Evolution

If you want to understand my position on evolution, this discussion is excellent:
http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2004/Nov/19/evolution-poll

Eventually I hope to distill most of that discussion and enter it here. If you're in a hurry, I'd recommend reading my description of the different things people refer to when they discuss "evolution". I think my definitions help to clarify the issue, whereas when people don't make those distinctions they tend to talk past each other.

Answers in Genesis has a good summation of the equivocation that goes on when people discuss evolution:

It’s very common for evolutionary propagandists to define evolution as (1) simply ‘change in a population over time’, as well as (2) the idea that all life came from a single cell, which itself came from a chemical soup. Then they produce examples of ‘evolution’ (1) and use this to prove evolution (2), and then claim that Biblical creation is wrong! However the Biblical creation model does imply that organisms change over time—but these changes would always involve sorting or loss of already existing (created) genetic information, never the gain of new information. But evolution (2) requires the gain of new information. Even if information losing (or neutral) processes could continue for billions of years, they would never add up to a gain of information. Rather, to support evolution (2), evolutionists must demonstrate changes that increase information. If this theory were true, there should be plenty of examples, but we have yet to observe even one. Since evolution (2) is the only issue at stake in the creation/evolution controversy, we advise against referring to any mere change as ‘evolution’—not even ‘micro-evolution’—and reserving the term ‘evolution’ for (2).

That article is also an excellent debunking of evolution's role in bacterial resistance to drugs.

Page last edited: November 11, 2005 (utc)