Chapter
2
EVOLUTION HAS A SERIOUS SEMANTIC PROBLEM
Biology teachers can violate their own
state education code.
Biology teachers who are
materialistic evolutionists tend to deceive K-12 students. For the teacher who
told her class that human beings exist because of an evolutionary accident, it
would have been far better if she had prefaced her reply with something like:
ÒThis question gets us into philosophical issues well beyond the ability of
science to resolve. I can only tell
you how I personally would answer that question.Ó
Under
California law, public school teachers cannot say anything they please in their
classrooms. Without such a
preface, that teacher created several serious problems for herself. The first problem is that by stating
that Òhuman beings exist because of an evolutionary accidentÓ, she has inferred
that human beings exist only because of an evolutionary accident. This view contradicts doctrinal
positions in all three monotheistic world religions. By answering the studentÕs question in this way, the teacher
has also violated Standards of Section 60044(a) of the California State
Education Code:
Purpose: The standards
enable all students to become aware and
accepting of religious diversity while being allowed to
remain secure in any religious beliefs they may already have.
Method: The standards
will be achieved by depicting, when
appropriate, the diversity of religious beliefs held in the
United States and California, as well as in other societies
without displaying any bias or prejudice against any of those
beliefs, or religious beliefs in general. (ref.)
In addition, I have
found no mention of human evolution in the California State Dept. of Education
Science Framework.(ref?) It is
also worth noting that 17% of all high school biology teachers in the United
States teach nothing about human evolution. (ref? Birkland?)
Biology teachers should stay within the
legitimate domain of science.
In
the context of evolution, the term, ÒaccidentÓ, is usually considered
synonymous with Òblind chanceÓ. In
1967, Nobel laureate Jacques Monod claimed that ÒMan knows at last that he is
alone in the universeÕs unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by
chanceÓ.(J. Monod, ÒChance and NecessityÓ, Vintage Books, N.Y., 1967.) Also in the 1960Õs, a well-known
evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, stated: ÒMan is the result of purposeless
and natural processes that did not have him in mind. He was not planned.Ó(Simpson, G.L., ÒThe Meaning of
Evolution, ______________, 1967, p.345)
In 2005, 38 Nobel Laureates signed the statement: ÒEvolution is
understood to be the result of an unguided process of random variation and
natural selection.Ó (www.2.1jworld.com/news/2005/sep/15)
Any
of the above three statements would violate Section 60044a of the California
State Education Code if the statement was used in a lesson given by any public
school teacher in California. The
problem is that each of the above three statements extends well beyond the
legitimate domain of science.
Why? Because the discipline
of science has a boundary. There
is no way the scientific method can address the important philosophical issues
imbedded in the above three statements.
It doesnÕt matter that 39 Nobel Laureates agreed with their
statement. The reason that group
of scientists agreed was that they had previously chosen the worldview of
philosophical materialism.
Great
care must be taken whenever a science teacher uses the word, ÒchanceÓ. According to Jacques Monod, ÒPure
chance, absolutely free, but blind, (is) at the very root of the stupendous
evidence of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one
among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one
that squares with observed and tested fact.Ó (Monod,112-113)
In this quote, Monod tells us that he has
no idea where the legitimate boundary between science and philosophy actually
is. His statement about the
meaning of chance is simply the only one his materialistic worldview will
allow! What appears to some
scientists as Òblind chanceÓ, may actually involve Òdivine providenceÓ. But it is not within the domain of
science to comment one way or the other,
because the issue is well beyond the ability of science to resolve. When
that Long Beach, California biology teacher claimed that human beings exist
because of an evolutionary accident, she was letting her own personal worldview
creep into the classroom.
ÒEvolutionÓ is an equivocal word.
Over
the past 150 years, the word ÒevolutionÓ has become an equivocal word. The dictionary defines ÒequivocalÓ as:
Òallowing the possibility of several different meanings, as a word or phrase,
especially with the intent to deceive or misguide, susceptible to double
interpretation, deliberately ambiguous: an equivocal answer.Ó
(WebsterÕs Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language, Random House, New York, 2001)
S. I. Hayakawa is probably the best-known semanticist of the 20th
century. He claimed that
ÒevolutionÓ is a word that can hinder and misdirect our thought process Òby
creating the illusion of meaning where no clear-cut meaning exists.Ó (Hayakawa,
S. I., ÒThe Use and Misuse of LanguageÓ,
Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett Publications, Inc, 1943, p. viii) In other words, if a word such as
ÒevolutionÓ has multiple meanings it may be difficult for the reader to discern
the meaning the writer intended, using only the context. If the reader happens to be a high
school biology student, the task could be difficult indeed!
