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 Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock
