he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
BobEnyart said:hwin, thanks for not cackling. Have you considered that it's possible to define an idea in overly broad terms as a way of making it more easily defensible, and as a way of making it appear like there is less scientific descent against it than there actually is?
That is not a broad way of defining evolution that is very narrow. As you can see by that definition, it only applies to life, populations, and time. It is also an observed fact, which, as you pointed out, no one disagrees with. Thus, when creationists argue against evolution, they are not arguing against the observed fact of evolution, they are arguing about other aspects of it, something implied by the evidence we have at hand and our observations of evolution.
I have to say that I am glad to see a creationist admit that evolution is correct and happens. Now we can get to the real thrust of your argument, which are universal common descent and the age of the earth.
BobEnyart said:For example, the 3,000 PhD scientists, who are listed online by name, who reject secular Darwinism, would all agree hwin with the definition you posted above. I discuss this in response to Lawrence Krauss claiming falsely that all scientists are Darwinists and the list in is the pdf at http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html.
Wow, I cannot believe a creationist is still referring to this. Have a look at Project Steve.
BobEnyart said:Further, even the hundreds of advanced degreed scientists who are voting members of the Creation Research Society agree with the definition you've posted above.
Again, hurray for agreeing that creationists accept evolution, this is a step in the right direction. Now we can move on to the real disagreements you have with evolutionary theory.
BobEnyart said:Imagine if racists defined racism as a belief that there are differences between the human "races", and you concurred with that statement, so everyone started saying: See, hwin is a racist, and all scientists are racists. Would that in anyway be helpful?
No such thing as race, so I would not admit to that. However, this is beside the point. You are trying to claim that the definition of evolution is too broad, when it is not. Look at that definition and besides life, what fits into it? It is a very narrow definition of what we observe in nature.
BobEnyart said:If some religious people said that Christianity is a belief in Jesus, and they asked, Do you believe that Jesus existed?, and you (or some atheist), said yes, and they said: See, you're a Christian!, that wouldn't be helpful either.
Again, see above.
BobEnyart said:Examples like this could abound. And they don't lead to understanding and helpful discussion of the differences. If you want to define evolution in such a way that you agree with creationists, then fine. You can do that. But then you'll have to come up with another concept or term that distinguishes you from creationists.
Those concepts already exist; I have been pointing them out in our discussion. Furthermore, I am not defining evolution so that creationists will agree, that is simply how it is defined in biology. BobEnyart, I am not the one clouding this issue. If we go back and look at all your posts, you are the one that has minced your terms in this discussion. One example I can give, is above when you say secular Darwinism. I believe I know what you are talking about when you state secular Darwinism (evolutionary theory), but why use that term when no one else is, why not just use the standard terminology. In this, you would not create so much confusion in a discussion and large amounts of time would not be wasted arguing semantics and definitions. Look how long it took me to get you to admit that you actually agree with evolution. This came about from the deliberate clouding of terms by you and your fallow creationists.
BobEnyart said:That definition above, that you posted, leaves out a common ancestor. So, if you have no objection to a biology professor who promotes evolution, but denies common ancestors and the appearance of new vital organs, etc., then you and I are in agreement.
Of course it leaves out common ancestor, again you are confusing evolution with evolutionary theory (you do realize that those are two separate things, right?). A universal common ancestor could be disproved tomorrow and it would do nothing to disprove evolution. However, I would object to a biology professor denying common ancestry for the simple fact that we have evidence for that. Furthermore, most creationist agree with common ancestry, they just do not agree with all life having a common ancestor.
BobEnyart said:But does that really help us? Of course this is one of the longstanding difficulties in communication between evolutionists and creationists. So, if any of what I've just written is valid, and for you to agree in the slightest with it, would take a lot of fortitude.
Yes, this does help us, because it stops confusing the issue and gets us to the real thrust of your disagreement with modern science. As pointed out by you, creationists accept evolution by definition; they just disagree with other aspects of evolutionary theory. Furthermore, the difficulty comes from creationists mincing their terms when they talk about evolution and evolutionary theory. If we were to use standard definitions of the terms in this discussion, we would drop a lot of this useless arguing over semantics.
YesYouNeedJesus, we still have some questions for you to answer here.