Why do religious antisecularists seem to lie about evolution? Is it on purpose?

Question

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

This is the definition in biology 101 textbooks, was covered on day one of my son's 9th grade bio class and is even the definition in the wikipedia article.

Antisecularists (those opposed to secular science, culture and governments) say evolution means other stuff than change in allele frequency over time.

Since an alternative definition of evolution is not found in the bibles or bio textbooks, where do these antisecularists get the definition of evolution they so often complain about here?

Several times I have seen religious antisecularists complain that when their evolution questions are answered, people say "you know nothing about evolution," and don't explain more. It seems to me many religious antisecularists are using a definition inaccessible to the rest of us, and it is that definition, as opposed to the biological one, that people refer to when they say they know nothing.

I don't use wikipedia as a reference, I say this definition is in wikipedia because I am trying to understand where people got the OTHER defintion from...

"Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
Curtis and Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

http://www.answers.com/topic/evolution
I could even understand some people coming up with descent with modification.

For the record, however, I am a biologist, I hold a degree in biology, and I TAUGHT freshman bio for 2 years.

Answer 1

It is quite intentional. Creationists have multiple definitions of evolution. They start with the strongest and ask if you can prove it. When you show them the evidence, they move to a new position. Show them the evidence and they move to yet another position. Their fall back position is I've never seen a dog turn into a cat.

Lacking facts, Creationists turn to obfuscation. They mix all science that contradicts Genesis, including geology and cosmology, into evolution. This gives them the fallacious argument that if you don't know how the universe formed, evolution cannot be true. There are three types of Creationist those who have been lied to, those who repeat the lies, and those who make up the lies. (To be fair, there is one known instance of an honest Creationist.) To answer you question directly, the lies are completely intentional.

Answer 2

Because as people talk about it they screw up the details and evolution becomes "man evolved from apes" which is same as saying you are decended from your cousin.


Gary> if you want people to correct themselves then get it right yourself. Evolution is a scientific Theory...it is not a hypothesis there is a big difference.

cristoiglesia> true but then that has happened with ALL science, such as gravity. So should we throw out the term gravity? Evolution is the best idea we have right now...but like all good science we pick it apart and adapt it to get to the real truth, because Evolution DOES have flaws. Everyone screams it is false science and should be ignored but until someone gives a better idea with real evidence (since ID and Creationism have no evidence at all in any way, shape or form by any intelligent definition) then we have to just keep plugging away until science does get it right..that's the joy of the journey. Either Evolution will be proved right by adapting the theory where needed or we find out it is something totally different..but just closing eyes and walking away from the best lead we have now is kinda stupid. You want us to look elsewhere then give us proof to go in another direction


In Reality

Answer 3

It saddens me that still something like 45% of America disbelieves evolution. I could understand "not getting it and not having a stand" - like I don't understand the strong nuclear force - but to have an opinion and it's that scientists who spend their lives studying it are simply wrong seem ignorant. Then again, it's only been 80 years since the Scopes Trial and it took over 100 years after the end of slavery to end segregation. Evolution is a lot less urgent issue than civil rights, so I could see this dragging out another hundred years.

Gary, et al, Darwin is a genius, yes, but he's 150 years behind the times - find somebody else to quote. And Gould did mean that large change is sudden, not gradual - that doesn't mean it wasn't effected through DNA mutations. Your quote doesn't argue for your anti-evolutionary side at all. That is, I believe what the question asserted.

Answer 4

I haven't seen much evidence that Creationists read anything on the topic other than the Q&A lists of Creationist web sites, and there is no doubt that these sites are crammed with distortions, mischaracterizations and outright falsehoods.

As for the posters here and elsewhere, since they keep posting the same falsehoods from these ID sites, both in biology, as you noted, and geology (and hydrology), paleontology, chemistry, physics (especially thermodynamics) and cosmology, which clearly shows they either slept through basic science classes or never took these classes in high school, or they'd know the ID sites are crap, it is very hard, if not pointless to argue with them. There isn't a chance they will actually pick up a modern science textbook and find out for themselves. They aren't interested. Most wouldn't exert themselves to read an ID site except they want to pretend they aren't scientific illiterates by quoting pithy ID sound bites that they in fact don't even understand.

Answer 5

LOL!! When the term evolution was coined there was nothing known about the allele frequency nor DNA. The definition of the theory has constantly "evolved" as various presumptions of the theory have been proven without a doubt to be false.

Evolution has been proven time and time again to be a false theory and then the definition changes. Now I suppose some people are saying that evolution is just another name for the "allele frequency" but my question is what will the definition be next week, next month or next year. I think that it is about time to abandon the misleading constantly changing term of evolution and put it on the scrap heap of false science with astrology and alchemy instead of trying to constantly resurrect the term with a new meaning. Just an opinion from someone with a degree in biology and graduate degrees in theology.

In Christ

Answer 6

Most that I've encountered really know nothing about evolution and are repeating what they were told by their churches. Most of them are hung up on the idea that man could have evolved from apes, which in most text that I've seen is very clearly spelled out as a theory because of the "missing link."

So in short, they are defining it based on their understanding of the subject, which most times is very little to none.

Answer 7

i'm Christian that believes the Bible is the literal truth. I received't coach evolution is a lie, because i keep in mind that it really is an astonishing concept, and honestly does artwork, as shown by technique of the outcome of centuries of selective breeding. What I disagree with is the theoretical idea that each and each body life got here from one unmarried celled organism. the position did that one unmarried celled creature (extra complicated than a 747 jumbo jet) come from? the answer of 'success' is a strategies extra ridiculous than 'God did it.' i do not trust in monkey (properly, person-pleasant ancestor) to guy, because of genesis, as Jesus frequently suggested the former testomony's truth, and there is lot's of historic evidence (and my personal personal adventure) that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, who for this reason can not lie. keep searching for the truth and the truth will discover you. God bless.

Answer 8

Honestly, for myself, I become defensive when someone points to evolution as proof that God doesn't exist. It also bothers me that evolution is portrayed as fact. It seems to me that there are many questions and issues involving evolution that folks choose to ignore.

I am ignorant in many respects. My questions are intended to help address some of this ignorance.

I really have no idea if I'd be considered a 'religious anti-secularist' (I am opposed to 'secular humanism', which is a religion, according to the 'Humanist Manifesto').

There probably are folks lying on both sides of this topic.

Answer 9

after seeing the same people over and over again quoting the same disproved garbage from the same disreputable sources, i can only guess that they totally refuse to read or take in anything that may disagree with their beliefs. i have just answered a question where one of the other answerers used Kent Hovind as a reference saying he was a biologist and scientist when his credentials are easily checkable on sites like this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

most times i have given up giving straight forward serious answers as i find they and their cohorts will totally ignore any info you provide and automatically give you the thumbs down or report you. you may as well have a little fun with them, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Answer 10

I have nevere heard the term "religious antisecularist", or for that matter, allele frequency, but I will try to clarify the situation for you.

The crux of the problem is people getting out of their sphere of influence. When scientists come up with theories that are not based on science, but rather, are formulated to offer an explanation for a pre-conceived notion, not everyone is going to accept them.

For a theory to be scientific, it has to fit known scientific facts and principles. It must be subject to the Scientific Method: it must be observed, it must be duplicated, and it must be falsifiable. Well, no one has ever observed evolution. If evolution were true, we could expect to find millions of transitional forms, but so far, no one has found one. As to repeatablility, scientists have been trying to create life in the laboratory for over a hundred years. Something that supposedly happened by chance seems so illusive to scientists who are attempting to recreate it. How could this be?

Now, let's talk about falsifiability. You claim that we have a different deffinition of evolution than you. Well, evolutionists have been changing their definition since the days of Darwin. For a theory to be sceintific, there must be a way to show that it could possibly be false. Every time a new scientific discovery disproves evolution, the evolutionists change their theory. For example: punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of transitional forms. Does that strike you as scientific?

Farmers have known for a long time that you can create changes in vegetables or animals by selelctive breeding. They also know that there is a limit beyond which change is impossible. Evolution is based on the idea that this change occurs, and it happens naturally. So, evolution contradicts what scientists have been observing for hundreds of years, it cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory, and everytime a new scientific discovery disproves it, the evolutionists change their theory. If that's science, I'm the Man in the Moon.