|
Proving Evolution With the
Dictionary |
Specious reasoning and clever crafting of
definitions can make about anything appear
to come true. As John Mackay (1852)
observed, “When men wish to construct or
support a theory, how they torture facts
into their service!” Mackay, J. (1852).
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the
Madness of Crowds.
Some words are innocently created to
straight forwardly describe a particular
thing but can insidiously take on a life all
their own. Our language is filled with words
that have departed from their original
definitions and are now widely misconstrued
and abused. Examples include truth,
religion, supernatural, morality, liberal,
capitalism, freedom, love…basically all the
hot button words and subjects people
consider to be their little sacred domains
of private belief and interpretation.
Evolution is another example of such a word.
In the dictionary, evolution’s first
definition is: the process by which
something develops into a different form.
The word and this meaning predated Darwin’s
concept of biological evolution. Here’s how
that fact has proven useful in helping to
make his case.
Most certainly, things do evolve in the
dictionary's pre-Darwinian sense of the
word. We evolve as individuals, society
evolves, technology evolves, education
evolves, the automobile evolves and
agriculture evolves. To the uncritical eye,
evolution, taken as being synonymous with
change, seems to fit well with what all of
us experience every day: Homes get built
beginning with simple blocks and 2 X 4s, our
bank account balance grows slowly, our
bodies begin small and get bigger, babies
begin with one cell that multiplies into a
whole body and anthills grow one grain of
dirt at a time. Since everything changes,
everything can be said to evolve. How
convenient for Darwin’s “evolution.”
He could not have chosen a better word. The
case was closed before he ever got into
court. Since everything evolves it is not
too much of a leap to accept that life
evolved. The word itself is tendentious,
creating in and of itself reason to believe
the theory.
If he had chosen the word transmutation
instead of evolution, things might be
entirely different. Although transmutation
would be a better description of the theory,
the unfamiliarity of the word would force
people to determine meaning and evaluate
that against their own experience. In the
larger sense, Darwin’s evolution requires
that species transform into one another (transmutate)
all the way up from a single-celled
organism. Since nobody has ever seen one
type of organism transmutate into another,
he would have had a much harder sell. On the
other hand, saying that “change” is the same
thing as biological evolution makes anyone
who does not accept Darwin’s evolution,
someone who rejects change. In other words,
stupid.
Please note that evolution normally implies
progressive change. But nothing evolves in
that sense without intelligent manipulation.
Corn kernels get bigger, evolve, because of
intelligent horticulture, home architecture
evolves because of intelligent engineering,
and mathematics evolves because of
mathematicians. That little fact -- that
intelligence is needed for things to
progressively evolve -- just happened to be
left out when Darwin’s evolution was
attached to dictionary evolution.
A word was stolen from our vocabulary, a
word everyone can agree to. Cleverly then, a
new footnote about a whole new mechanism was
attached to it without really alerting
anyone. By that I mean biological evolution
is not mere change. In overview (cell to
human sense) it is gross change, more like a
skipping or gigantic hopping. It is about
transmutations in the absence of any
intelligent force to make them happen.
It would be like me coming up with a new
theory of commerce. I scan the dictionary
and decide to call my theory, "possession".
Everyone possesses things and possession is
nine tenths of the law. My “possession”
theory is a process by which one goes into a
store, loads up bags and carts with whatever
they want and takes it all home. The stuff
is possessed. What a cool theory. Now when
the police show up at your door and take you
to court, you just take your dictionary. You
say to the judge, “Looky here judge, the
dictionary says possession is to have things
and that’s all I did.” Do you think the
prosecutor might make the argument that you
have left out an important part of the
definition, namely that to possess something
legally requires a mechanism called paying
for it?
Possession means having something, according
to the dictionary, but that does not
legitimize any form of possession. Evolution
means change, according to the dictionary,
but that does not legitimize any theory of
change.
About The Author
Dr. Randy Wysong: A former veterinary
clinician and surgeon, college instructor in
human anatomy, physiology and the origin of
life, inventor of numerous medical,
surgical, nutritional, athletic and fitness
products and devices, research director for
the present company by his name and founder
of the philanthropic Wysong Institute. |
|
|
|
|
 |
Buy it Now
Amazon eBook
- $7.19
Amazon Paperback - $14.95
Buy Direct
from Adam - $11.95
Paperback Version
Plus free shipping & handling
(for a limited time only)
|
