One wonders why creationists don't use the definitions used by scientists instead of these hackneyed versions.
Because hackneyed versions are often used by scientists as they use evolution as a weapon against religion. All creationists often do is simply repeat what they’ve been told by scientists. I have a copy of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Here is most of the first paragraph of chapter 3, page 61;
quote:
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin’s answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from SIMPLE beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the COMPLEXITY of the final end-product relative to the original starting point.
[capitalizations mine]
I also have a copy of Victor Stenger’s How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. On page 232, he’s showing hypothetical observations that would have favored the God hypothesis. Observation number 3 reads like this;
quote:
Purely natural processes might have proved incapable of producing the complex structure of the world. For example, the age of the earth might have turned out to be too short for evolution. SIMPLE processes might not have been able to produce COMPLEX structure.
[capitalizations mine]
Why is it okay for militant atheists like Dawkins and Stenger to use the words simple and complex in describing evolution, and it’s not okay for creationists to simply repeat it/agree with it?
Those are the only two books of that type that I have held my nose and bought for reference some time ago, but of course there are scores of other similar ones that seek to destroy religion, and are saturated with evolution more than anything else. If we go to amazon.com, and look at the first review listed of Dawkins The God Delusion, by Publishers Weekly, we see it stated that he is using evolution again to rebut the notion that without God there can be no morality.
The definition of evolution is intentionally kept vague and confusing BY SCIENTISTS, so that it can be switched back and forth between being innocent empirical science to an aggressive weapon against religion. Then, when called on its aggression, that aggression is flipped off like a switch, and creationists are blamed for it.
That creationists are blamed for the vagueness should be an inspiration to any open-minded person to take a critical look at all the metaphysics that are going on in the publicly established scientific community today. Who is really more at fault concerning the "wrong" definitions of the word "evolution", creationists, or atheists in science?
™ Version 4.2
