Changes

== Atheism, evolution and equivocation ==

== Atheism, evolution and equivocation ==

[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]

[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution]]ary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] (see also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]])<ref>

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution]]ary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] (see also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]])<ref>

* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.

* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]

</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word "evolution":

</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word "evolution":

{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref><ref>The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as "The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet" but it is very poorly done.</ref>}}

{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref><ref>The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as "The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet" but it is very poorly done.</ref>}}

==References==

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

{{reflist|2}}