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 - 22:08:22 EST