Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.

Hi Marc9000,I think you are a little unclear about what it is that evolutionists are objecting to in the quotes detailed in the OP. Let's take a look at one of those quotes again;

quote:

---

Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.

---

Now that definition is being criticised because it is wrong. There is nothing in the Dawkins quote you bring up that is wrong. That's why Dawkins isn't being criticised. They are not saying the same thing.The creationist quote, with its "technical terms", is an attempt at a succinct definition of evolution. However it is deeply wrong. It gives a very clear impression that evolution is all about increasing complexity. It gives no indication that evolution can decrease complexity (which it can and does), but defines evolution into a corner as though increasing complexity was all evolution can do - that's just wrong.The Dawkins quote is not. Dawkins is not attempting to define evolution but to provide an explanation for complex biological entities. No-one has said that the word "complexity" should be taboo in discussions about evolution. That is not why the creationist quote was selected for criticism.The creationist claim makes a false claim about evolution. Dawkins does not. It's really very simple.As for Stenger's quote, well, the point is the same. Do you acknowledge that complex biological organisms exist? Yes? Then Stenger's comments make perfect sense. He, again, is not attempting to provide a definition of evolution, nor does he claim, as the creationist quote did, that evolution is the process of creating complexity.Evolution can and does create complexity. The objection here is that hat is not all it does nor is it the purpose or definition of evolution. That is a creationist strawman. They are not in agreement. The quotes you cherry picked do not even remotely say the same thing as RAZD's creationist quotes. All that is needed to refute this absurd paranoid fantasy is the observation that most scientists are religious. You seem to imagine scientists as being a dedicated group of atheist conspirators. You are very, very wrong in this. Scientists are not some monolithic entity. Not all scientists are Richard Dawkins. Great. I urge you to ask those questions. But please, go and get some real experience of science before jumping to ludicrous conspiracy theory conclusions as you have so far. I think if you were to actually study science and observe how scientists operate on a day-to-day basis, you would find that they actually spend a lot less time trying to disprove your religious notions than you think. Like, for most of them, no time at all.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Typo.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi RAZD, Especially since Stenger is a physicist, not a biologist!Mutate and Survive

Hi Arphy, Would it be unfair then, to expect those people to say "I would like to talk about origins", rather than give misleading definitions, such as those in the OP?If folks want to talk about origins, great, but they shouldn't label it evolution, because first origins are not part of evolution. All one does in such a case is create a strawman (and unnecessarily hand evolutionists an easy way of scoring cheap points, as you have quite rightly pointed out). Universal common ancestry? That seems to sum it up. Sometimes there just isn't a word that directly corresponds to what we want to say. That just means that we have to use slightly more cumbersome language, but surely it is better to do that than use words incorrectly and risk obfuscating our own arguments.I would rather use a cumbersome phrase that communicates exactly what I want to say than use a word imprecisely and confuse everyone. This may a fair criticism of some conversations on this forum and the like, but seriously; look at the quotes in the OP.

quote:

---

Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.

