This is a new thread on Henry Fairfield Osborne, John Burroughs , Elizabeth Dougherty from this thread http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb# and how these individuals are using the word "evolution" and "natural selection" and their intent with it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200508u/fb2005-08-10 Elizabeth: "...Biologists, he explained, might debate the details of evolution—arguing in favor of varying theories as to how evolution works. But they accept the premise of evolution in general. Anti-evolutionists, on the other hand, rarely cite scientific uncertainty as their reason for dismissing evolution. They dismiss it, rather, simply because they prefer creation theory, and strenuously believe that any contradiction must be rejected...."
Lets interpret what she says in the light of what Henry Fairfield Osborne wrote in the New York Times 5 March 1922 as discussed around post 490 in this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb#
Osborne: ".... I have not yet had time to answer John Burroughs whole misleading article on Natural Selection in the Atlantic Monthly .... but in my opinion natural selection is the only cause of evolution which has thus far been discovered and demonstrated. I believe there are many other causes which remain to be discovered and demonstrated....."
Notice the pragmatics with "natural selection" that Osborne had, he viewed it as a cause, which caused evolution and then hedged his bets like Darwin did by telling us there could be "other causes" - which proves that he and Darwin never had a theory. There might be Martians on the planet Zog, this is not a theory though. Note the confusion Osborne creates in the article; he tells us "..... Evolution takes its place with the gravitation law of Newton..."
Which version of evolution the Waagen or Darwin version ?
Elizabeth is being deceptive in the way she phrased her paragraph, because if we interpret her usage of the word evolution in the light of how Osborne used it she is accusing fundamentalist YEC of "rejecting" the premise of evolution in general. How could I reject something for which you refuse to define the mechanism ? What is your mechanism, Osborne is leaving the door open for anything to be the mechanism and how can one deny the non-existence of something that is not defined. Does x + y = some number, I don't know define for me what x and y is . Evolution is a word not a premise. The word evolution as some sort of abstract authority doesn't have a premise only a human using the word has a premise.
Eliz goes on to say quoting John Burroughs: "...The Atlantic chronicled such changes, starting with John Burroughs' "In the Noon of Science" (September 1912). The new primacy of science, Burroughs wrote, was causing people to view the world more dispassionately and mechanically..." But Burroughs had a substantial issue with "natural selection", I don't know what it was since I am still trying to track down the article which will be around 1921 , 1922 in The Atlantic. What is Elizabeth's intent with the term 'natural selection' and what was Burroughs intent ? The ordinary person not knowing about Osborne disagreeing with Burroughs in the New York Times 5 March 2007 would assume that that the Burroughs intent would have been the same as the Darwin intent.