Evolutionary Equivocation

Discussion in 'Science' started by Gup20, Apr 12, 2005.

  1. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    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
     
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the point of this copy and paste? I see none.

    Your "source" seems to be saying that some scientists are equivocating different definitions of evolution. In the key quote, the scientists in question draws a distinct line between the general concept of things, nearly everything, changing with time and biological evolution specifically.

    This is quite a questionable approach for a YEer to take. Generally the YEers are the ones who attempt to lump all the other sceinces under the banner of "evolution" simply as a fallacious argument. They have successfully tarred the name of evolution in the minds of those uneducated on the subject and so they try and associate all the other science to which they object, which is most of it, under the catchall banner of "evolution" in order to slander them too. They just cannot stand that wildly different approaches continue to give the same answers about the ancient age of the earth. And since they are under the influence of Satan in promoting the destructive and false teaching of YE, they will refuse to come around in support of the truth.

    "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."

    Yes, let's not let those evil scientists get away with producing examples of evolution and then calling it evidence for evolution. How dare they!

    BTW, science does not disprove creation only the false teaching of YE.

    "Nothing in Lerner’s paper (or anywhere else) provides a single example of functional new information being added. "

    Both exon shuffling and duplication and mutation, among other processes, have been observed to form new genes with new functions. In addition, the pattern of the genetics of living organisms show that these have been common ways of generating new genetic sequences for as long as life has been around.
     
  3. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    "Science does not disprove"-- that "frogs turn into princes" either; but that does not make such "fairy tales" true.

    The Word of God does not allow for evolution as pronounced by Charles Darwin as well as the so-called neo-Darwinists.

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  4. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Evolution does not allow for the word of God as proclaimed by Bro James as well as other so called literal creationists, but that does not make God's Word to be untrue.
     

Share This Page

Loading...