Back in the
mid-seventies, tension filled the air in one of the Watergate congressional
hearings. There was a semantic
dispute. Finally, Senator Sam
Irvin, Chairman of the investigating committee, could stand it no longer. He moved closer to the microphone, and
bellowed: ÒWell, thatÕs what the word means in the English language! Now, ah donÕt know who you learned the
English language from. Ah learned
the English language from muh muthah!Ó
Shrieks of laughter filled the room and tension immediately
dissolved. The lesson is very
simple. Scientists, especially,
should use words that have only one unmistakable meaning in the context in
which they are placed!
In
1963, I took a course in abnormal psychology at U.C., Berkeley. The professor was on a crusade against
the use of the term Òmental illnessÓ.
He complained that the term confused two possible meanings: (1) a
physical disorder of brain tissue itself, and (2) a psychological problem that
should more properly be called a Òbehavior disorderÓ. To be clearly understood, scientists should use words with
the fewest number of possible meanings.
A word that has only one well-understood meaning (in its scientific
context) would be the best choice.
But
unfortunately, scientists too often use the word ÒevolutionÓ as though it had
only one well-understood meaning.
When K-12 teachers use the Òe-wordÓ, resistant students raise their
guard. (Meadows, L. ÒThe Missing LinkÓ, Heineman, Portsmouth, N.H., 2009,
p.57) Despite the statement by 38
Nobel laureates, ÒevolutionÓ does have a number of different definitions. This was pointed out, early on, by
Maynard Metcalf, the first expert witness for the defense in the 1925 Scopes trial. Metcalf testified that a critique of
evolution in one sense did not necessarily count as a critique of evolution in
another sense. (Author? ÒWorldÕs Most Famous Court TrialÓ, 1990, p.139)
Whenever the e-word is
used in a K-12 science classroom, the student is expected to get its intended
meaning from the context. How
often will the average K-12 student find that intended meaning? Such a task can challenge a university
student. But the average high
school student has had little or no experience with semantic challenges. To choose the right meaning from
many possibilities --itÕs too much to expect.
This semantic situation cannot be compared with the use of a word such as ÒgravityÓ. ÒGravityÓ is a word that elicits neither confusion nor a negative emotional reaction in the minds of students.
How did the word ÒevolutionÓ ÒevolveÓ
into an equivocal word?
Prior to 1860, the word
ÒevolutionÓ was not equivocal. The
word ÒevolutionÓ comes from the latin word ÒevolutusÓ. The past participle of the latin verb
ÒevolvereÓ, means Òto gradually unrollÓ.
(For a rabbi to read the torah, he would have to ÒevolvereÓ (unroll) the
torah scroll as his reading progressed.)
In 1744, Albrecht von Haller used the word ÒevolutionÓ to refer to the
gradual development of the embryo into a fetus.(Barbieri, M.,
lucy.ukc.ac.uk/courses/SE30 2)
Over time, the word ÒevolutionÓ came to mean any gradual process.
In his ÒOrigin of
SpeciesÓ, Charles Darwin used the verb ÒevolveÓ only once.
He used it in a very figurative, almost poetic,
sense as the very last word in the very last sentence of ÒThe Origin of
SpeciesÓ: ÒThere is a grandeur in the view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed into a few forms, or into one, and that, whilst
the planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so
simple a beginning, endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have been
and are being evolved.Ó(ref?)
Notice that he used the word ÒevolvedÓ figuratively, in the sense of a
gradual unrolling, or developing process.
In later editions,
Darwin added the words Òby the CreatorÓ after the word ÒbreathedÓ in the last
sentence of the book (Frankenberry U.K., ÒThe Faith of ScientistsÓ Princeton U.
Press, Princeton U. Press, Princeton, N.J., 2008, p. 125). Darwin stands in awe of something
inanimate having life Òbreathed into itÓ.
Perhaps, from his early theological education at Cambridge, he
remembered Genesis 2:7: (ÒÉGod breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
ÉÓ). Perhaps, to Darwin, the
emergence of life on our planet was like the gradual unrolling of a marvelous
manuscript.
