Definition of the Word Evolution
“Evolution explains why many human pathogens have been developing resistance to formerly effective drugs …”
“… the evidence supporting descent with modification … is both overwhelming and compelling.”
Many Darwinists wonder how creationists could possibly deny the ‘fact of evolution’. After all, we can actually observe changes in nature, such as bacteria ‘evolving’ to become resistant to antibiotics. How can the history-denying creationists possibly not see this? The only explanation, evolutionists say, is that creationists are willingly ignorant of the truth.
However, we do not deny variation. Not even the most fundamental die-hard creationist would ever deny that change occurs! Presenting variations, such as bacterial resistance, with the view that creationists deny them is a misrepresentation of our position.
Evolutionists usually define their theory as ‘change over time’, ‘descent with modification’, or ‘the change of allele frequencies of a population over time’. But these definitions are oversimplified. The Theory of Evolution (the idea that all life has descended from a common ancestor) requires a net gain in new genetic information for it to occur. E.g., for a Lego house to change into a skyscraper, we must add the instructions for making steel, bricks, foundations etc. to the manual of the Lego house. These instructions do not already exist in the manual and cannot come about by rearranging the information already inside the manual.
In much the same way, we must add the ‘instructions’ which make blood, limbs, organs etc. to the genome of our supposed common ancestor. These instructions must be entirely new — they cannot come about by a rearrangement of pre-existing DNA, since the 500,000 DNA ‘letters’ of our common ancestor must change to the three billion ‘letters’ of humans.
For those who think new information can come from a recombination, please see the ‘possible responses’ section of this article.
The Real Definition
So if we take the fact that evolution requires a net gain in new genetic information into account, the real definition of the theory should not be ‘change over time’, but ‘the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information’. ‘Change over time’, ‘descent with modification’, and ‘a change in the allele frequencies of a population over time’ are too ambiguous and do not actually explain how all life may have evolved from a common ancestor. Our definition of the theory of evolution is much more concise.
The Point Is…?
So why does this matter? The main reason why we and many other creationists disagree with the ‘change over time’ definition is because evolutionists commonly commit the fallacy of equivocation when using it. In other words, evolutionists use undeniable examples of ‘change over time’ (variation) to prove ‘the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information’ (microbes-to-man evolution).
This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument. Richard Dawkins uses this tactic throughout his book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. It is full of examples of ‘change over time’ as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution. Indeed, this is not an isolated case — almost all debaters and many scientists use this method.
When an evolutionist claims that evolution is a fact, as almost all do, ask him what he means by the word ‘evolution’ and what facts he has to support this. No doubt ‘evolution’ will mean ‘change over time’ and the facts supporting it are simply examples of change over time, such as bacterial resistance (an example which creationists entirely agree with).
To sum it all up, evolutionists provide examples of simple variation (where no new genetic information is added) to prove microbes-to-man evolution (where a net gain in new genetic information is required). This is illogical to say the least.
- “Much of this rests on the real definition of evolution (as opposed to ‘change over time’), which the article claims needs a net gain of new information. Furthermore, it claims that new genetic information cannot come about from recombination of genes. This is false: recombination = new meaning = new function = new information.”
We don’t blame anyone for bringing up this response, and it seems valid at face value. But as we dive beneath the surface, it becomes obvious that it does not hold up: a net gain of new genetic information cannot arise by recombination in the same way that rearranging a small book will not result in the British library. Theoretically, another small book with new information may arise, but there is no net gain. One can see our technical article, A Conclusive Definition of New Genetic Information, for more on this topic.
- “This article did not explain why ‘a change in the allele frequencies of a population over time’ is inadequate to explain microbes-to-man evolution.”
Yes, our article shows how recombination cannot result in a net gain of new information, and the aforementioned definition is based on recombination. A change in allele frequencies does nothing more to add new information than recombination does.