Re: Irredeemably tainted words.

Brian D. Harper (harper.10@osu.edu)
Thu, 09 Jan 1997 19:27:16 -0500

At 01:28 PM 1/9/97 EST, Jim wrote:
>Loren:
>
>Enjoyed your flight of fancy on tainted words. But really, no word in our
>time--except perhaps "abortion"--has so much baggage attached to it. I mean,
>"Quantum Mechanics" was not the subject of a trial in 1925, or a
>propogandistic movie starring Spencer Tracy, or lawsuits by the ACLU.
>
>So, let's keep "logic" (God is rational) and "law" (who wrote the 10
>Commandments?) and all those other nice, reliable words.
>
>But "evolution"? Nah.
>

I think your suggestion has more far reaching consequences than
you suspect. The word evolution is a common word used in many
fields besides evolutionary biology. For example, one of my specialties
is in the area of constitutive theories describing the mechanical behavior
of solids. Many such theories contain parameters related to the internal
structure of the material. Equations describing the time-dependent
change of these parameters are called evolutionary equations. Further,
any process producing a change in internal structure is generally
referred to as an evolutionary process.

Since these applications of the word evolution probably don't stir
your emotions too much, I propose as a compromise that we let
anyone use the word evolution with the exception of evolutionary
biologists. Evolutionary biologists must use a new word dweebolution,
with a new field dweebolutionary biology.

BTW, I proposed this new name in honor of all those diligent
souls who have struggled so long and hard to get rid of the
word evolution. Hey, don't thank me, you deserve this honor ;-).

Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University