Coffee!! Can biology be rid of language that implies design?
|April 7, 2011||Posted by O'Leary under Biology|
Of course not.
Consider what the biologists at war with language are trying to do: Replace “to accomplish metabolic process X, enzyme Y evolved a specificity for Z” with “ ‘in accomplishing X, Y concomitantly evolved a specificity for Z”.
It won’t work because it is not fluent, not even fluid, just stodgy and inconvenient.
Historically, such newspeak strategies seldom work because they call attention to the very thing they seek to extinguish: In this case, awareness of design
For example, what happens when our local “human picket sign” insists that we all acknowledge global warming? Sure, I acknowledged it.
In fact, as I pointed out to her, “A huge dump of global warming fell last night, and now someone better shovel.”
And if these no-design biologists had studied language, they would know that almost all language is metaphorical anyway.
Concomitant: literally, “going along as a companion” So those enzymes are all the best of friends now?