Words Words Words
There are countless comments following the leading evolutionist, Richard Dawkins’ tweet yesterday, about whether evolution is a Fact or Theory.
Dawkins-ites argued about which words to use in talking about evolution — theory or fact, as well as in what sense those words ought to be used, and how to get others to agree with their opinions about evolution.
And a good many of these Dawkins’ followers used ad hominem arguments against any who didn’t agree with their point of view.
Here is a list I noted of names they called those who didn’t believe.
If you don’t agree that evolution is a fact then they called you — uneducated, an Imbecile, a stupid one, willfully illiterate, a clown, a dimwit, ill-informed, flat earther, (and as a group) ignorants, churchies or American Right Christians.
I got tired of listing them and stopped after noting these. But, there were a lot more. If you like, check it yourself. The tweet is still up and running.
Now, they can say that those who don’t agree with them also call evolutionists names. But, take a look for yourself. There were only two or three that I could find in those dozens of posts I went through.
It escapes me how any of this advances science one bit.
I raised questions in my Evolution Questions post yesterday. Twitter alerted me to Dawkins’ tweet and I went to see if there might perchance be an interesting answer to my questions.
Interestingly, among the responses to Dawkins’ tweet were a number of people asking the same questions I raised.
But the only answers they got were references to go, read such-and-such a book, or being called one of those epithets I listed above.
Is there no way of having a meaningful conversation about these questions?
This May Be Their Way of Getting Even
I believe the reason evolutionists express this sort of anger is because they are still smarting over their predecessors being left out of the school-room for years.
In my next post I am going to talk about how physicists dealt with controversy over their “facts.”
Evolutionists are really dipping over the line into metaphysics rather than sticking to science. And when it gets into metaphysics it is slippery territory.
This is the reason they are having difficulty with words like fact and theory.
I am going to quote a physicist, Erwin Schrodinger, who was a Nobel Laureate founder of Quantum Physics.
When the famous group of physicists met in Copenhagen to work out the Copenhagen Interpretation, which is now called Quantum Physics, they knew they were entering the world of metaphysics.
There was no way that their two-slit experiment could give them clear-cut facts.
Hard Scientists Don’t Worry About Fact or Theory
Schrodinger said, “We cannot do without metaphysical guidance here: when we think we can, all that is apt to happen is that we replace the grand old metaphysical errors with infinitely more naive and petty ones.”
Then one of the other Nobel physicists at the Copenhagen meeting, Werner Heisenberg, came up with a compromise that gave them the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
In effect it says, “We really cannot know. We’ll have to take a “both/and” rather than an “either/or” answer.”
That left a great mystery that has persisted for a hundred years. I mean whether or not a “both/and” answer is a “fact.”
That is a lot different resolution than this evolutionist bickering over which word to use in presenting their science to the world.
So, after the evolutionists figure out which word to use, or how better to present their case, they may be falling into Shrodinger’s trap of “replacing the grand old metaphysical errors with infinitely more naive and petty ones.”
Possibly, I say
Maybe they’ll come up with some more meaningful answers to our questions. Hopefully without those nasty ad hominems. (Or I should say, more correctly, argumenta ad hominem?)
Coming back to an explanation for their outright anger and frustration with those who don’t “quite get it,” I want to give an example of how a Nobel physicist actually did deal with his similar view and this same frustration over the church’s interference with science. I’ll do that in my next post.
Meanwhile, to set the record straight, I think that both dogmatic evolutionists as well as dogmatic creationists are taking too narrow a view of this great debate.
And that is too bad.
It cuts off some good creative thinking and sound research.
We should hope that scientists would have open minds, else why should we listen to them?
I would like to bring up Alfred Russel Wallace in this discussion. Wallace is the one who first coined the term Natural Selection.
He also co-founded evolution theory.
Both Darwin’s and Wallace’s theories were presented to a meeting of the Linnaean Society in 1858.
Wallace wrote voluminously about his research in the field.
Incidentally, he spent eight years out in the jungles of both the Amazon as well as Malayasia, collecting hundreds of thousands of specimens and studying over fifty separate tribes he lived with, compared to Darwin’s eighteen days on land in the Galapagos.