We've likely experienced this before: we might comment on a YouTube video or write an Amazon review making comments about Darwinian Evolution and then get random replies from people attacking our terminology. Why do they do this? Do they not see the weightier point I am making? Unfortunately prominent atheists have really muddied the waters here. People like Richard Dawkins have written of those who are critical of Darwinism using incorrect buzz words that have wrongly expressed the views of the critics. Most people won't understand the arguments you are making because they are committed to Darwinism a priori, have been influenced by superficial arguments for evolution or they incorrectly view anyone who disagrees with Darwinism of being ignorant.
One of the biggest things I see is when people say something like "evolution has no proof!" Well, most thoughtful people would know what you mean - you mean that life cannot be cannot be explained through Darwinism. But atheists/supporters of Darwinism hear something different. Here's some definitions of 'Evolution':
1. The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
2. The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
So someone who wants to attack your point of view will do so because they think you are criticising the first definition of evolution. A definition which isn't controversial, species do indeed change to some degree over time (beaks change within finch populations for example). The second definition however is much more hotly debated and this is where the disagreement actually lies - whether these small scale changes can explain the development and diversification of all living organisms.
The next word I will discuss is a word that is actually confused by Darwinists as a way to pull the old bait and switch. That term is the word "Species".
1. A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
Seems straightforward right? Species aren't a problem for critics of evolution because we can only observe and see evidence for changes within species. But to a Darwinist this word is much more significant - the development within a species is basically perceived as proving that Ape-like creatures evolved into Humans. So be prepared to call them out on the distinction.
Macroevolution is a good term to use when discussing your disagreements with evolution. But I personally prefer to use the term "Neo-Darwinism" which is the modern synthesis of Darwinism - being more specific. It means:
1. Any modern theory of evolution holding that species evolve by natural selection acting on genetic variation.
This is a very appropriate term because it refers to the processes that are postulated for the development of all life. The issues with Darwinism come down to the fact that "genetic variation" (AKA random mutations) and natural selection cannot explain the development of life (for more info on why this is so, read Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt).
A final point. I do not recommend engaging in any real discussions with these people online. Because chances are they haven't grappled with the arguments and don't want to. They have just presupposed, due to misinformation, that those are critical of evolution (or who have read an ID book) are wrong and trying to explain yourself to them will only result in frustration. They want you to prove ID's claims, but Intelligent Design has shown why Neo-Darwinism fails to explain the development of life so the burden of proof actually lies with the Darwinists to defend their theory. Thus far they have failed to stand up to the arguments of ID!
One of the biggest things I see is when people say something like "evolution has no proof!" Well, most thoughtful people would know what you mean - you mean that life cannot be cannot be explained through Darwinism. But atheists/supporters of Darwinism hear something different. Here's some definitions of 'Evolution':
1. The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
2. The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
So someone who wants to attack your point of view will do so because they think you are criticising the first definition of evolution. A definition which isn't controversial, species do indeed change to some degree over time (beaks change within finch populations for example). The second definition however is much more hotly debated and this is where the disagreement actually lies - whether these small scale changes can explain the development and diversification of all living organisms.
The next word I will discuss is a word that is actually confused by Darwinists as a way to pull the old bait and switch. That term is the word "Species".
1. A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
Seems straightforward right? Species aren't a problem for critics of evolution because we can only observe and see evidence for changes within species. But to a Darwinist this word is much more significant - the development within a species is basically perceived as proving that Ape-like creatures evolved into Humans. So be prepared to call them out on the distinction.
Macroevolution is a good term to use when discussing your disagreements with evolution. But I personally prefer to use the term "Neo-Darwinism" which is the modern synthesis of Darwinism - being more specific. It means:
1. Any modern theory of evolution holding that species evolve by natural selection acting on genetic variation.
This is a very appropriate term because it refers to the processes that are postulated for the development of all life. The issues with Darwinism come down to the fact that "genetic variation" (AKA random mutations) and natural selection cannot explain the development of life (for more info on why this is so, read Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt).
A final point. I do not recommend engaging in any real discussions with these people online. Because chances are they haven't grappled with the arguments and don't want to. They have just presupposed, due to misinformation, that those are critical of evolution (or who have read an ID book) are wrong and trying to explain yourself to them will only result in frustration. They want you to prove ID's claims, but Intelligent Design has shown why Neo-Darwinism fails to explain the development of life so the burden of proof actually lies with the Darwinists to defend their theory. Thus far they have failed to stand up to the arguments of ID!
No comments:
Post a Comment