|
This past December
I was privileged to attend the American Geophysical
Union Fall meeting in San Francisco. As was
the case with previous visits, the weather was lovely
and mild. It is quite a change from the foot of
snow in Edmonton where the cycle of seasons has rather
sharp edges. Change all around seems a constant
in this world. But many of the conference
attendees would not use that word. They would
prefer to use the word "evolution", instead of the
word "change". There were thousands of attendees
at the conference, who came from the ends of the
earth. The majority hold a Ph.D. in subjects
whose very names tend to make laymen cringe in fear
(schoolboy memories of been beaten up by some or
other unyielding equation no doubt contributing
to this reaction). This is always a well-organized
and interesting conference with opportunities for
discussion about cutting edge work done around the
world. My own presentation1
dealt with oscillating aurora and space
weather; perhaps in the future of the Lord will
see fit to have some explanation of this given in
this column. However, this time I wish to
consider instead a simple observation that we ought
to be aware of. It can be illustrated by these
quotes from abstracts of presentations:
The largest and most active sunspot region of
the current solar cycle (known as a AR 9393) was
observed by the NDI instrument on SOHO continuously
during three solar rotations in March-May 2001.
On April 2 this active region produced
the largest solar flare of the last 25 years.
By using time-distance helioseismology
we investigated the development of the active
region in the solar interior during that period
starting from the processes of emergence. We
present tomographic images of the sound-speed
structures associated with this active region
up to 100 Mm below the solar surface, and discuss
their relation to the evolution of the surface
magnetic field.2
And,
By means of Vlasov simulations, we examine the
development and nonlinear evolution of electrostatic
waves in a plasma with cold and hot electrons
and an electron beam, in conditions similar
to those of the foreshock. The hot and
cold populations are assumed to be anisotropic.
The formation of electron acoustic waves
is observed, and their role in the subsequent
evolution of electrostatic turbulence is discussed.3
I have bolded the word "evolution" and
the word "development". Of course, when
the scientists quoted above use the word evolution,
they're not speaking of a biological or chemical evolution
a la Darwin. Nor are they speaking of a process
that disobeys the second law of thermodynamics,
in that negative changes in entropy of possible.
Instead "evolution" is being used in a manner
completely equivalent with the word change or development.
Thus evolution equals change and change equals
evolution. This particular use of the word
is extremely popular, but subject to abuse as I
will show below. The hypothesis of chemical
evolution posits that life can spring from random
chemical reactions of nonliving compounds. The
hypothesis of biological evolution posits that a
new and different type of life form, with increased
complexity and genetic informational content relative
to the parent life form, arises due to random genetic
mutations. No, it is not the Darwinist definition
of evolution that is found in these scientific abstracts,
even though one would hope that scientific abstracts
would generally use scientifically accurate language.
When scientists present scientific papers
at scientific conferences one has every reason to
expect that they are speaking in a scientifically
accurate sense. But I've just shown how scientists
may often use scientific terminology in a popular
sense, in a scientifically (and grammatically) untenable
sense. This is what concerns me. The
word evolution is extremely important in our modern
society, and thus it behooves us to understand what
it means. If I had my way the popular use
of the word would pass away. Since it is used
as the flagship of atheistic religious philosophy it
is extremely unwise to use it flippantly and as an equivalent
for change, for the modern neo-Darwinist theory holds
that evolution is not merely change, but it is change
in an information producing sense. If it isn't
that then the theory is good for nothing, except
perhaps for religious propaganda and indoctrination.
For the sake of good science, and for good
theology, one ought to insist that when scientists
speak scientifically they use the word in its 'scientific'
sense, and not confuse it with some nebulous idea
of change.
The danger of using the word evolution in this popular
sense is that someone who is able to accept the idea
of mere change as being a reality of our life, may
soon equate the idea of change with evolution, viz.
biological evolution. Even amongst an educated
populace, the continuous repetition of a falsehood
will ensure that sooner or later it is believed.
Simply replace the word evolution for change
and you will see the silliness. The scientists
who wrote these abstracts no doubt believe that
they were being grammatically accurate and some
of them may even believe that biological evolution
is simply one example of many types of change or development.
Does the weather evolve? Does our knowledge evolve?
Do animals evolve? This way of defining the subject
makes it possible to characterize any example of
change as "evolution". Whether intentionally
or not, the regarding of 'evolution = change' and
vice versa is merely obfuscation. The vast
majority of scientists never need to use the theory
of evolution in their work, even those in fields
like biology. The abstracts above have nothing
to do with Darwin's hypothesis, and they don't pretend
to either. But the cultural phenomenon
of evolution is so firmly set on the western mind
that the scientists use the word quite flippantly.
