Definition of "Evolution" and "Science"

</head> <body text="#000000" link="#FF0000" vlink="#0000FF" background="offwhite1.jpg"> <center><img SRC="define-head.gif" BORDER=0 width="288" height="192"> <p>(The purpose of this page is to clarify confusion resulting from different definitions of the terms "science" and "evolution.") <p><font size=+1><a href="CDS.html">(This information is now available on audio CD!)</a></font></center> <p><font size=+1>One of the problems that arises from a discussion of "evolution" and "science" is the problem of definition of terms. If two people are discussing "evolution" or "science" and they define their terms differently, the conversation will be hopelessly confused!</font> <p><font size=+1>We must consider two different definitions for each of these terms. When you discuss them, you must first clarify which definition you are using.</font> <center> <p><b><font size=+4>Science</font></b> <p><b><font size=+1>First</font> <font size=+1>Definition</font></b></center> <p><font size=+1>Here is a dictionary definition. Many people assume that when we use the word "science," we are talking about this definition. In my opinion, it's a pretty good definition, and it would be good if we all meant this definition when we used the word "science." In general, when you see the word "science" in these pages, this is the definition.</font> <center><table CELLPADDING=20 > <tr> <td></td> <td><font size=+1>"Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied." (<i>Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language</i>)</font></td> <td></td> </tr> </table></center> <p><font size=+1>Implied in this definition is the idea that conclusions are made on the basis of empirical evidence (i.e., evidence that comes from experimentation and observation). Thus, a true "scientist" is someone who studies a part of the world around him for evidence that he then uses to draw conclusions about the world he lives in.</font> <p><font size=+1>Few people should have trouble with this definition of science.</font> <center> <p><b><font size=+1>Second Definition</font></b></center> <p><font size=+1>However, there are many who use the term "science" to refer to a way of looking at the world. To them, the word "science" refers to a philosophical mindset. Their definition of science might be something like this.</font> <center><table CELLPADDING=20 > <tr> <td></td> <td><font size=+1>"An understanding that matter is the only true reality in the world and that everything in the world can be explained only in terms of this matter. An understanding that the natural world contains everything that is real and of value."</font></td> <td></td> </tr> </table></center> <p><font size=+1>Now it should be easy to see that if someone who adheres to this second definition of "science" hears me refer to the fact that the empirical evidence points to the fact that this world must have had a Creator, they will cry, "That is not science! That is religion!"</font> <p><font size=+1>They are using a definition of science that, <i>by definition</i>, excludes the concept of a Creator. They believe, in essence, that their philosophy of life (or religion) of materialism and naturalism is "science" and that the Christian philosophy of life (or religion) is "religion." In fact, both materialism and Christianity can be thought of as philosophies of life. One must examine the evidence closely to ascertain which "philosophy" most closely fits the evidence that exists in the world around us. (And, in fact, one can do "good science" [first definition!] and still adhere to either "philosophy"--or some other philosophy--of life.)</font> <p><font size=+1>I can argue all day that "science" (first definition) points to a Creator, but they will have none of it because they claim that "science" (second definition) allows no room for the concept of a Supernatural Creator!</font> <p><font size=+1>This is the very reason you hear so many people on television "nature programs"  and in high school biology textbooks talk as though the natural world is all that there is. They believe that to imply that a Creator might be involved in all this would be to deny "science" (second definition, of course).</font> <p><font size=+1>I would suggest that we need to do our little part to insist that the first definition of science (above) is the only valid definition. And I would suggest that those who use the word "science" to mean the second definition should be required to use a different word--a word that shows that they are really talking about their <i>philosophy </i>or their <i>religion.</i> They are talking about the philosophy (or "religion" if you please!) of <i>materialism </i>or <i>naturalism.</i></font> <p><font size=+1>We must not let them get away with taking a good word ("science") and redefining it to mean "materialism" or "naturalism!" (And then claim that anyone who disagrees with them is trying to replace "science" [second definition] with religion!)</font> <center> <p><b><font size=+4>Evolution</font></b> <p><b><font size=+1>First Definition</font></b></center> <center><table CELLPADDING=20 > <tr> <td></td> <td><font size=+1>"The theory that all forms of plant and animal life are descended from earlier and simpler forms of life whose existence can be explained without reference to a Supernatural Creator."