Semantics and Evolution

It is interesting to see the way evolutionists are reacting to the powerful arguments creationists (and others, like ID proponents) have made concerning such matters as design in the creation and lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Because the arguments are overwhelmingly powerful, evolutionists (who have vehemently argued against them) are now using words (semantics) to try to combat these arguments, because they really do recognize the problems for their evolutionary ideas in regard to these arguments.

I have included two such examples for you.

The first is the argument concerning design. Evolutionists are trying to take the word design back. Here are excerpts from an article by evolutionists Kenneth Miller from Brown University:

http://www.physorg.com/news122479031.html

“The idea that there is ‘design’ in nature is very appealing,” Miller said. “People want to believe that life isn’t purposeless and random. That’s why the intelligent design movement wins the emotional battle for adherents despite its utter lack of scientific support.

“To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of ‘design’ and the sense of purpose and value inherent in a scientific understanding of nature,” he said.

In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston, Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of “design” – the correlation of structure with function that lies at the heart of the molecular nature of life. ..Miller will argue that the scientific community must address the attractiveness of the “design” concept and make the case that science itself is based on the idea of design – or the regularity of organization, function, and natural law that gives rise to the world in which we live.

He points out that structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the “s” curve of the spine that allows for upright walking.

“There is, indeed, a design to life – an evolutionary design,” Miller said. “The structures in our bodies have changed over time, as have its functions. Scientists should embrace this concept of ‘design,’ and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed.”

This is an example of an evolutionist using semantics to explain why there really aren’t any transitional forms:

“Some Christians claim there is a lack of "missing link" fossils, halfway between two major groups of creatures. They say this proves Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a fallacy and that God created each living species from nothing . . . .

Dr Prothero, a professor of geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, said: “Life does not progress up a hierarchical ladder from ‘low’ to ‘high’ but is a branching bush with numerous lineages splitting apart and coexisting simultaneously.”

“For example, apes and humans split from a common ancestor seven million years ago and both lineages are still around.

“For this reason the concept of ‘missing link’ is a misleading one. A transitional form does not need to be a perfect halfway house directly linking one group of organisms to another.”

This week we should reach the 330,000 mark for the attendance figure at the Creation Museum since opening last May. We are certainly on track to reach close to 400,000 by the 12 month anniversary.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying.

Ken