The reason I'm belabouring this point is because
of the danger that resides in words improperly used.
The pen is mightier than the sword and the major
wars we fight are those of ideas. When evolution
is freed from the shackles of scientific definition
it becomes much like a supercharged bull in the
china shop of ideas. Freed from any
accuracy, defined merely as change, evolution wields
an unreasonable power. Consider the following quote
from another abstract presented at the conference
and the danger may become more readily apparent:
Evolutionary change is a powerful framework for
studying our world and our place therein. It
is a recurring theme in every realm of science:
over time, the universe, the planet Earth, life,
and human technologies all change, albeit on
vastly different scales. Evolution offers
scientific explanations for the age-old question,
"Where did we come from?" In addition,
historical perspectives of science show how
our understanding has evolved over time. 4
This particular paper was presented as one of many
in a session designed especially for the discussion
of ways in which to proselytize the public into the
materialist faith underpinned by chemical and biological
evolution. Clearly those who know the code
words can brand anyone questioning evolution as
an idiot. Do you deny that human knowledge
evolves? Do you deny that the earth evolves? It
is plain for all to see that these all involve change;
they evolve. Use the word as "change" or "develop"
and even Christians can easily agree. Well
then, can we not agree that life also evolves? At
this point one may become cagey and begin to insist
upon a scientific definition of the word "evolution"!
If logic and rational argumentation alone were relied
upon, then the battle would only just be starting
at this point. But the reality is that we
live in a world where public relations usually determines
the outcome of a particular battle, at least in
the short term.
The previous quote illustrates the use of the word
"evolution" as a humanist propaganda tool
- it is used in both its popular sense and in its pseudo-scientific
sense and the distinction between these two senses
is purposefully overlapped. If we were to
be confused about the way in which materialists
use their code words, then when we reach the point
stated above, the battle would already be over.
You may quite happily admit that there have
been historical changes in diet among different
cultures and even in physical characteristics such
as height, which can be influenced by diet. But
if you suddenly dig in your heels and require clarification
and definition of words when required to admit that
your ancestors are pond scum, the reaction will be
incredulous, or worse, quite hostile. An uncritical
use of the word evolution can easily lead one to
accept as true more than they want, and certainly
more than is required by the scientific method.
By sleight of word one moves quickly from
agreeing that the weather indeed experiences change
and human beings experience change, to my ancestor
was a prawn, or something equally ridiculous. Are
you an idiot? Resistance is futile! Submit or risk
being charged with grave and dangerous character
flaws.
As I said, most of us, including scientists and the
popular press, have been conned into using the word
evolution in an uncritical sense. I recommend
tossing it, and using the word only in its materialist
and Darwinist sense. In any other sense it
is not needed; they don't mean evolution, they mean
change, and these two are not synonymous. Perhaps
many people have not realized how they are being
softened up - by the inaccurate use of the word
- to accept a distasteful and demonic philosophy.
Just say "No!"
Dr. Wanliss is a Canadian Space Agency Research
Scientist. He works in the Space Weather program, and teaches Physics at
the University of Alberta. He has a B.Sc Hons. (mathematics and physics),
M.Sc in solid earth geophysics, and Ph.D in space physics. He is a ruling
elder in the Presbyterian Reformed Chrch of Edmonton,
AB, Canada.
Endnotes
1. J.A. Wanliss,
R Rankin, Substorm Related Resonance Structures in Auroral
Optical Observations, American Geophysical Union
Fall Meeting, San Francisco, U.S.A., EOS. Trans.
AGU, 82(47), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract SM31C-09,
2001.
2. Kosovichev,
A.G. et al., The Largest Active Region of the Solar
Cycle, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San
Francisco, U.S.A., EOS. Trans. AGU, 82(47), Fall
Meet. Suppl., Abstract SH11C-0730, 2001.
3. Fijalkow, E.
et al., Nonlinear evolution of beam-plasma instability
in a plasma with two electron components: Vlasov
simulation, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting,
San Francisco, U.S.A., EOS. Trans. AGU, 82(47),
Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract SM22A-0810, 2001.
4. Pendleton,
Y.J. et al., Voyages Through Time: Everything Evolves,
American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco,
U.S.A., EOS. Trans. AGU, 82(47), Fall Meet. Suppl.,
Abstract ED22A-04, 2001.
Back to index page
|
