Perhaps the problem is with what is meant by the term, “evolution.” The word “evolution” can be often used too generally and loosely to refer to “naturalism,” or be synonymous with “change/growth over time.” In this loose sense of the term, the general sense of the this oversimplified definition can make evolution apply to just about everything.
Evolution is often referenced to mean “deep time of billions of years,” which is a common way that a YEC will employ the term. Even when the term is being used by scientists as a technical word, it is still erroneously treated to reference the development of the physical universe, abiogenesis, and the generation of a single cell. Even molecular biologists are loose with the employment of the term. They will say a frameshift and duplication mutation “evolves” a new gene.
Misuses of the term occur all the time. For example, Physorg.com featured an article on the “evolution” from RNA-only to protein-based splicing even though it has never been observed or defined, http://www.physorg.com/news118512373.html. Such development has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Wikipedia references “Galactic evolution” in an article explaining the Big Bang, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang. And, Space.com features articles all the time on the evolution of the universe, including displaying the term in the title of its headline articles, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/galaxy-collision-universe-evolution-new-image-101110.html.
My definition of evolution is the theory that all life originated from a single cell via the mechanisms of (a) natural selection and (b) mutations. Of course, those two mechanisms are incapable of actually causing the complexity of life, and that’s why there’s ID Theory. ID Theory is the research to find what the other missing mechanism would be that could explain the increase in information and complexity.
To add to the confusion, evolution is also defined as “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”
I object to defining evolution as a change of allele frequency. Those who herald and highly acclaim the theory of evolution are adamant that the theory is based 100% on NATURAL PROCESSES, and go ballistic against anyone who dares suggest that maybe ID Theory could be plausible. Since evolutionary theory rules out any possibility other than natural processes you don’t have any option of artificial assistance by an intelligent agent. Artificial assistance is called ID. I didn’t make up the rules. But, if Darwinists/naturalists rule out non-natural explanations to assist evolutionary theory, then I better not find any definitions that don’t make that distinction. A change of alleles in a population can be caused by non-natural intervention, such as selective breeding. Hence it is improper to credit evolution when it is aided with INTELLIGENTLY ASSISTED means.
Darwinists and the mainstream science community DEMAND with the highest of severe intolerance that evolution as a THEORY must only include NATURAL conjectures via NATURAL PROCESSES, and therefore any element of ID Theory is starkly and adamantly prohibited. ID Theory propositions are rejected at their initial inception. I’m not complaining, I am only noting reality for the sake of making a point.
The point is this; scientists need to make up their mind.
A = evolution
B = exclusively natural processes
C = artificial intervention
And, Natural processes are not natural if interrupted by artificial intervention: B (exclusively natural processes) ≠ C (artificial intervention). Natural processes are not artificial. Artificial interruptions to natural processes are not natural.
B ≠ C
Defining A = change of allele frequency INCLUDES artificial intervention. This is a logical fallacy.
Mathematically, if A=B, then it is impossible for A≠B. It is not possible to have both [A equal B] and [A not equal B] simultaneously.
If A = B, no person should then claim A ≠ B. It must be one or the other. I don’t care which statement is chosen to be correct. But, Darwinists appear to be saying both contradictory statements are true, which is a logical fallacy.
If A = B, and B ≠ C, then A ≠ C.
If A (evolution) = B (exclusively natural processes), then it is not possible for A (evolution) = C (artificial intervention).
If A (evolution) = B (exclusively natural processes), then A (evolution) ≠ C (artificial intervention).
Darwinists tell me if A = B, and B ≠ C, then A = C. That’s false. The truth is A ≠ C. Darwinists assert A = C, which is a false statement. If a person accepts A = C while B ≠ C, then A ≠ B. Obviously, A = B, so the Darwinists must make up your mind as to which one it is.
Defining A = change of allele frequency is false because ANY change of allele frequency INCLUDES artificial intervention. Therefore, the definition of evolution as “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next” is a logical fallacy.
Here are the technical definitions of Intelligent Design:
1. MECHANISM: ID as a mechanism in and of itself – Intelligent Design is the action and result of artificial intervention interrupting undirected natural processes, such as natural selection. Examples include genetic engineering and selective breeding.
2. HYPOTHESIS: ID as a scientific hypothesis in biology – Intelligent Design is the proposition that evolution requires an artificial intervention in addition to natural selection and mutations.
3. SCIENTIFIC THEORY: Intelligent Design Theory in Biology is the scientific theory that artificial intervention is a universally necessary condition of the first initiation of life, development of the first cell, and increasing information in the genome of a population leading to greater complexity evidenced by the generation of original biochemical structures.
Evolutionary theory rules out any artificial intervention other than unhindered natural causes. If artificial intervention interrupts natural causes, that is no longer evolution operating in and of itself, but being assisted by ID. ID does not require supernatural or unnatural. ID is simply anything that interrupts natural processes. An artificial intervention might not be supernatural or unnatural, but it is NON-NATURAL in that it interrupts chance and happenstance occurrences with a GUIDED, INTENTIONAL, PURPOSED, and DIRECTED INTELLIGENT assistance, which is ID by definition.
The issue is not whether we have the capacity to interrupt natural processes. The fact remains that if nature is indeed interrupted by an intelligent agent, then it ceases to be fully natural processes, and hence it is artificial. We simulate natural selection in a petri dish, which is fine; but the diversity and complexity of life didn’t happen in a petri dish. If evolution was assisted in any manner by an intelligent or guided artificial intervention, then that affirms ID Theory.
ID Theory is a very possible explanation for why and how allele frequency might change in a gene pool, and as such I will always object to the such a definition that credits evolution for phenomena that have NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is based on 100% exclusive natural processes. Therefore, nothing that could happen by artificial means should be used as a definition for evolution.