Biologist Herbert
Spencer was impressed with DarwinÕs figurative use of the word, ÒevolvedÓ, at
the end of his book. He was so
impressed that he gave the word ÒevolutionÓ a more literal meaning in his 1864
biology text. (Spencer, H., ÒPrinciples of BiologyÓ Appleton, New York, 1864.)
To Charles Darwin,
ÒevolutionÓ was not an equivocal word.
But in 1864, five years after Darwin published ÒOrigin of SpeciesÓ,
Herbert Spencer published ÒThe Principles of BiologyÓ (Appleton & Co, New
York, 1882 edition). Spencer
appears to be the first to use the word ÒevolutionÓ in a way that started it
down the path toward becoming the equivocal multi-definitional word it is
today. In his book, Spencer used the word ÒevolutionÓ 125 times, and the word
ÒevolvedÓ 7 times. He referred to
the Òhypothesis of evolutionÓ 26 times, and the Òprocess of evolutionÓ twice. He referred to
Òlaws of evolutionÓ three times, Òdoctrine of
evolutionÓ six times, and Òbelief in evolutionÓ five times. And he once referred to evolution as a
Òuniversal processÓ.
But in 1864 Spencer used
the word ÒevolutionÓ even more broadly than it is used today. He speaks of the evolution of heat,
evolution of light, evolution of electricity, evolution of language, and
evolution of society.
Why was Spencer so
enamored with the word ÒevolutionÓ?
The reason seems to be that Spencer was a philosophical materialist who
seized upon the explanatory power of evolution as a universal naturalistic
process. Over and over again in
his 1864 book, he attempts to explain life, (and perhaps the universe as well)
in terms of Òthe universal laws of the redistribution of matter and motionÓ.
Spencer takes Darwin to
task in not going far enough in his ruling out of supernatural activity: Darwin reveals Òan unconscious mingling
of the belief in a supernaturally impressed tendency to develop, with the
belief in a development arising from the changing incidence of condition.Ó (Spencer, p. 409, 1882 edition) Spencer also makes the point that
DarwinÕs Ò ascription of organic evolution to some aptitude naturally possessed
by organisms as miraculously imposed upon them is unphilosophicalÓ. Un-philosophical? No, not at all. The only reason Spencer could have used
this term is that there is no room for anything miraculous in SpencerÕs
materialistic worldview.
It seems quite clear,
therefore, that Herbert Spencer is the one to blame for linguistically revising
the word ÒevolutionÓ into a multi-definitional equivocal word. And remember, he did this in 1864
--long before any of the genetic mechanisms involved in some of the more modern
definitions were known!
SpencerÕs lead was soon
followed by other scientists, who used the single word ÒevolutionÓ to replace
DarwinÕs more cumbersome Òdescent with modification through variation and
natural selectionÓ. (Darwin, C.
ÒThe Origin of SpeciesÓ, Modern Library ed., The Modern Library ___________1993, p.612) One of those
scientists was anatomist and paleontologist, Thomas Huxley. However Huxley had doubts about the
role of natural selection in evolution.
He considered natural selection unproven. But Huxley became convinced of its importance soon after
Darwin published in 1859.
Thomas
Huxley was a very skilled orator.
From 1860 to 1890, he gave so many lectures and debates on evolution,
that he became known as ÒDarwinÕs bulldogÓ. Early (give year) during that period, Huxley debated Bishop
Wilberforce. In that famous debate
it became clear to all that evolution was being used as the secular alternative
to the Biblical account of the origin and appearance of life. It should come as no surprise that now,
after 150 years, conservative Christians still regard evolution as
materialistic dogma whenever the word is used.
(Add
material about the beliefs of Wallace here.)
ÒEvolutionÓ has at least five different
definitions.
Now letÕs examine, in
some detail, five differing definitions.
Each definition differs from the others in an important and significant
way.
A. CHANGE WITHIN AN INTERBREEDING POPULATION OR
SPECIES:
Such a change could involve a change in
the degree of adaptation of one or more subpopulations (or subspecies), a
change in gene frequency, or change in the proportion of different alleles of a
gene, over generations, due to mutation, genetic drift, or other cause. (Alleles are pairs of differing genes
at the same location on a chromosome pair.)
It can refer (1) to a change in inherited traits, (2) a change in the
degree of adaptation, (3) a change in the diversity of organisms, (4) a change
in allele frequency, or (5) some other change in the gene pool of the
species. (A gene pool is the
complete set of alleles in a population.
