The Definitions of Evolution

What is ‘Evolution’? Well, the best definition is that it is a modern origin myth, a fairy tale told by atheists to gullible Christians and, apparently, Jews.

But I believe in letting proponents define their own concepts, so I won’t insist on that one :) Russell Gold and I have been having a fun discussion on the subject, and he said, in that discussion:

Evolution, BTW, is at least two things.

The first is the observation that different species have existed at different times, and that there are patterns that can be discerned, including variants of related species over that time, usually with an increase in complexity. That’s not an “assumption.” It is a clear observation, and it is consistent with the physics, which confirms that fossils at lower depths a strongly correlated with increased radioactive decay.

There are also theories of evolution which explain how this happened.

I have no idea if he meant ‘at least two things’ or ‘only two things’, but certainly if he meant ‘only’, the internet disagrees with him; they also disagree with his first definition:

Mirriam Webster

a: descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations

Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life’s history its basic directionality.—Stephen Jay Gould

also : the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)

Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution.—Nature

In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive.—Pamela Weintraub

b: the historical development of a biological group (such as a species) : phylogeny

2a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding

b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission

c(1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth

(2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance

d: something evolved

3: the process of working out or developing

4: the extraction of a mathematical root

5: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

6: one of a set of prescribed movement

Britannica

evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.

Dictionary.com

any process of formation or growth; development.

the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

Synonyms: metamorphosis, progression, change

Antonyms: changelessness, inactivity, stasis

a product of such development; something evolved.

The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.

a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements.

the evolutions of a figure skater.

an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.

Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity.

a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.

any similar movement, especially in close order drill.

As Opposed to

Now, one part of the definition that is constantly left out is the ‘as opposed to’ part. You will see it in the definition of ‘heliocentrism’, for example, in Britannica, that the second paragraph reads:

The heliocentric, or Sun-centred, model of the solar system never gained wide support because its proponents could not explain why the relative positions of the stars seemed to remain the same despite the Earth’s changing viewpoints as it moved around the Sun. In the 2nd century ad, Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria suggested that this discrepancy could be resolved if it were assumed that the Earth was fixed in position, with the Sun and other bodies revolving around it. As a result, Ptolemy’s geocentric (Earth-centred) system dominated scientific thought for some 1,400 years.

IE the theory is defined as being in opposition to other theories. Evolution… not so much.

In the scientific literature. In the fields of politics and science education, the concept of evolution and its opposing concepts are inevitably linked. If one reads a question such as, “Should evolution be taught in the public schools?” the question isn’t evolution or not; it’s evolution or Special Creation, evolution or Intelligent Design. Or, more probably, Evolution and nothing else allowed.

Unfortunately, the same problem applies when it comes to the arguments. One can find the proponents, when arguing for their theory (against nothing), say, “There are millions of species…”… as if somehow that fact is pro-evolution and anti-Intelligent Design or Special Creation.

Which is, on its face, nonsense. If one knew that those millions of species came about by evolution, then one could stand in awe at the power of evolution. But their mere existence doesn’t do anything for evolution… in fact it argues against it.

The idea that an omniscient, omnipotent creator, who spoke the entire universe into existence from nothing, could also create millions of species would almost provoke a yawn. Nothing to see here. And for an Intelligent Designer to do so would merely reveal something about the nature of the designer.

But to use those millions of species as evidence of a system that cannot be shown to have produced even one new species… sorry. Not evidence.

Bait and Switch

The other problem with the definitions above is that proponents of evolution often dance between them in the same conversation. When someone says that they don’t believe in the: “theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations” or even that that is “one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.” One is sarcastically asked if one doesn’t believe in “change”.

The overall theory is part of a suite of scientific theories, including the Big Bang, materialism, the origin of the first life from inert chemicals, etc etc. But when challenged on any of them, there can be a quick retreat into ‘I’m not talking about that.” But that doesn’t really work. It would be nonsensical to argue for special creation up until the creation of species. To have the first life have been intelligently designed, but all the others proceed by random mutation and natural selection.

No, evolutionists are forced to try to defend the concept that nothing led to something which led to something else which led to Dave Barry.

Links

This post is a follow-up to the comment threads on these two posts:

Other posts on the subject: