Word Game

One increasing frustraion of mine is a word game that is being played. Often I am bashed for bein a creationist, because people come back with the response "It's already been proven..." usually followed by some insulting expletive. The problem is that we equivocate on the word evoution, which in today's terms has three differnt meanings.

The first is with regards to Molecules-to-Man evolution. This is the hypothesis that out of some pehistoric goo, life was formed by a lightning bolt, created proteins, which thenstarte interacting, forming cells and then eventually single-celled organisms - through a series of mutations, it is then theorised that from this single celled organisms, RNA evolved into DNA, and DNA kept changing to make different organisms and different species - and eventually coming to Humans. It is this version of the word "Evolution" that I argue against - oddly enough, not from a theological basis but actually a scientific one - I do not believe that it is a scientifically valid theory - and in fact, so does an increasing proportion of the atheistic scientific community. It still doesn't stop this hypothesis being taught as fact in our schools, and so called "proofs" of this hypothesis being taught, despite having already been proven as faked (such as the famous embryonic drawings that show that all animals have similar embryos, and the pictures of spotted moths on trees, that were actually pinned on). But that is another rant altogether.

My rant is about the misuses of the word "evolution" where more valid, and not nearly as confusing, words, can be used. Let us take, for example, the Galapagos tortoises. When Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos islands, he discovered that tortoises on different islands had different shells, to allow the tortoses to reach different plants. This does not demonstrate Evolution, but natural selection. This is a process that has been proved - where by the process of certain genes giving an animal an advantage, means that the gene pool is narrowed as the less advantaged were removed, through starvaion because they were not able to get food, etc - just like the galapagos tortoises - the genes were previously available to have the different types of shell - but as the islands became cut off, different food bearig plants existed on each island, and the tortoises whose shells allowed them to lift their head up and reach the higher fruit survived, having the advantage, and those that didn't died out. This is not evolution, because no new species has been created. However this is where the confusion andequivocation comes in, becaue I then get lambasted for criticising evolution, for criticising a hypothesis that is "proven" - however my critics are talking about natural selection and adaptation, I am talking about evolution - we are arguing two different things.

Evolution is used now even in a worse format - the word "evolutionary" can now equal the word "survival" as i read in an article today about an evolutionary advantage - which just was referring to a survival advantage of the particular race or species - and I hate this word game because it feeds into everyone, subconciously that this word is okay to use because it has been proven - whereas the real hypothesis behind it hasn't.

I also find that on the BBC news, every science article seems to try and find some "evolutionary advantage" - as if they further need to show proof of the evolutionary hypothesis - despite, of course, they are a) talking about a different thing, and b) surely it hasbeen proven already...

I hope that you now realise the difference and why us creationists are so hard on the Real Evolutionary Hypothesis. We don't criticise what has already been proven...