The Use of the Word Science by Evolutionists

 Evolutionists often talk about science. For example, they will often claim that evolution is science, but creation is just religion. Meanwhile, some creationists declared that what they are doing is science as well. They will often point to legitimate scientific distinctions such as a theory making testable predictions. That is a creationist needs to present them with testable predictions from creationist theories, particularly successful ones. When we do this, they will often start insisting that it is still not scientific because it is not totally naturalistic. Their ultimate argument against creationists, when presented with evidence either against naturalistic views of origins or in favor of Biblical creation, is that it does not qualify as scientific evidence unless it has been approved by the peer-reviewed journals of institutionalized science.

Often for evolutionists, it is not about whether or not the research is done properly, whether it is done with good scientific methodology, or even how well the researcher follows the scientific method. When you get into a discussion, unless the data or research has been anointed by the high priests of scientism, and anointed with the blessing of their peer review, most evolutionists refuse to recognize it as science. Without this blessing, they do not want to even hear what you have to say. in the minds of such people once this blessing is given it magically becomes science, and it must be labeled pseudoscience without it. While they may not use such terminology, it illustrates the point, that they hold to peer review by the right people with a religious fervor particularly when they are admitted atheists.

This bubble of protection in which evolutionists place the Big Bang to man evolutionary theory is not restricted to protection against creationists, but anyone who dares present data that contradicts the evolutionary model. It is a natural result of the viewpoint that has been given a monopoly in public education. It is by protecting evolutionary theory from challenges that most students can go through their entire education, including graduate work, and never encounter any weaknesses in evolutionary theory except maybe in ridicule. The key to this bubble of protection is not allowing any opposition to this view of human origins to be considered science.

 It all pretty much boils down to that to qualify as science by evolutionists, atheists must accept it, and it has to be approved by the right people. A major part of this process is the tendency to confuse the operational science of studying how the universe works in the present, with historical science that tries to develop a story about the past based on present-day information. The problem here is that because we cannot directly observe the past and thereby see what actually happened, assumptions need to be made. Consequently, any story invented about the past is only as accurate as the assumptions that are behind it. For example, if you assume only natural processes, but God exists and has been active in our past in a supernatural manner then you will get this story entirely wrong. You would be completely incapable of seeing and as the Bible says be “willingly ignorant” of the true history of the world and the universe. Sadly, in most cases, the stories about the past invented by evolutionists do not come with disclaimers making these assumptions clear.

The point is that when you hear an evolutionist speak about science, you have to ask yourself which way he is using science, and whether will he change how he is using it during the discussion. Realize that while much of what they say might have a basis in actual science, is largely theoretical conjecture that assumes the Bible is wrong. Most evolutionists will deny such assumptions, but many of them are not even aware of it themselves. You can use assumptions without being aware of them, simply because they are parts of other assumptions you are making or other principles that you already accept.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

The Term Evolution as Used by Evolutionists.

 Naturally, evolutionists use the word “evolution” a lot, but the problem is they do not use it consistently. They often use it outside of biology with terms like cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, and chemical evolution. Chemical evolution is another term for abiogenesis, which is the idea of life spontaneously coming into existence from non-life. Because abiogenesis is an easy thermodynamic target, evolutionists often tried to separate it from universal common descent biological evolution even though you cannot have universal common descent without first getting the first living cell. However, the biggest problem is the tendency of evolutionists to use the word “evolution” in four different ways about biology. This is done to cause confusion between the four for the express purpose of applying evidence for the first three, to the fourth way they use it.

Sometimes evolutionists will simply tell you that evolution is just changes over time and that organisms do indeed change over time. Now, this is the strict dictionary definition of the word “evolution” and by this definition, we all individually evolve over our lifetimes. However, there is way more to the idea of biological evolution than this. In fact, it is not the idea of evolution that creationists would disagree with. When evolutionists use this tactic, they are trying to skirt the actual issue of universal common descent, which is where the real dispute is. Any evolutionist who uses the word “evolution” in this manner within the context of biological evolution is just trying to avoid the real issue, by confusing it.

There are times when evolutionists will tell you that evolution is just changes in the frequency of gene varieties over time. Now while this is a legitimate biological usage of the term, most of the time when the word “evolution” is used particularly in the context of “the theory of evolution” it is not limited to this simplistic definition. Once again, this is a usage of the word “evolution” in the context of biology that creationists would not disagree with. When evolutionists use this tactic, they are trying to skirt the actual issue of universal common descent, which is where the real dispute is. Once again, using the word “evolution” this way is just trying to avoid the real issue, by confusing it.

