Evolutionary Equivocation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp


Equivocation is a practice many evilutionists use. They equate the kinds of changes we see and assume that these can accumulate into the kinds of changes required in evolution (molecules to man).


---

Definitions as slippery as eels
It is vitally important that words should be used accurately and consistently. Without this, any discussion is meaningless, so this must be addressed before anything else. And this is a major failing with Lerner’s paper — he never defines ‘evolution’ and he doesn’t use the term consistently.

The theory that Lerner and other materialists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent designer. This ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1

However, many many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part-way through an argument. A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven. For example, Lerner writes:

‘What do we mean by evolution, and what is its place in the sciences? The universe is a dynamic place at every scale of space and time. Almost all science is the study of the evolution of one system or another — systems as large as the universe itself or as small as a neutrino; systems whose time scales are measured in billions of years or in attoseconds.

‘Thus, evolution is an indispensable concept across all the sciences. But biological evolution in particular has come to occupy a peculiar position in American education.’

Also, throughout Lerner’s paper are concepts that students should know. However, many of them are simply examples of change over time, so are not disputed by creationists. But the implication throughout is that without the GTE, it would be impossible to understand that:

All living things reproduce.

Offspring are similar to but not exactly like their parents.

Offspring have to grow up (or change; e.g., metamorphose) before reproducing themselves.

There is a fit between individuals, or species, and their environment (e.g., terrestrial, aquatic, aerial). …

Natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.

But understanding these concepts does not depend on the GTE.

What is the real problem with evolution?
The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so we would discourage use of the terms micro- and macro-evolution). The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus). Nothing in Lerner’s paper (or anywhere else) provides a single example of functional new information being added. To claim that mere change proves information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant sells goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for the GTE — see the articles Beetle Bloopers, How would you answer?, and Information: A modern scientific design argument.

Equivocation must be exposed for what it is. Once ‘bait-and-switch’ tactics by evolutionists are exposed, most of their ‘scientific’ case for the GTE collapses.


See also this article for more on evolutionist equivocation:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/evolution_train.asp