---

"Strictly interpreted". "Technical terms".In my opinion it is unacceptable to use such language and then get it so very badly wrong. Let's be clear; this is not a message board conversation, it is not ad libbed, it is not by some lone amateur. The quote is taken from a page which clearly poses as being educational. They had every opportunity to get it right, yet they still messed it up.I think it is entirely appropriate to criticise such a mistake. I do sympathise. It must be frustrating. On the other hand, you should perhaps save some of your indignation for well organised creationist sites, like AiG, because that's where creationists are getting these bad definitions from. These people should know better than to equip their followers with already undermined arguments. Feeding people such false definitions only serves to foster misunderstandings.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Arphy, My only problem with the first part of the quote is the phrase "strictly intepreted in technical terms", which, in my view, places a burden upon its user to get it right. Let's be clear, there are no technical terms used and the second part is just wrong. If one is going to build a statement up like this, one needs to get it right. This falls way short. No, it's not. As a statement, the quote is wrong. As an all-encompassing definition of evolution, it's embarrassing.Evolution need not always make a creature more complex. Think of a flightless bird or a cave-dweller that has lost its eyes. Natural selection will act to favour the population that has the most useful adaptations; that may or may not be synonymous with the most complex. If simplicity is required, then evolution can provide simplicity.Certainly there is a trend toward increasing complexity, but this is not the core of evolution. Using this as the definition of evolution is deeply misleading.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Sure, for the most part. The thing is that increased complexity is not required and there are exceptions to this supposed rule. For example there are many groups of organisms that have remained relatively static over long periods of time. As RAZD has noted, the real Theory of Evolution can explain this; the strawman version does not.Look at it this way. It may be true that Christians gather and sing, but it is not a definition of Christianity.People may gather and sing because they are Christian, but that doesn't explain what Christianity actually is.What about exceptions? Some Christians might not sing, or gather on a Saturday, yet they are still Christians.Be honest; if you saw a definition of Christianity like that, wouldn't you want to point out how bad it was? Now imagine that almost every atheist you spoke to insisted upon using this definition, or one just as bad and you'll have a fair idea what it can be like to discuss evolution with creationists.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Arphy, You are putting words in RAZD's mouth. He never said any such thing. That is because they are not the same thing. Of course the Theory of Evolution helps illuminate natural history in countless ways. This is clearly false. The definition given by RAZD described someone who had "found that it is a valid concept for explaining the diversity of life as we know it,". As things stand, that clearly doesn't include you.I think you are clouding the issue by using the term "evolutionist". You should realise that this term is very rarely used outside of the context of evo/creo debates. It is not meaningful outside of these debates. But happy people don't have their own specialised terminology that they need to use in order to be happy.Scientists on the other hand, do have their own specialised terminology, that they do need to do science. If you want to understand what actual scientists are actually saying (as opposed to creationist strawmen), you need to understand that terminology.If you insist upon using some definition other than the one used by scientists, you are not addressing the real ToE, you are only attacking a strawman; clearly a waste of time. think about it; do you want to argue over the real ToE? Or on that was made up by creationist propaganda merchants? No-one despises anyone. No-one else mentioned any such attitude.Personally, I feel the exactly opposite way. Every time we see a new member turn up with another creationist "daffynition", I sigh and think "Oh dear. Another poor soul who has been lied to about what evolution is.". I feel sympathy for such people. I feel that they have been deceived, perhaps intentionally, most likely not, but they have been misled whatever the cause. All I am trying to do is help undo the damage and show people what evolution really is. To my way of thinking, that is the only respectful thing to do. Once again; when discussing a scientific subject, I use the definitions created by scientists.Why would you let the least educated dictate usage? Do you really think that is the best way to raise peoples conciousness? The best way to educate? By pandering to the lowest common denominator? Really Arphy? Yes, as long as creationist websites keep peddling erroneous definitions of evolution, we will continue to try and educate their victims in what evolution really is. Being different from the uneducated? I think I can live with that.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Just to be clear, I still think that you are misrepresenting RAZD's statement. Do you see the word "secular" in RAZD's statement? I don't. A theistic evolutionist for instance, can still believe in evolution, as defined by biologists. Really? Really really? Because most of your posts on this forum come give the impression of your having learned about evolution primarily from creationist websites.How much have you really studied evolution? How many non-creationist books have you read on the subject? Are you sure you really understand what it is you are arguing against? Is it evolution? Or is it common ancestry? Well perhaps the problem is that you don't disagree with evolution at all. You only seem to disagree with the extent of common ancestry.If this is the case, perhaps you might be better off arguing against common ancestry rather than wasting your effort on redefining something that you agree with so that you can claim to disagree with it. Come on admit it, being a Christian (a believer in Christ) means that you believe in the existence of a soul. Yet this concept is strangely absent from the definition of Christ.*Do you see what I'm getting at? The ideas that stem from acceptance of a phenomenon do not define that phenomenon.The ideas that stem from our understanding of evolution do not define what evolution actually is. That simply isn't true.At Berkeley.edu, we find the article "15 Evolutionary Gems". The first five, as you note, are to do with the fossil record, but the next five are all about living populations;

quote:

