Terminology question

[laptoppop]

It seems like some people are content with using the Theory of Evolution to include a broader range of interpretation, while others want to restrict it to just the theory of a particular process without making any applications to earth's history.

What would be the proper term for what I see as the "generally accepted scientific viewpoint" -- i.e. chronology of billions of years, millions of years portrayed in the geologic column, biological progression from the first point of life to humans through evolution (probably leaving aside the way that spark of life appears)? In other words, the unified system that currently unites geology, biology, paleontology, etc.?

Thanks!

 

[theFijian]

Umm...science?

 

[shernren]

There are generally four uses of the word "evolution" I've seen here.

1. "Evolution" as a general term, e.g. "YECism really evolved from a form of Seventh-day Adventism"
2. "Evolution" as a philosophy or an overarching scientific viewpoint, i.e. the view that order always arises from disorder in any circumstance. This is not normally what TEs are holding.
3. Biological evolution. This can be further subdivided into evolution as theory and evolution as history.
4. "Evolution" as a convenient handle for "everything YECs disagree with". This is the sense in which you use it above. While it is convenient (e.g. I can straightforwardly say "evolution vs. creationism" instead of "The Standard Model + Big Bang + stellar formation + nebular hypothesis + abiogenesis + evolution vs. creationism"), it is not a scientific way to use the word either.

The lesson here is always ask when you are not sure. That really should be SOP when you're just not sure that it is legitimate to use a word a certain way.

 

[laptoppop]

There are generally four uses of the word "evolution" I've seen here.

1. "Evolution" as a general term, e.g. "YECism really evolved from a form of Seventh-day Adventism"
2. "Evolution" as a philosophy or an overarching scientific viewpoint, i.e. the view that order always arises from disorder in any circumstance. This is not normally what TEs are holding.
3. Biological evolution. This can be further subdivided into evolution as theory and evolution as history.
4. "Evolution" as a convenient handle for "everything YECs disagree with". This is the sense in which you use it above. While it is convenient (e.g. I can straightforwardly say "evolution vs. creationism" instead of "The Standard Model + Big Bang + stellar formation + nebular hypothesis + abiogenesis + evolution vs. creationism"), it is not a scientific way to use the word either.

The lesson here is always ask when you are not sure. That really should be SOP when you're just not sure that it is legitimate to use a word a certain way.

Right - and I am asking. I've seen folks object to various uses of the term - and I'm looking for a general term representing the entire interacting school/method of viewing the history of Man and the universe. I'm also looking for a term that while reasonably accurate, is not offensive to anyone. Does such a beast exist?

 

[shernren]

I really have no idea. You would probably call it "the scientific view", but of course that would raise the unfairly prejudiced idea that creationism is the un-scientific view. But I can't think of anything better. LOL.

 

[laptoppop]

CASV? (Commonly Accepted Scientific View) <grin>

 

[Mallon]

Yup. I'd use "science". And I wouldn't worry about such a term being prejudiced against creationism, because creationism isn't science. Plain and simple.

 

[Assyrian]

I think Laptoppop is suffering from too many debates that run either:

YEC - Evolution is just a waste of time, a distraction form the real science that could be going on.
TE - No. Evolution is the grand unifying theory that holds Biology, Medicine, Geology, Paleontology, Immunology, etc. etc. ... together.

or

YEC - Evolution is speculation about a past we can never observe.
TE - No you don't understand science. Evolution is simply the change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.

 

[laptoppop]

You would probably call it "the scientific view", but of course that would raise the unfairly prejudiced idea that creationism is the un-scientific view.

Thank you very much for this sentence! I appreciate your consideration of your YEC brothers and sisters feelings.

I think Laptoppop is suffering from too many debates that run either:

YEC - Evolution is just a waste of time, a distraction form the real science that could be going on.
TE - No. Evolution is the grand unifying theory that holds Biology, Medicine, Geology, Paleontology, Immunology, etc. etc. ... together.

or

YEC - Evolution is speculation about a past we can never observe.
TE - No you don't understand science. Evolution is simply the change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.

YES - that's it exactly. Well said. I'm trying to find terminology which will avoid this talking past each other - and which will not be insulting to either viewpoint.

 

[shernren]

"Mainstream view"? I think that would neatly sum it up.

 

[Mallon]

Why shy away from calling it the "scientific view"? Science IS what points to the old age of the universe. Why play politically correct games for fear of offending a minority of people who insist science points the other way? I'd rather be honest.

 

[Deamiter]

Quite simply, there is no word besides "science" that ties together all the areas of science with which creationists object.

If you want to talk about common ancestry, you can always use the term "common ancestry." If you want to talk about abiogenesis, you're welcome to use the term "abiogenesis."

If, however, you want to argue against anything that creationists disagree with, you're better off writing a book because there's no way you can address every area of science simultaniously in a thread.

 

[theFijian]

How about "mainstream science"

 

[Assyrian]

So what labels do YECs use to distinguish 'Evolution' a simple process of allele change, from 'Evolution' the history of life on the planet?

 

[laptoppop]

So what labels do YECs use to distinguish 'Evolution' a simple process of allele change, from 'Evolution' the history of life on the planet?

Most don't make the distinction, as far as I can tell. Typically its the "history of life on the planet" that is under discussion. Hence my search for terminology which is a bit more precise, but generally acceptable without being horribly wordy.

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry, I should have worded it:

What labels should YECs use to distinguish 'Evolution' a simple process of allele change, from 'Evolution' the history of life on the planet?

I was trying to get an answer to your original terminology question.

 

[Deamiter]

I guess the real question is, "why do YECs use 'evolution' to mean 'everything we disagree with?'"

The answer is quite simple in my mind -- many people have put a ton of work into demonizing "evolution" as satanic or evil or just atheistic... If the actual science comes into the picture, evolution is much less objectionable than if it's presented as 'wave-your hands atheism.'

I blame the confusion squarely on past YEC leadership. Scientists use precise words for precise concepts. They don't generally argue for or against all of science simultaneously.

 

[jereth]

I think laptopop has asked a very good question -- one which has been on my mind for some time.

It's true that "evolution" is commonly used in 2 main ways:
(A) biology/origin of species/"survival of the fittest"/man from monkeys etc. concepts
(B) Anything that disagrees with YECism (eg. big bang, geology etc.)

I personally think that both usages are legitimate, but when most people hear the word "evolution" they probably think of definition A. And definition A is certainly the more emotionally charged of the two.

I think that in order to interact with OECism, we need to come up with another term for definition B. Such a term would be a proxy for "big bang cosmology" and "old earth science". AiG uses the phrase "long age science" to encapsulate OECism and TEism.

 

[Assyrian]

But laptoppop wasn't talking about the Big Bang, or even abiogenesis.

It seems like some people are content with using the Theory of Evolution to include a broader range of interpretation, while others want to restrict it to just the theory of a particular process without making any applications to earth's history.

What would be the proper term for what I see as the "generally accepted scientific viewpoint" -- i.e. chronology of billions of years, millions of years portrayed in the geologic column, biological progression from the first point of life to humans through evolution (probably leaving aside the way that spark of life appears)? In other words, the unified system that currently unites geology, biology, paleontology, etc.?

Thanks!

This is an area where scientific terminology isn't that precise and YECs are unfairly critised for using it in 'the wrong way'. A change in allele frequency may be the simplest statement of what is meant by evolution, but it is not all there is to it.