Back to group+


Don’t fall for the bait and switch

Don’t fall for the bait and switch
Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking
by Tas Walker

1. Evolution?
YES and NO

We observe variation, mutation and natural selection in living things.

Evolutionists call this ‘evolution’, and this is why they claim that evolution is true.

We see how the environment affects the survival of these different animals. We even see new species arising as a result of these processes.

These phenomena are observed and documented scientifically.

Creationists agree with all these observations.

In fact, these sorts of changes happen very quickly. Speciation can occur within a few generations.1 But, dogs remain dogs, frogs remain frogs, and horses remain horses.

We don’t see fish changing into frogs, or lizards into birds.

What we see is consistent with the biblical account of a recent creation. God created different kinds of animals at the beginning. These different kinds were capable of adapting to different environments.

Creationists prefer not to call this variation within a kind ‘evolution’ (not even ‘micro-evolution’2). We call these changes ‘adaptation’.

It doesn’t really matter what word you use, but it is important to know what you are talking about.

Creationists reserve the word evolution for something entirely different from what we see here.

2. Evolution?

We have heard of the idea that single-celled animals changed by mutation and natural selection into reptiles, birds, mammals and people, over millions of years.

This is what creationists call evolution and they distinguish it from adaptation. Evolutionists call this evolution too, the same word they use for adaptation. That is why there is so much confusion on this issue.

Evolutionists use the same word for two entirely different things (called equivocation), and so you don’t really know what they are talking about.

If small random mutations are to produce new genetic information for these amazing changes in animals, then millions of such genetic errors would be needed over millions of generations.3 That is why evolutionists need billions of years for the idea to be plausible.

However, these sorts of changes have never been observed.

Variation and natural selection do not produce new genetic information; they only rearrange or remove the existing information.

Mutations do not generate new genetic information; they destroy some of the existing information.

Furthermore, the fossils are not consistent with the idea of evolution; the innumerable transitional forms expected are missing.

This molecules-to-man concept of evolution is just a hypothetical philosophy without observational scientific support. This concept of evolution is used to justify the assertion that the living world can be explained without God.

It is contrary to the teaching of the biblical account.

It looks scientific, but as we have seen it is not.

It is a bit of a trick played by using sloppy language. Evolutionists use adaptation, which is observed, to support evolution, which is an entirely different process. It is an example of bait and switch.

They get away with it because people do not realize they are using the same word to mean two entirely different things.

Watch out
Next time someone says that evolution is an observed scientific fact make sure you get them to clearly define what they are talking about.

They will almost certainly be referring to adaptation but want you to believe they have proved evolution.

Don’t be fooled. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking.

You wouldn’t want to make the wrong decision about the reliability of the Bible, where you came from and why you are here because you fell for the bait and switch trick.

References and notes
1.Catchpoole, D. and Wieland, C., Speedy species surprise, Creation 23(2):13–15, 2001, .
2.The term ‘micro-evolution’ is misleading because the changes are in the wrong direction.
3.The size of the change is not the problem, rather the change is going the wrong way; see Wieland, C., The evolution train’s a comin’, Creation 24(2):16–19, 2002, .

Share it!

Please login to comment

  • You wrote:"Mutations do not generate new genetic information; they destroy some of the existing information. "
    Th mutations for evolution are not "freak" mutations but rather normal variations like some people are naturally faster runners, have longer fingers etc. No two people are the same. Some are better at surviving in certain conditions because of natural variations. These are the mutations.

    You said:"Furthermore, the fossils are not consistent with the idea of evolution; the innumerable transitional forms expected are missing."

    The chances of any thing fossilizing are extremely slim. It needs very specific conditions. So we don't expect to see every living thing fossilized at all. But we have a massively huge fossil record. Every last fossil is consistent with progression time line of evolution. For example in the Jurassic period there were no large primates (or mammals for that matter) at all. In science one exception would disprove a theory. There are none. The geologic column supports evolution 100% without exception. Although not even 0.001% of life fossilized.
    Anyway there are numerous fossilized and living transitional species.
    johnsilver - Posted 61 months ago
  • "How can an unbiased be achieved?"

    You firstly and largely disagree with evolution based on the preconceived outcome you'd like to see based on your religious bias. This is very understandable but science is about observation and conclusion full stop. Unless you'd want to see a science not based on results but rather on your religion, like Hindu science and Muslim science and Christian science
    If you were to do experiments on the shape of the earth, believing with your whole heart that the earth is flat; You will reject your own findings, ignoring reason, looking for the evidence you'd like to see.
    In science you should not have preconceived ideas on your results. This is sometimes difficult to achieve and often we have to employ controls like double blind testing and vigorously compare results with others who might see things differently. Occam's razor is also a good starting point amongst a host of other scientific principles and controls.
    Of course you knew this.

    You asked me to be specific:
    Stop shooting science down with a bible open on your lap. By all means read your bible but for science you'd have to actually get out there and try the same

    It is a slap in the face of someone that spend 20 years meticulously digging out fossils after being an expert on geology, archeology and biology knowing rather well what is genetically possible and what not. To find that some religious people claim it all nonsense because they believe so. No expertise. It just doesn't sound right to them.
    johnsilver - Posted 61 months ago
  • How can an unbiased be achieved?

    Please be specific.

    fbeetge - Posted 62 months ago
  • Sorry for the stab but the above is mostly a cut and past job from religious and creationist extremists. How about an unbiased look at the principles of evolution. And actually understanding the principles and then shooting it down.
    Sorry again for he stab. And I would like a rational discussion as mentioned below.
    johnsilver - Posted 62 months ago
  • You don't understand evolution and also misrepresent it because of your strong bias. Evolution theory never claim that frogs evolved directly into something different like fish. That is impossible. Frankly your article is riddled with misconceptions.
    Why do you have such a bee in your bonnet about evolution?
    I invite you to a private discussion about the basics of evolution. Not an a debate about religion and evolution, just the principles of evolution.
    johnsilver - Posted 62 months ago

Meet the Blogger

More From this User