Changes

The word '''"evolution"''' as used in [[Biology]] and in the [[Origins debate]] has multiple meanings. It is not easy to keep track of which meaning is being used.

The '''definition of evolution''' has three aspects: hereditary changes, appearance of new species, and a theory explaining both of these. Currently there are several [[theories of evolution]] so a precise definition of evolution is impossible. It should be noted that most definitions of evolution make no claims as to the existence or non-existence of a god, though evolution is often associated with [[atheism]].  

Several different meanings have been and still are used, and this is itself part of the controversy over the [[Theory of Evolution]].   

Several different meanings have been and still are used in [[Biology]] and in the [[Origins debate]], and this is itself part of the controversy over the general [[theory of evolution]]. Partisans on all sides of the dispute have accused other parties of tricking people by exploiting differences in the meaning of the word "evolution". [[Creationist]]s charge that evolutionists often equivocate between different meanings,<ref>See, for example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891#Definitions Definitions as slippery as eels] in ''Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?'', by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref> while [[evolutionist]]s acknowledge that not clearly defining the term leads to confusion.  The term evolution is most commonly used to describe [[Darwin]]ian evolution by means of natural selection.

[[Creationist]]s charge that evolutionists often equivocate between different meanings<ref>See, for example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891#Definitions Definitions as slippery as eels] in ''Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?'', by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, while [[evolutionist]]s acknowledge that not clearly defining the term leads to confusion.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution?] by Laurence Moran.</ref>

 

 

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] states the following in relation to this definition of 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>}}

== Etymology==

== Etymology==

The word ''evolution'' comes from Latin, meaning ''unrolling''<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evolution?view=uk AskOxford.com.</ref>, and refers to any gradual change.  But it has more precise definitions in popular and scientific use.

The word ''evolution'' comes from Latin, meaning ''unrolling'',<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evolution?view=uk AskOxford.com.]</ref> and refers to any gradual change.  But it has more precise definitions in popular and scientific use.

=== Universal ===

=== Universal ===

Instead, it is defined as the development of life from some last universal common ancestor, from which all plants, animals, fungi, and other life on Earth are directly descended.

Instead, it is defined as the development of life from some last universal common ancestor, from which all plants, animals, fungi, and other life on Earth are directly descended.

Webster's dictionary put it as, "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny"<ref Name="TO">Quoted in [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution], by Laurence Moran.</ref>

Webster's dictionary put it as, "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny"<ref name="TO">Quoted in [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution], by Laurence Moran.</ref>

This is the main concept behind the definition provided by the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary (although this definition has been criticised in other aspects<ref>Laurence Moran on Talk.Origins criticises the definition for excluding [[prokaryotes]], protozoa, and fungi, and for specifying ''gradual'' changes, and other reasons.</ref>): "The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years".<ref name="TO" />

This is the main concept behind the definition provided by the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary (although this definition has been criticised in other aspects<ref>Laurence Moran on Talk.Origins criticises the definition for excluding [[prokaryotes]], protozoa, and fungi, and for specifying ''gradual'' changes, and other reasons.</ref>): "The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years".<ref name="TO" />

In an attempt to clearly and concisely clarify which definition they are using, creationists sometimes refer to this definition with terms such as "goo-to-you" evolution<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, "molecules-to-man" evolution,<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/ Speedy species surprise], by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland, ''Creation'' vol. 23 No. 2, p. 13.</ref> or "fish-to-philosopher" evolution<ref>For example, footnote 1 in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/281 Professing creation], by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'' vol. 22 No. 1, p. 36.</ref>.

In an attempt to clearly and concisely clarify which definition they are using, creationists sometimes refer to this definition with terms such as "goo-to-you" evolution,<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref> "molecules-to-man" evolution,<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/ Speedy species surprise], by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland, ''Creation'' vol. 23 No. 2, p. 13.</ref> or "fish-to-philosopher" evolution.<ref>For example, footnote 1 in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/281 Professing creation], by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'' vol. 22 No. 1, p. 36.</ref>

It is primarily evolution of this definition that creationists disagree with.

It is primarily this definition of evolution that creationists believe is a invalid concept.

=== Gene frequency ===

=== Gene frequency ===

That is, a change in the prevalence of a given variation ([[allele]]) of a [[gene]] in a population compared to other variations of that gene.

That is, a change in the prevalence of a given variation ([[allele]]) of a [[gene]] in a population compared to other variations of that gene.

E.O. Wilson defines evolution as "any change in gene frequency in a population."  Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes define evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a [[gene pool]] from one generation to the next"<ref Name="TO" />

E.O. Wilson defines evolution as "any change in gene frequency in a population."  Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes define evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a [[gene pool]] from one generation to the next".

Creationists object that this definition is used to demonstrate trivial changes that are then used to claim that the entire development of life definition has been demonstrated.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ Refuting Evolution 2], by Jonathan Sarfati, chapter 3.</ref>  This definition has also been criticised by [[Ernst Mayr]].<ref>Referred to in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ CMI misunderstands evolution?].</ref>

Creationists object that this definition is used to demonstrate trivial changes that are then used to claim that the entire development of life definition has been demonstrated.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ Refuting Evolution 2], by Jonathan Sarfati, chapter 3.</ref>  This definition has also been criticised by [[Ernst Mayr]].<ref>Referred to in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ CMI misunderstands evolution?].</ref>

The gene frequency definition is an example of [[microevolution]] (meaning below the level of the species), but not [[macroevolution]](above the level of the species){{fact}}<!-- Is this really the distinction between micro- and macro-?  And is a change of gene frequency really equal to micro-? --> &mdash;a distinction which is important to some anti-evolutionists.

