[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Response to Gould?



Mickey Mortimer wrote, in part:

>  It
> doesn't matter that history and public opinion don't identify birds as
> reptiles.  Scientific theory should be the basis of public opinion, not
the
> other way around.

There is a fundamental difference between theories and the specific words
used to describe those theories.  The theories in question could be
described with new terminology that avoids all the potential for
equivocation discussed in this thread, with no loss (and probably a gain) in
precision.

Instead, some individuals who happen to make a living studying fossils or
have paleontology as a passionate avocation believe that they have a right
to dictate popular usage of popular terminology, some of it in use long
before their particular hobby or line of work even came into existence.

In other provinces it is often understand that popular terminology is best
left to popular uses, and that for the High Purposes of the Elect it is best
to use a technical terminology suitable to more august thought and action.
Many among the priesthood of the Diocese of Dinosaur Paleontology seem to be
made of sterner stuff than most of their colleagues of the outer kingdoms,
and would dictate usage to both pope and pauper alike.

That the laity are unable, or unwilling, to keep track of the current
orthodox liturgical practice is seen as merely a sign of their baseness.

Carl Ramm

I