</font></td> <td></td> </tr> </table></center> <p><font size=+1>Since the vast majority of the empirical evidence that science (first definition!) has discovered about life does not support this theory, it is largely held by those whose definition of "science" (i.e., the second definition) allows no other option.</font> <p><font size=+1>Therefore, because this theory is basically an <i>a priori*</i> conclusion based on a philosophy of life (materialism or naturalism), and not a theory supported by science (first definition), I often add the suffix "-ism" to the term ("evolution<i><u>ism</u></i>") to help emphasize that fact.</font> <p><i>*(<u>A  priori</u> reasoning is reasoning from a previous assumption to a conclusion [also called "deductive" reasoning], as opposed to <u>a posteriori</u> reasoning, which is reasoning  from the empirical evidence to a conclusion [also called "inductive" reasoning]. For example, if you assume that the world is flat and, on the basis of that assumption, deduce that you are in danger of  sailing  off the edge, you are doing <u>a priori</u> reasoning. But your conclusion is only as good as your original assumption. If you use <u>evidence</u> from astronomy and the experiences of other sailors to conclude that the world is round, you are doing <u>a posteriori</u> reasoning.</i> <p><i>A scientist who starts with the assumption that everything can be explained materialistically will inevitably deduce that evolutionism [first definition] is true, regardless of any contradicting evidence! That's <u>a priori</u> reasoning. However, if, on the basis of that evidence, he concludes that the nature of life is such  that it requires the existence of a Creator, he is doing real science [first definition!] using <u>a posteriori</u> reasoning!)</i> <center> <p><b><font size=+1>Second Definition</font></b></center> <center><table CELLPADDING=20 > <tr> <td></td> <td><font size=+1>"Certain observable small variations, very limited in extent, that occur over a period of time as a species adapts to its surroundings."</font></td> <td></td> </tr> </table></center> <p><font size=+1>Here we are talking about the famous "peppered moth" example, or the fact that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, or the fact that the Galapagos finch beaks changed over a period of time.</font> <p><font size=+1>This second definition of "evolution" would be better called "variation" or perhaps "adaptation." No one argues that there are observable  (but very limited!) variations that occur over time as animals adapt to their surroundings. Everyone knows that offspring are not "clones" of their parents. Everyone knows that dogs can be bred into smaller varieties, etc.</font> <p><font size=+1>However, these slight variations are, by no stretch of the imagination, the same as "evolution" (first definition).</font> <p><font size=+1>When people who believe in "evolution" (first definition) try to use the illustrations of variation  or adaptation to "prove" their theory, those who are not sensitive to the definition of terms may be confused! Don't ever let any one convince you that if you believe that the slight variations mentioned above have occurred, then you are an evolutionist (first definition)!!</font> <p><font size=+1>Those who believe in "evolution" (first definition) would like to claim that the same mechanisms that lead to variations in bacteria, peppered moths, Galapagos finches, breeds of dogs, etc. have led to the transition from one species to another. The <i>evidence</i> does not support that belief. It is a speculative hypothesis based on a philosophical presupposition--the philosophy of materialism (which they would like to call "science" [second definition!].)</font> <p><font size=+1>Have you ever known of a dog breeder breeding dogs into cats? Selective breeding has very definite and impenetrable "barriers" or limits beyond which a breeder cannot go! There is no evidence that any mechanism exists which can cause one life form to gradually change into a more complex life form.</font> <p><font size=+1>So, once again, we should do what we can to make sure that "evolutionists" (first definition) are not allowed to claim that small variations in a species are a form of "evolution."</font> <p><font size=+1>If you make sure that these definitions are very clear in your own mind, you will avoid a lot of confusion when you talk with others about "science" and "evolution."</font> <p><font size=+1>Hope this helps!</font> <p><font size=+1>Steve Hall</font> <br><font size=+1>August, 2000</font> <p><font size=-2>© 2000 Steve Hall. Permission is hereby granted to quote from these web pages, in part or in full, as long as the following statement is included: "© 2000 Steve Hall (steve@aboundingjoy.com). Quoted by Permission."</font> <center> <p><b><font size=+2><a href="index.html" TARGET="_top">Go to Abounding Joy Home Page</a></font></b> <p><b><font size=+2><a href="mailto:steve@aboundingjoy.com">Send us email!</a></font></b> <p><a href="Maintoc.html" TARGET="_top">Go to Main Table of Contents</a> <br><a href="Maintoc.html" TARGET="_top">(For browsers without frames)</a></center> </body>