---

6 Natural selection in speciation
7 Natural selection in lizards
8 A case of co-evolution
9 Differential dispersal in wild birds
10 Selective survival in wild guppies

---

It is really a non-point in the first place though. Of course natural history is used to support evolution; that's because everything we observe in natural history supports evolution. Both concepts are mutually supportive.You also seem to have missed the point here; evidence for evolution is not a definition of evolution. When Berkeley give a definition of evolution, they write;

quote:

---

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

The evidence for a phenomenon cannot be part of the definition of that phenomenon. That would clearly be fallacious. The fact of evolution has obvious consequences for our understanding of natural history. Are you suggesting that we ignore them? Evolution tells us a great deal about biology, but that doesn't make such knowledge part of the definition of evolution. It's that simple.Mutate and Survive*AbE; I notice, looking back on the thread after first posting this, that hooah and Dr Adequate used the same device of taking your words and re-applying them. The fact that all three of of us are pointing out the same flaw in your reasoning, in the same way, is telling. We are consistently telling you the same thing here.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Couldn't resist this; Oh really?! You have too much faith in the reasonableness and sanity of your fellow creationists-at-arms my friend. Allow me to present the legendary Ray Martinez; EvC Forum: Progress Report & MicroevolutionClassic insanity there. I particularly like the bit about learning to write. Mockery aside though, he is a creationist and he does deny the kind of change you are talking about.Creationism; never underestimate the crazy.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Extra crazy.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Interesting point. I suppose that a YEC could believe it to an extent, but that would leave him with a lot of explaining to do... You say that as though there were some other kind of science. Thankfully not. Why on Earth would you want to get your beliefs about biology from the Bible? That would be a bit mental. Well it's plainly not self-evident. i refer you to the post above, with a denial of micro-evolution.Honestly, I have seen the confusion this causes. You are immersed in the creationist apologetics. To you, the distinction between limited variation within kinds and universal common ancestry may seem obvious, but for many this is not the case. I have spoken with people who claimed to disbelieve evolution, yet, when I suggested that evolution had been observed (and described the kind of evolution you are talking about), they were simply baffled. They had no idea of the distinction. They had no idea that changes at such small levels were even possible. When it came right down to it, what they really meant by "evolution" was common ancestry with apes; that was their real objection all along, but their religious leaders had told them that it was evolution they were supposed to disbelieve. They were being mislead by a false definition of evolution. If I may be so bold, I suspect that the only reason you perceive this is because common ancestry happens to be the thing you are in disagreement with. It is however, the only implication of REALITY. Every observed biological fact is compatible with this notion. The Earth simply is billions of years old and the evidence for this has absolutely nothing to do with heritable variation, as you well know. Yes, most scientists tend to take it for granted that they know what they are talking about. How disgusting.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Arphy, I thnk you missed a post; Take a look at Message 111 for an example of a creationist denying exactly the kind of evolution that you claimed "nobody is going to argue with". But the problem is that when the term Christianity is used, whether by Christians or atheists, the singing of hymns is implied even though the definition "a follower of Christ" does not suggest this in any way.Naturally related ideas are going to be closely associated. It is almost inevitable that there is going to be confusion over terminology. Usually, in day to day life, this isn't too much of a problem.The problem comes when;a) We engage in detailed discussions about biology, a subject which is inherently complex and demands detailed and specific use of language to understand.b) Creationist websites present definitions of evolution which claim to be technical and specific, but are in fact woefully inaccurate.Science is not simple. Evolution is a huge subject, with many discrete yet mutually complementary ideas involved. Trying to understand it whilst insisting upon using non-specific, non-technical terms is only going to be a hindrance. Why hobble our attempts to understand the topic from the start? No. that is because evolution doesn't demand universal common ancestry. In fact, there are biologists out there now, specifically looking for strains of life that are not related to known life. The most likely possibilities are thought to be extremophiles in caves or ocean vents, etc. If such organisms were found, it wouldn't harm the ToE one bit, because universal common ancestry is not demanded by the ToE, nor is evolution itself synonymous with common ancestry.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod