How
does someone determine the meaning of a word? I guess one could
consult a dictionary but I think we usually learn new words by
hearing how they are used by others. When you think about it,
dictionaries only describes how the word is commonly used. It's not
a rule book. Dictionaries don't write languages, languages write
dictionaries. After all, there is no transcendent, immutable meaning
of any word that has been carved in stone somewhere. There is no
“word czar” who has sole authority to judge what is the correct
meaning of a word. The reality is that meaning of any word is
transitory and it can mean whatever the majority of the populace
thinks it means. Consider the word, “gay,” for example; it was
during my lifetime that the word went from meaning, “happy” to
meaning, “homosexual.” The dictionaries have changed their
definitions to reflect this.
Of course,
nearly every profession uses certain words that have specialized
meanings. We usually call such words, “jargon.” Some words are
specific only to that industry. Other words may seem ordinary but
have a special meaning in that profession. For example, when I
worked in banking, we would strap bills in bundles of 100. A “strap”
of $20 bills represents $2,000. When we had 10 “straps,” we
would put 2 rubber bands around it and called it a “brick” (I
guess because it resembled a block of money). So we meant something
different by the word “brick” than what the average, non-banker
means.
There's
nothing wrong with using jargon. However, an industry specific
meaning of a word shouldn't change the way that same word is used by
the public at large, right? Well, I don't think a reasonable person
would expect it to but many evolutionists aren't reasonable. They
want to foist their jargon upon us!
Here's
a quote from my favorite, pro-evolution website, Talk
Origins:
“Recently
I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are
being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed
that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real
problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what
evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was
very different from the common scientific definition and as a
consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology
really meant.
In
the creation v. evolution debate, there's some controversy over the
meaning of the word, “evolution.” There shouldn't be. When
we're talking about evolution, we're talking about the idea that
dinosaurs became birds or, more specifically, that apes became
people. When a creationist says he doesn't believe in “evolution,”
that
is the point of contention – not the amount of change in the
light/dark ratio of peppered moths.
Scientists,
on the other hand, have their own definitions of the word,
“evolution.” The most common definition is “any
change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one
generation to the next.”
Again, it's fine when one profession assigns a special meaning to an
otherwise, ordinary word. However, when evolutionists engage in
debate with the lay public, there's no rule that compels us lay-folk
to use words the same way the evolutionists do.
In
the above quote, I suspect the unnamed creationist understood very
well what “evolution” means to evolutionary biologists. I also
suspect that Mr. Moran knows very well what the creationist means by
the word, “evolution.” Any “confusion” that occurs is only
on the part of evolutionists who intentionally conflate the term to
include both the minor, observed changes (like the peppered moths) and the
unobserved evolution of dinos to birds.
For
some reason, evolutionists think they have the right to monopolize
words. Just like Humpty Dumpty in, Through
the Looking Glass,
when they use a word, it means just what they choose it to mean.
When a creationist says he doesn't believe in “evolution,” the
evolutionist knows precisely what is being said. It's the
evolutionist who muddies the waters by recklessly citing examples of
“evolution” like the peppered moth and dino-to-bird as though
they are the same thing.
There
is no communication problem in the creation v. evolution debate.
There are only evolutionists complaining that we don't use their
jargon. I got a little chuckle at Mr. Moran's closing quote:
Scientists
such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public
understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the
correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that
does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general
public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little
harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.
”
Really,
Mr. Moran? Your solution to the imagined problem is that
creationists read a book? I suggest you climb out of your ivory
tower and begin learning how real people talk.
2 comments:
You have, in the past, declared that you reject any sort of "evolution" at all, despite accepting, e.g. not merely adaption but speciation within "kinds." You are not in a particularly good position to accuse anyone else of misusing the English language or trying to monopolize the meaning of words.
And it's by no means obvious that evolutionary biologists really know what creationists mean when they say they reject "evolution." I've been told by one creationist that it is absurd to suppose that chihuahuas are descended from wolves. I can cite a creationist (granted, he wrote in 1900 and represented a minority view even then) who held that white people and black people could not share common ancestors because no white couple ever gave birth to a black baby. If you say bluntly that you don't believe in "evolution," you have no right to demand that any actual scientist reading your words also read your mind.
Also, if change in the percentage of black to grey peppered moths is not a point in contention, why do so many creationists attack Majerus and his peppered moth research? If you have no objection to evolution on this level, why are there creationists who bother to argue, variously, that "natural selection" is a tautology or an excuse for tyranny and genocide?
Creationists will attack any and every aspect of evolutionary theory one occasion, and turn around with injured innocence on the next occasion and whimper "but we accept microevolution, or evolution within 'kinds,' or anyway, however much of evolution we accept, and it's dishonest of you to believe us when we say otherwise!"
Steven J,
I'm sorry that I haven't had time to respond to you last comment on my Sagan-invisible dragon post. Maybe I'll circle back to that sometime.
You said, “You have, in the past, declared that you reject any sort of "evolution" at all, despite accepting, e.g. not merely adaption but speciation within "kinds." You are not in a particularly good position to accuse anyone else of misusing the English language or trying to monopolize the meaning of words.”
I've been very clear what I mean when I say, “evolution.” I limit my meaning to the most ordinary meaning which I believe was summed up nicely in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary as cited in the article I linked, “evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years.”
I've never rejected speciation or adaptation, I just don't call it “evolution.”
You said, “And it's by no means obvious that evolutionary biologists really know what creationists mean when they say they reject "evolution."”
Do you expect me to believe that evolutionary biologists still haven't figured out that creationists reject the idea of ape-to-man evolution not the wolf-to-dog?
You said, “I've been told by one creationist that it is absurd to suppose that chihuahuas are descended from wolves. I can cite a creationist (granted, he wrote in 1900 and represented a minority view even then) who held that white people and black people could not share common ancestors because no white couple ever gave birth to a black baby.”
I can cite one evolutionist who believes the world is flat. You should know that anecdotal accounts make weak evidence.
You said, “If you say bluntly that you don't believe in "evolution," you have no right to demand that any actual scientist reading your words also read your mind.”
If that's all I said then perhaps you'd have a point. However, the debate has raged for decades and evolutionists know EXACTLY what the debate is over. It is dishonest of them to act like creationists really don't understand what they're objecting to.
You said, “Also, if change in the percentage of black to grey peppered moths is not a point in contention, why do so many creationists attack Majerus and his peppered moth research?”
We don't necessarily reject the research, we reject the idea that birds eating one shade of moth can turn the moth into something besides a moth. Evolutionists have said that this sort of evolution is all that is necessary for all life to have descended from a common ancestor. In other words, peppered moth “evolution” is evidence for all “evolution.” That's precisely why evolutionists want to call any kind of change “evolution” - so they can equate “change” with common descent. It's a lie!
You said, “Creationists will attack any and every aspect of evolutionary theory one occasion, and turn around with injured innocence on the next occasion and whimper "but we accept microevolution, or evolution within 'kinds,' or anyway, however much of evolution we accept, and it's dishonest of you to believe us when we say otherwise!"”
I have discouraged the use of the terms “micro-” and “macroevolution” exactly for that reason; it leads to more confusion. What some people call “microevolution,” like the peppered moth, could never amount to “macroevolution,” like ape-to-man, no matter how long the change continues. We should not call it evolution of any sort.
But, Steven, you've still not justified a need for us to adopt your terminology. Yours is the jargon. It is not a right of evolutionists to decide the correct meaning of the word. If evolutionists want to engage in the debate, they need to familiarize themselves with the terminology.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment