The Evolution Definition Shell Game

The word evolution has gone through its own evolution over the years, as I describe in this article: 404 Not Found For example, evolutionists solved the colossal abiogenesis problem by simply removing it from the meaning (definition) of the word evolution! Evolutionist G.A. Kerkut defined the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ in his 1960 book 'Implications of Evolution' as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." I wonder if Mammuthus thinks Kerkut was confused to write such a thing in his book! The New Revised Evolution Standard Version (NRESV) now excludes abiogenesis. Nevertheless life-from-non-life remains a key component of the belief system of virtually every evolutionist scientist, even those who claim to believe in a deity. While they claim abiogenesis is not a part of their theory, it is revealing that they still spend a great amount of time trying to explain how life arose from lifeless pond scum. Abiogenesis still remains a part of the evolutionist worldview, regardless of whether or not the term ‘evolution’ encapsulates abiogenesis.

quote:

---

PaulK: SO essentially you thinkthat complainign that you don't like the deifnitions used by "evolutionists" is a worthwhile contribution to the debate ?

​

Percy: With all the interesting issues available, *this* is what you choose to discuss?

---

This is important because I believe that evolution is built entirely upon illusions, and that the equivocation of the term evolution is the greatest of the illusions invoked by evolutionists. Provide evidence for small-scale change, misnomered as microevolution (something both creationists and evolutionists agree occur) as if the evidence supports large-scale change (the type of evolution that the public associates with the word ‘evolution’). I’ll start threads on other big illusions soon.

Uh, you are behind the times Dr Potatoe . This has been discredited long ago. This was a bit of dubious revisionist history perpetrated in the 1800s, which is well-documented in the book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell. Dr Danny Faulkner has a good online article about this here:The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

quote:

---

Hi Fred,
Are you aware that Darwin himself did not deign to explain how life itself began?
quote:

​

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

​

Quote is from: The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, First American Edition, 1958

---

Thanks for the quote doc! Mammuthus, are you listening? (or perhaps you think Darwin became a Christian on his death bed? )Doctrbill, as far as what Darwin believed, just because he did not offer a just-so story of abiogenesis does not mean it was not part of his overall paradigm of life arising via naturalistically processes.

quote:

---

was that for some time the worldview that those who believed in the Bible espoused was one that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

---

This is also misleading. Most of Galileo’s problems were due to resistance from the academic community. Only later did the Roman church become involved. Why is it evolutionists conveniently forget this fact? Just like then, today's churches have compromised with the scientific community and have fallen into their error (an error with greater ramifications than the errors of the church in Galileo's time).

quote:

---

If you find the fact that the "Evolutionists" of the past included abiogenesis in their definition of what constitutes Evolution and now have removed it from their definition to be "an illusion"

---

You are missing the key point. This is only a small part of the greater illusion I mentioned to Percy, which is the oft-used illusion that micro-evolution proves large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution.

quote:

---

Evolutionists are not trying to run away from consideration of abiogenesis by removing it from the definition of evolution.

---

As I mentioned in my previous post, this is only a small part of a greater problem and is not the thrust of my complaint.

quote:

---

It's a mystery to me why you believe abiogenesis was ever part of the definition of evolution. I don't know how this confusion ever arose in your mind, and I'm sorry if some uncareful definitions of evolution have contributed to your confusion, but the change in definitions you think has happened never took place.

---

Do you agree or disagree that the general public understands the word 'evolution' to mean "all life arose via naturalistic processes"? I do agree this is not worth dwelling on, the thrust of our debate involves the debate of origins which includes both evolution and abiogenesis. My primary reason to bring up this particular point is because evolutionists often try to divorce the two, and the reason IMO is because of the incredible difficulty in dealing with abiogenesis.

quote:

---

In particular I'd like to request that you avoid accusing evolutionists of engaging in illusions.

---

I think the problem is that the inherent nature of this debate requires a certain level of "heat", perceived or otherwise, that should be allowed. I could just as easily object that calling someone "confused", as I have been called many times in this thread, is an unjustified accusation. But I don't feel that it is done with malice so I have no problem with it. I just think you all are confused about thinking I'm confused! I certainly don't use the word illusion with malice. IF I did I would understand your concern. One variation of the definition is: 2 a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that deceives or misleads intellectually b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) :I truly believe all evidences for evolution resemble an illusion - things are not as they appear, causing misinterpretation of the facts by the target audience. I am not claiming it is a willful, intentional deception by evolutionists in general.Nevertheless, if you want me to stop referring to the evolutionary evidences as "illusions" let me know and I'll stop. But I think you are "confused" on my intent. Just keep in mind that just about anything an evolutionist says is objectional to a creationist, and vica versa. It's the nature of this debate.

quote:

---

What is it about the explanation that they are two different concepts that is difficult for you to accept?

---

I am not disputing that there are differences. But they are so intertwined that the great majority of people attribute the meaning of evolution to encapsulate both as described by Kerkut. Regardless of whether or not you agree the definition of the word has evolved, perhaps you can see that at the very least the meaning of the word has evolved (as is the case with many words in the English language).

quote:

---

There is no perceived embarrassment or difficulty regarding abiogenesis within biology.

---

Then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’ll again reiterate that my focus in the article was on the equivocation of evolution as it pertains to the extrapolation from microevolution to molecules-to-man evolution.

quote:

---

So if you can call evolution an illusion without riling everybody up to the point where productive debate becomes impossible, then go right ahead. But if you can't do that then expect moderator intervention.

---

That is reasonable.

quote:

---

In response to your line about Darwin recanting

---

Rei, I’m aware of the Darwin recanting myth, but I can see why you would think I wasn’t since you are probably not aware of the context of my exchange with Mammuthus. In another thread Mammuthus claimed Darwin was a Christian, I claimed he wasn’t, DocPotato provides a Darwin quote supporting my claim, and I ribbed Mammuthus with a sarcastic reference to the Darwin recanting myth (hence the smiley face by my comment).