Why do people use the term evolution?

Question

The definition of evolution is so broad, it's almost as broad as saying "change". Mind you a lot of people thought that word had a lot of meaning. And unlike the word change the term evolution has multiple definitions.

Most people when they say evolution they mean common descent through natural selection and random variation. But there is a word that describes that. Its called Darwinism.

Evolution can simply mean (as it does according to the national academy of science ) change in allele frequency in a population over time. Everyone agrees with that if they know what it means.

Evolution can mean universal common descent. Many intelligent design proponents agree with that.

So why not use terms accurate terms? This applies to everyone. YEC, Darwinian evolutionists, ID proponents and seekers.

Answer 1

Deliberately using imprecise terms is a common propaganda technique. You use the imprecise term knowing somebody will assume you mean one thing and speaking against it - then you respond applying a different definition and make the one speaking against it look foolish. There is no escaping it, there will always be somebody who is going to jump in without requesting clarification of terms. Once that happens the propagandist has won.



This of course leads to the question - if Darwinian assertions are so well grounded why do those espousing it have to stoop to common propaganda techniques?

Answer 2

I'm sorry that you are confused by creationists' misuse of actual scientific terms. But you are criticizing the wrong people.



As an example :

Most people when they say evolution they mean common descent through natural selection and random variation. But there is a word that describes that. Its called Darwinism.



Is a creationist straw man. Only creationists (or people who take their lead from creationists) use the term "Darwinism" in that way. The correct term is the one that you acknowledge most people mean : evolution.

Answer 3

Maybe you could go further...take it to its "logical" conclusion to show the very illogicality of the word...





If all species are transitional, then there are NO species.



From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again (1971)

by Etienne Gilson

A reviewer said the following after reading this :



"A more accurate title for Darwin’s book, according to Gilson, would be the Origin of Varieties. Darwin’s use of the word “species,” however, is contradictory. “To say that species are fixed,” Gilson writes, “is tautology; to say that they change is to say that they do not exist, Why does Darwin obstinately say that they transform themselves, rather than saying simply that they do not exist?” (pp. 140-1)"

Answer 4

And what exactly is your question?



Call it what you want.. it could care less what we call it.... it will keep doing what it does, won't it?



There is no accurate term for it. It is a broad phenomena that we just recently became aware of. This awareness has not changed what it does and never will. You can call it the X factor for all I care.

Answer 5

concerning atheism it begins with everything coming from nothing by no-one