> > Why not adhere to how scientists use the term rather than rely on
> > secondary sources that suit your argument ?
>
> You know I've had -plenty- of frustrating disagreements with Stephen, but
> isn't he quite right in saying that definitions of evolution and creation
> from leading science dictionaries show at least what many scientists
> believe?
Let me answer the question: Because Evolutionists are dishonest. First,
we're talking about Evolutionists, not scientists. It is dishonest to
pass them off as synonymous. Secondly, it is because Evolutionists like
to use irrelevant definitions of Evolution and Creation -- i.e. they're
dishonest.
Evolution means a gradual increase in complexity. This is what everyone
used the word to mean before Darwin. This is why the word became attached
to Darwin's hypothesis (Darwin explained that the complexity of life formed
gradually). This is what Evolutionists mean when the tell the general
public
that Evolution is a fact. This is what the general public understands the
word to mean. And, this is the point that Creationists dispute
Evolutionists.
The Evolutionist might say (usually a non-scientist) say "Why not adhere
to how scientists use the term?" This is the error of appeal to authority
and it is a total disregard for logic and reason.
Anyone who ever watched NOVA knows that Carl Sagan didn't mean that
alleles change in frequency when he said Evolution is a fact. So, why
insult our intelligence with blatantly irrelevant definitions, faulty
reason, personal attacks, etc.? The answer is to derail debate and
avoid the evidence. After all, Evolutionists can't censor in all places
What is the evidence? Natural Evolution itself is illogical (cause and
effect) and contrary to empirical observation. Species become extinct,
species lose genetic diversity, harmful mutations increase within species.
And, when the Evolutionist tries to present an observation of Evolution,
he points to something based on his irrelevant definition of Evolution
(e.g. pepper moths), he points to the opposite of Evolution -- the
loss of complexity (e.g. sickle-cell anemia), or he points to the
deterministic expression of pre-existing complexity (e.g. the snow flake).
There may be some instances of an increase in complexity in the natural
world, but nothing significant. It is highly absurd to believe that random
variation and natural selection can account for the complexity that we
see.
In the broadest sense, Evolutionists believe that natural processes
create complexity. Creationists believe that intelligence creates
complexity. The scientific method is as confirming that Creationists
are generally right as it is that the law of gravity is right.
> And as one sympathetic to evolutionary creationism
What is that? Picking and choosing elements between *the* two models of
origins?