eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (03/11/85)
< What's that you're saying? > Since most creationists are Bible oriented (whether they admit it or not), I would like to ask: do you believe in linguistic creationism as well? Since some (especially evolutionists) are not familiar with this interesting story from Genesis, allow me the privilege of paraphrasing: "Once upon a time, some evil egotistical people who lived in the land of Babble decided to build a tower to reach heaven. God was angered by this blasphemy, distroyed the tower, dispersed the workers, and gave them different languages. Thus we get our word babble." Ironically, the words themselves provide contradictory evidence. Simply read a King James version (still quite common), and thou shalt witness linguistic evolution at work. The Bible has passed through Hebrew, Greek, Latin, middle English, and finally the revised standard version distributed today. Linguistic evolution is easily documented historically (through writings), just as evolution is revealed by the fossil record. Although this evidence is probably adequate, there is considerable independent corroboration for both evolutionary theories. Consider English and German (the languages I know best). Historically, we know these two languages are related, and the copious linguistic similarities provide independent evidence. While I was reading Hamlet, certain Germanic constructs became apparent. Consider the conjugation of regular verbs. subject German middle English you st est he/she t eth Also notice Hamlet's word order, which often the verb at the end of the relative clause places. Prepositional phrases become ordered (time manner place), and often occupies the verb the second position of declarative sentences. Although evolution has modified both languages, similarities remain today. When analogous words (by meaning) differ by only one phoneme, and this phoneme substitution appears consistently, the languages are probably related. Several phoneme substitutions are apparent, and most people faking a German accent know what they are. w->v s->z th->d ... Example words: sing, house, foot, hand, cold, water, wagon, the, ... The ubiquity of these phoneme substitutions directly indicates the age of the two languages relative to their common ancestor. When the only differences are a couple phoneme substitutions, the languages are called dialects, and are usually mutually understandable. Longer separation yields more substitutions, and word order changes, and general random variations, making the languages incomprehensible to each other. Of course, sufficient evolution will separate the languages completely, prohibiting comparisons altogether. Similarly, analogous proteans in differing species can provide independent evidence for evolution. As soon as a species splits into two, random variation can and will replace some amino-acids within proteans. A few of these changes will be harmless, and will propagate. Thus, our hemoglobin differs from other animals' hemoglobin, and the differences accurately reflect the time of species separation. Surely an omnipotent creator wouldn't have gone too all the trouble of making analogous proteans match fossil evidence; only a few hemoglobin molecules are really necessary to keep all the aerobes happy. It is a shame that most people (including judges) are not educated enough to appreciate the overwhelming, independent, and fascinating evidence supporting evolution. So what about languages? Does anyone out there believe in linguistic creationism? Or has this too become re-interpreted in the wake of contradictory evidence? And why is linguistic creationism not a hot topic? Is it the strength of written evidence against it? Perhaps, but I believe there is more. A round Earth and evolving languages do not jeopardize the creationist's status (created in God's image). When you realize there is nothing divine about humans, do you allow earthworms into heaven, or what? I am always intrigued by the psychological insecurities which compel individuals to retain various beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. -- Having, is not so pleasing a thing after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true. Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad