First of all, what is Evolution?
TalkOrigins (talkorigins.org) says this about the definition of "evolution":
"Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:
"Evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
"This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term ‘gradual process’ which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.
"Standard dictionaries are even worse:
"Evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." -- Chambers
"Evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" -- Webster's."
I haven’t defined what I believe is biological evolution because I don’t believe it took place. Neither have I defined it according to what believers believe it is, because they can't agree on a standard definition. The science dictionary doesn’t have it right. Neither do the standard dictionaries.
So who has the correct definition? The answer is that you do. Evolution is anything you want it to be. It’s bacteria evolving. It’s mutations evolving into ordered life. It’s variations within species. It’s changes in fruit flies or moths. It's differing traits passed down from your parents. It's the belief that all creation has a common ancestor, when any similarities in creation don't prove common descent, they prove a common Creator.
The advantage of multiple and confusing definitions is that you can change what it is, any time you wish to anything you want. When biologists discover that the fossil record shows an abrupt appearance (as the Bible teaches), simply redefine evolution to include "punctuated equilibrium." There are no rules. No confines.
The scientific method must be observable. Evolution isn’t. Anything that is observed is based on the presupposition that evolution took place. If a believer believes it happened, he will see evolution everywhere.
But even the legitimately observable can’t be conclusive. If scientists observed and counted ten million white swans, can they say conclusively that all swans are white? Of course not. One black swan destroys the theory.
Darwinian evolution doesn’t even have one white swan. All it has is a theory.
P.s. The writer on Talk Origins gives what he believes is the accurate definition of evolution. It's the accurate one because he says so. Again, the science dictionary is wrong. Standard dictionaries are wrong. He is right.
The proof that there is a God, is creation. You cannot have a creation without a Creator. Still, the believer in evolution uses abiogenesis and mutations to try and justify the insanity of non-life gave birth to life.
The clear reasoning of a building being proof that there is a builder, doesn't work for them. This is because they believe that a building is inanimate. It can't reproduce of itself because it's not alive. Yet at the same time the atheist is surrounded by inanimate objects that came from somewhere--the entire soil of the earth, the variety of its rocks, its oceans, snow-covered mountains, the clouds, the sun, the moon, and the stars are inanimate. Yet the atheist believes that they all created themselves, then reproduced. Sure.
Explain to me how 1.4 million species managed to evolve into maturity together, in our lifetime. Nothing we have in creation is half-evolved. The cow has a working udder to make drinkable milk. The bee has working apparatus to make edible honey. We don’t find a half evolved cow or bee.
None of the 1.4 million species on the earth has half an eye. All have the necessary functioning equipment, from the brain, to the teeth, to the eye, to limbs, to reproductive necessities. Everything that we see in creation is in full working order--from the sun, to the mixture of the air, to the seasons, to fruit trees and vegetables, to the animal kingdom--from the tiny ant right up to the massive elephant.
But, not only do we see this mature completion in creation, we see it displayed in the fossil record. It reveals that each animal was complete. Historical and present creation stand as a stark testimony to the folly of Darwinian evolution.
If Darwin’s theory was true, there should be buried within the soil, the skeletons of millions of animals changing from one species ("kind") into another. But Darwin admitted that they didn’t exist. There were none at all in the geological formation. He asks, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Unbelievably, instead of questioning his theory, he blames geological record! Yet he is forced to admit, "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." If Charles Darwin was right, the amount of skeletal remains must have been inconceivably great, and yet in the same passage he again admits to "not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links." They were infinitely numerous (millions upon millions) and they have all disappeared. All of them.
And after 150 years of desperate searching, they still can’t find any.
Darwin was certainly on to something when he said, "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."
Someone wrote and said, "There are more specimens of 'Ardi' (the newly described Ardipithecus ramidus) than there are of Tyrannosaurus . . . We and modern chimpanzees shared a common ancestor millions of years ago..." But, that's another evolutionary "Oops!" if you believe the learned scientists on the Discovery Channel. In a recent two-hour documentary about "Ardi," they said, "Ever since Darwin, we have bought into the idea that humans evolved from ancient chimp-like creatures. That's because modern chimps seemed to share a lot of anatomy and modern behavior with humans. So the idea that we evolved from something like chimps seemed to make sense. But now, the discovery of Ardipithecus shows that this idea is totally and completely wrong." Did you hear what they said? This idea that we evolved from ancient chimp-like creatures is totally and completely wrong.FOOTNOTES:
1. On Origin of Species, Chapter 9 "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."
3. Charles Darwin, Life and Letters (London: John Murray: 1887), Vol. 2, pg. 229
* Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
* Dembski, William A. The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design
* Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology
* Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
* Hagopian, David G., ed. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation
* Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial
* Johnson, Phillip E. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
* McGrath, Alister E. Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life
* Moreland, J.P., and John Mark Reynolds, eds. Three Views on Creation and Evolution
* Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism
* Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investivates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God
* Wells, Johnathan. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong
* Witham, Larry A. By Design: Science and the Search for God
* Witham, Larry A. Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America
* Woodward, Thomas. Doubts and Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design
© Todd Tyszka
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, you do not make more than 500 physical copies, and you include the following statement on any distributed copy:
From Todd Tyszka. © Todd Tyszka. Website: www.toddtyszka.com. Email: [email protected]
For web posting, a link to this document on our website is required. Any exceptions to the above must be formally approved by Todd Tyszka.