The gene frequency definition is an example of [[microevolution]] (meaning below the level of the species), but not [[macroevolution]](above the level of the species){{fact}}<!-- Is this really the distinction between micro- and macro-?  And is a change of gene frequency really equal to micro-? --> &mdash;a distinction which is important to some anti-evolutionists. Macroevolution can be seen as the multiple instances of microevolution that have added up in a population, producing a new species. This is also known as speciation. Speciation has been observed multiple times in scientific experiments, but this is not proof of evolution. Speciation is the development of a new species from an existing population, whereas evolution is the change in gene frequency in a population over time.

=== Increasing genetic information ===

=== Increasing genetic information ===

In addition to the disagreement over the definition, there is disagreement on whether evolution constitutes a scientific theory or a philosophy or religion.

In addition to the disagreement over the definition, there is disagreement on whether evolution constitutes a scientific theory or a philosophy or religion.

[[Theistic evolution]]ists believe that evolution has been guided by God, but most others claim that evolution is unguided and unplanned.  Thirty eight [[Nobel]] prizewinners signed a 2005 statement saying that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." <ref>[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/15/nobel_laureates_urge_rejection_intelligent_design/ Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design] (LJWorld.com)</ref>.

[[Theistic evolution]]ists believe that evolution has been guided by God, but most others claim that evolution is unguided and unplanned.  Thirty eight [[Nobel]] prizewinners signed a 2005 statement saying that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.".<ref>[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/15/nobel_laureates_urge_rejection_intelligent_design/ Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design] (LJWorld.com)</ref>

They appeared to be answering [[Roman Catholic]] Cardinal Christoph Schönborn who said that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not." <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?ex=1278388800&en=95804819e49f4832&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Finding Design in Nature], by Christoph Schönborn. </ref>

They appeared to be answering [[Roman Catholic]] Cardinal Christoph Schönborn who said that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not." <ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?ex=1278388800&en=95804819e49f4832&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Finding Design in Nature], by Christoph Schönborn.</ref>

Creationists have long claimed that evolution is effectively religion<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution Is Religion, Not Science], by Henry Morris, ''Impact'', May 1982.</ref>  Some evolutionists have also admitted this.  [[Michael Ruse]] is an evolutionist who testified at the Arkansas trial about teaching creation alongside evolution, that evolution was not a religion.  He later wrote:<ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/105/ Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion].</ref>{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion&ndash;a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint&ndash;and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it&ndash;the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.<br /><br />...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.}}

Creationists have long claimed that evolution is effectively religion.<ref>[https://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution Is Religion, Not Science], by Henry Morris, ''Impact'', May 1982.</ref>  Some evolutionists have also said this.  [[Michael Ruse]] is an evolutionist who testified at the Arkansas trial about teaching creation alongside evolution, that evolution was not a religion.  He later wrote:<ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/105/ Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion].</ref>{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion&ndash;a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint&ndash;and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it&ndash;the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.<br /><br />...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.}}

== Science or history ==

== Science or history ==

Evolutionists assert that biological evolution is a scientific theory<ref> NCSE [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp National Center for Science Education] Accessed October 7, 2007</ref>, whilst creationists argue that biological evolution, other than the ''gene frequency'' definition, is really a claim about the ''[[history]]'' of life on the planet.

Evolutionists assert that biological evolution is a scientific theory, whilst creationists argue that biological evolution, other than the ''gene frequency'' definition, is really a claim about the ''[[history]]'' of life on the planet.

They further argue that scientists are unable to apply the [[scientific method]] to past events such as evolution, as those events are no longer available for observation, measurement, and testing.

They further argue that scientists are unable to apply the [[scientific method]] to past events such as evolution, as those events are no longer available for observation, measurement, and testing.

[[Richard Dawkins]] seemed to acknowledge that evolution is unobserved history when he said that "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."<ref>Dawkins, Richard, [http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/print/dawkins_print.html Interview with Bill Moyers], 3rd December 2004.<!-- probably: it's actually listed as "12.03.04", which could be 12th March, in theory. --></ref>

[[Richard Dawkins]] seemed to acknowledge that evolution is unobserved history when he said that "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening."<ref>Dawkins, Richard, [https://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/print/dawkins_print.html Interview with Bill Moyers], 3rd December 2004.<!-- probably: it's actually listed as "12.03.04", which could be 12th March, in theory. --></ref>

== Use of different definitions ==

== Use of different definitions ==

About half of the people who reject the materialist [[Theory of Evolution]] accept the fossil evidence of "gradual appearance" while rejecting mainstream biology's explanation that a combination of [[natural selection]] and unguided forces like [[mutation]] and [[copying errors]] is the cause.

About half of the people who reject the materialist [[Theory of Evolution]] accept the fossil evidence of "gradual appearance" while rejecting mainstream biology's explanation that a combination of [[natural selection]] and unguided forces like [[mutation]] and [[copying errors]] is the cause.

Facts are observations, theories are models which explain those observations.  Theories can never be facts, because that implies that the model itself is an observation.  However, theories may often become so well-accepted and well-proven that they rise to a level at which scientists are comfortable calling them "facts" - an example is the [[theory of relativity]], or the theory of [[double slit experiment|particle/wave duality]].

Facts are observations, theories are models which explain those observations.  Theories can never be facts, because that implies that the model itself is an observation.  Due to this, theories are considered much more important than facts, being the conclusions gained from the observation of countless facts.

==Notes==

==Notes==