truth or falsehood of his definitions." (Rand, Dr. Ayn;
Introduction to Objectivist
epistemology ; Pg. 49; 1990)
"...and it is necessary to define these words or else give up using them
and coin others."
(Pirie, N.W.; in Molecules to Man; Blue Version, 3rd Edition, Pg. 141;
1976)
"Meaningful discussion is impossible unless disputants agree on the
definition of key terms,
and deductive argument is unreliable if it employs ambiguous words."
(McDonald, Daniel;
The Language of Argument; Pg, 107; 1975)
"A chain of reasoning is no stronger than its weakest link. Therefore,
before it is accepted
each component of a scientific explanation should be clearly defined,
demonstrated and
documented. It should be testable and able to pass the tests." (Fezer,
Dr. Carl D.; REPORTS;
National Center for Science Education; Vol. 11, No. 3; Pg. 17; Fall
1991)
"On the conceptual level, you define your terms, and if anyone disagrees
and is subjective
about it, you make him define his." (Rand, Dr. Ayn; Introduction to
Objectivist Epistemology;
Pg. 219; 1990)
"...we shall forbid surreptitious alternations of usage." (Popper, Dr.
Karl; Logic of Scientific
Discovery; Pg. 84, 1959)
"If you would speak with me, define your terms." (Descartes;
paraphrase, actual source
temporarily misplaced.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 25 2000 - 22:30:36 EST