Allele frequency refers to the fraction of alleles that have a single
allele form. A change in allele
frequency is a specific type of gene pool change.) In an interbreeding population, mutation, natural selection,
and genetic drift can all produce gene pool changes. Genetic drift refers to a random change in allele frequency.
In 2001, Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr
reiterated an earlier definition (Goldschmidt, 1940) of microevolution as
evolution within a species. (Mayr, E., ÒWhat Evolution IsÓ, Basic Books, New
York, 2001, 287) Fredric Nelson
gives us a more modern definition of microevolution: Òan alteration of the
information present within DNA molecules, which already exist and already
function.Ó ÒExamples of microevolution, therefore, include point mutations,
deletions, recombinations, exon shuffling, and the addition of DNA via
plasmids, viruses, or other DNA segments.Ó (Nelson F.P. ÒNeeded: A New
Vocabulary for Understanding EvolutionÓ, Perspectives on Understanding Science
and the Christian FaithÓ 58(1), 2006, 28)
(An exon is any portion of an interrupted gene that is represented in
the RNA product and translated into protein. A plasmid is any segment of DNA, in yeast or bacteria, that
is chromosome-independent, but capable of replication.)
B. CHANGE WHICH RESULTS IN AN INABILITY TO
INTERBREED
This definition refers to gene pool
changes in a population that result in a new species, due to a modification of
inherited characteristics.
Possible causes include mutation, genetic drift and natural selection. Although Charles Darwin preferred the
more general term, Òdescent with modificationÓ, natural selection is more
specific. It refers to the process
whereby an anatomical change is favored if it increases the reproductive
survival of a population that becomes isolated in a new environment. In other words, natural selection
refers to the survival and reproduction of organisms that are better suited to
function in a new environment.
Natural selection usually predominates in a larger interbreeding
population, while genetic drift is more apparent in a smaller population.
When a population becomes isolated, due
perhaps to migration into another geographic region, natural selection and
genetic drift, acting over generations, can certainly produce new varieties
within a species. A new species
may be produced, but this process has proven very difficult for modern
scientists to observe directly.
(It is necessary to show that back-crossing between the new species and
the original population cannot be done.)
Eminent University of Massachusetts biologist Lynn Margulis claims:
ÒMutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of
hereditary changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even
with geographic isolation of populations, leads to speciation.Ó (ref.?)
Charles Darwin and
Alfred Wallace had no conclusive evidence of the origin of any new
species. All they did was
hypothesize. Darwin was fond of
the term, Òdescent with modification.Ó
But, in principle at least, such mechanisms might explain how two
separate species (that cannot interbreed) could descend from a common ancestral
population. (In 1940, Richard
Goldschmidt referred to definition B as ÒmacroevolutionÓ.) (ref.?)
C.
CHANGE IN COMPLEXITY
This
definition refers to the historical appearance of organisms going from simpler
to more complex forms. Scientists
observe a progression from simpler to more complex life forms as they examine
fossil remains in geological layers dating from very old to more recent.
D.
A VIEW THAT ALL LIFE DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR
This
definition assumes that all species of living organisms descended from a single
common ancestor by transmitting genetic changes over many generations
(universal common descent). This
single common ancestor came to exist, by chance, from inorganic matter.
E. A DOCTRINE THAT ALL LIFE CAME TO EXIST
BY UNGUIDED PROCESSES
This is the
philosophical view that all life came to exist by
unguided materialistic
processes, starting from a single primitive ancestor. (A better term for this
definition would be ÒevolutionismÓ.
James Birx, writing in the journal, ÒBioscienceÓ, claims that: ÒDue to
its historical and cosmic orientation Éevolution is by its very nature
philosophical. ÉIt is unfortunate that many evolutionary texts do not give
sufficient weight to the philosophical issues that are inevitably raised in
class discussions.Ó (Birx ref.)
[References: Columbia Encyclopedia
Veterinary Dictionary
Futuyama, D.J., (1997) ÒEvolutionary
Biology, 3rd Ed.Ó,
Sinauer Associates
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution
www.answers.com/topic/evolution]
In
my opinion, there is nothing in definition categories A-C that must necessarily
be in conflict with all creationist views. However, the same cannot be said for definition E. (Among creationists, it is likely that
only an Òevolutionary creationistÓ would accept definition D.)