| | * [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1] | | * [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1] |
| | * [[Simon Conway Morris]], [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&_user=681891&_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000037419&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=681891&md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]</ref>}} | | * [[Simon Conway Morris]], [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&_user=681891&_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000037419&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=681891&md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]</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 [[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]] ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</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 [[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]] ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref>}} |