|
It seems a clarification of terms is in order. Most people, even Webster, acknowledge that adaptation means an adjustment to local surroundings. We common readers think of a responsive change when we hear the word adaptation, which is also Webster's meaning. The term acclimate also comes to mind, another word describing a responsive adjustment. Evolution, however, demands random change. Yet, when describing this ambitious process its faithful proponents insist on re-defining terms. In the evolutionist's world, the term adaptation no longer takes on its usual and widely accepted meaning. In order to further promote their agenda, evolutionists have chosen to apply this common term-adaptation-with a different meaning. Now adaptation is supposed to mean random change, not responsive change. This obviously causes great confusion, much like using the terms micro- and macro-evolution (scientists have seen the need for this distinction). The essence of change is understood by both sides of the debate, but the insistence on the use of the word "evolution" automatically creates a bias in favor of that naturalisitic thinking. No where else is "adaptation" definded as random change. And a colligation of these adaptations over millions of years somehow (against the odds) produces improvement for biological organisms, on a genetic level.
|
Every sample of "evolution" sited by Mr. Wilson is an example of responsive change, a change occuring after an observed difference in the local environment. Never has he sited a case where a truly random change occurs, benefitting the organism before a change in environment. Our faithful evolutionist seems to ignore the need for another distinction, the fact that adaptation is not random mutation. Mutation is supposedly the only mechanism by which evolution operates, and Darwinian evolution (the "tool" of natural selection utilized by evolution) has been modified so much since the author's death that his original theories hold almost no water in scientific circles today. Too many problems have arisen. It is interesting to note that evolution is questioned only by religious people, even the atheist ones. Even atheist biology teachers are accused of teaching "religion" in schools if they express any reservations about it. And we call this science?
|
