Evolution and Natural Selection Definitions Matter

Something I learned and have been passing on to readers is the importance of definitions. When dealing with atheists and other anti-creationists, get those definitions nailed down! Many people claim to know about evolution and natural selection, only to reveal that they want to dispute creationists at all costs.

A furious atheopath barked, "Natural selection is evolution!" Another insisted, "Changes in alleles is the scientific definition of evolution!" As mentioned before, knowledgeable creationists often need to correct internet atheists on their evolutionary mythology.

Endler's guppy, iNaturalist / David Barros Cardona (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Before proceeding, it is important to discuss how society today holds to the nihilistic philosophy of postmodernism. Adherents believe that there are no absolute truths; you have your truth, I have my truth, and that's groovy. Except for that Bible stuff and insistence that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6), that's not groovy. Definitions are changing all the time, so according to leftist science deniers, people can change sexes and men can get pregnant! Flying in the face of the Creator's design? They don't care.

While it is important to reach an understanding of definitions (especially in contentious topics), those foisting dust-to-dark-knight evolution play the old bait 'n' switch. We frequently see "evidence" or even "proof" of evolution presented by the secular science industry. They often refer to change or speciation as evolution, but that is the opposite of the truth. By changing the definition of evolution, secularists fool the public.

Despite creationist Dr. Guliuzza's false claims, natural selection is not only real, but accepted by most biblical creationists. No, it is not a creative force – no genetic material is added to an organism. In fact, natural selection is a culling activity that helps eliminate the unfit. Evolutionist Dr. John Endler was very candid about how people are misusing natural selection, but his associates ignore his warnings so they can continue their deceptive propaganda. After all, getting people to believe in evolution is far more important than doing honest science, innit?

The article featured below is from 2011. The material is not only important, but timely.

In theory, evolutionists look to mutations as being the process responsible for generating the new genetic information evolution requires, which is then sorted by natural selection. But in practice, does that really happen? When pressed to give specific evidence of mutations that increase the information in the genome, Dawkins and his cohorts cannot give coherent answers. They ought to be able to point to hundreds of examples of such mutations by now. But they can’t. There is at best a tiny handful—one or two to our current knowledge—which could represent a modicum of information increase, and the lead candidate, the ability of a bacterium to digest the man-made substance nylon, involves considerable doubt.

To read it all, see "Defining terms." You'll thank me later.