Yet another approach is to equate evolution and adaptation. Now adaptation does qualify as evolution under the two earlier definitions. However, it is not the full extent of what the theory of evolution refers to. It is true that as organisms of the same kind have diversified into different environments, they have developed new species, in the sense that they become isolated breeding populations. Interestingly enough if Charles Darwin had stopped there it would have been a legitimate scientific work. The problem is that he speculated not just about the origin of species but on the universal common ancestry of all living things. Evolutionists will routinely point to evidence of adaptation such as bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics and insects developing resistance to pesticides. However, in both cases, the resistance is a result of damage being done to the gene producing the particular enzyme that is being attacked by the antibiotic or pesticide. The enzyme in question does not work as well as it used to, but the resistant variety takes over because the nonresistant population is killed off. These results do not demonstrate the type of change that universal common descent requires for it to be viable.

The final way evolutionists used the word “evolution” is by referring to the theory of evolution, which is specifically dealing with universal common descent. This is where the real disagreement is, this is also where actual science is departed from, and atheistic mythology takes over. The primary evidence put forward for the universal common descent of all life on Earth is physical and genetic similarities between different kinds of organisms. It ignores the fact that these similarities can be accounted for by a common designer. Furthermore, there is no degree of difference even between humans and chimps that would be considered evidence against common ancestry, which makes the entire notion unfalsifiable. Furthermore, it has never been demonstrated that natural selection or any other naturalistic process is capable of producing the new complex specific information that would have to come about for universal common descent to be correct. For example, fish do not have lungs but to have evolved into amphibians they would have had to develop them. Despite a lack of any evidence that this is even possible, universal common descent is used to interpret biological and fossil data in a manner that makes it look as if it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even though there is no actual evidence that it works.

Consequently, evolutionists used the word evolution in different ways to confuse the real issue. When talking with an evolutionist, it is necessary to ask them what they mean by evolution. Meanwhile, it is important for creationists to always clarify the word evolution so that they cannot twist what we are saying. When we refer to universal common descent, always use the term “universal common descent” or “universal common descent evolution.” Doing so will force the discussion to remain on the real topic of concern and not to get off on any of these other side points that result from evolutionist word games.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Is the Word Evolutionist a Derogatory Term

 If you have done any online discussion about universal common descent evolution, you will notice that the proponents of evolution tend to denounce the term evolutionist. They will often claim that it does not exist even though a simple Google search shows that it is accepted as a word by multiple dictionaries. They usually go on to claim that it is only used by creationists as a derogatory term to make evolution sound like it is just a belief system.

First of all, this claim is not true. Not only is the word “evolutionist” found in dictionaries as referring to “a person who believes in the theory of evolution” but it is used simply as a general term for those who accept the theory of universal common descent evolution, and often the entire Big Bang to man story. This is because while not identical they are part of the same overall view of history. So, it is not intended to be derogatory nor imply anything about the theory itself, it is simply a general descriptive term for those who accept that particular theory.

Furthermore, evolutionists reject this label while also refusing to supply an objective alternative term that they will accept. This is mainly because they want to equate their view of history to science, consequently, many of them reject any term other than scientists. This Is it inherently biased notion.

As a result, we have a situation, where we have a word that is well recognized as referring to the adherences to and promoters of universal common descent evolution, but they reject it at the same time refusing to supply an objective alternative. This allows them to complain every time they are called evolutionists making conversation difficult at even this basic level. Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of evolutionary wordplay.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

How Creationists and Evolutionists could Benefit from Each Other

Creationists and evolutionists are opposite sides of the question of origins. So while full-fledged cooperation is impossible they can still benefit from each other. This is because both sides nave a different perspective from which they see things. There are three main ways in which this difference in perspective is helpful.

Creationists and evolutionists are not always looking for the same things when looking at the same phenomenon. Because of this each side will often acquire different lines of data that both sides can benefit from.

Creationists and evolutionists often see different things in the same data. This can benefit both sides by showing a different perspective than the one is use to,

Since creationists and evolutionists are on opposite side of the same issue they are naturally more critical of the other side than of their own making it easier to see problems. This is not to say that ether side is uncritical of their own side but that an honest criticism from a different perspective is helpful.

This would be nice if it happened in reality but by and large it does not. Some times it can happen in isolated cases but not on in the general case because of the degree of antagonism on both sides. A major problem is the fact that Evolutionists refuse to accept any Creation Science research as legitimate scientific research. As a result Creation Science criticism of evolutionist theories is usually ignored. This lack of respect on the part of evolutionists makes it hard for creationists to take their criticism of  Creation Science research seriously. There in lies the problem these mutual benefits require mutual respect something that does not exist.