Defining evolution

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever controls the definition of words, controls...

No, there isn't any more to the above sentence. The person, group, government, or whoever... whoever controls the definition of certain words, will be the ones who are in control of not just the conversation, but our minds and actions. We see that in politics all the time. We see it in religious cults. And this how propaganda works, redefining words so they create the desired mental images. And this is how evolution is "proven." Evolution is not about science. It has everything to do defining the way you think about God and yourself. And it all starts with the definition of the word "evolution."

This may be the most important stop on our museum tour.

The photograph above shows part of a page from the 1840 edition of Webster's Dictionary. It's the page with the definition of the word evolution. Darwin would not publish "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life" for another 19 years.

100 years later in the 1942 Webster's Dictionary (below) the definition has changed to include Darwinian evolution, and it's not a bad definition:

"That theory which sees in the history of all things, organic and inorganic, a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."

This definition is fairly accurate representation of what most people bring to mind when they hear the word "evolution."

Another 78 years later in 2020, the Merriam-Webster definition is:

"Descent with modification from preexisting species: cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations."

There is a secondary definition:

"The scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)."

The above definition is a good definition that applies to “species.” However, as a definition of the word “evolution” this is a straight out lie. And that's how they "prove" evolution happened. The definition they use does not actually define evolution. Properly defining “evolution” using the framework of the above definition, requires the word “species” to be replaced by “genus” or better yet “domain.” That truly describes evolution. Evolution requires that a life form in one domain change to become a life form in a new domain. That is not change at the species level.

Why the change?

Because in the 1940's we began to understand the complexity of the cell and genetics. It would become apparent that the 1942 definition was not supported by the evidence.

human evolution

Control the Definition - You Control Minds

Before you can prove whether a statement is true, you must first clearly define that assertion. Here is a painfully simple example. You say, "Call me a taxi, please." I respond, "You're a taxi!" We defined the word "call" differently. In this simple example its easy to see how the definition changed. This is what happens with the word "evolution," but in a more complex way.

Another very important point, before we attempt to prove something as being either true or false, we must correctly define what something. In other words, to prove evolution true, we must be clear on what the word "evolution" means. If I'm thinking the 1942 definition and you are thinking the 2020 definition, you can pronounce evolution proved true and be right in your mind, but you'll be wrong in my mind. So we must agree on a definition of the word "evolution" before we can talk about truth.

In attempt to clarify the evolution discussion the noted noted British zoologist and physiologist Dr. Gerald Kerkut, distinguishes between the two major ways the word evolution is used:

“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ (STE) and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution' (GTE). and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.”

His GTE definition is similar to Webster's of 1942. To summarized in as brief a form as possible: the Special Theory of Evolution (STE) is defined as speciation, the General Theory of Evolution (GTE) as all life originating from a common ancestor. When someone is claiming there is solid proof that evolution is true, definition of "evolution" that comes to mind is the GTE definition, all life coming from a common ancestor. That's what Darwin claimed was true. BUT, what they are actually talking about is the is STE definition. There is abundant proof speciation happens (the STE), but no proof of the General Theory of Evolution (GTE).


What are they doing? They are claiming that speciation, and all life coming from a common ancestor, are equivalent. But, they haven't proven that. They have not presented any evidence they are equivalent. All they have done is show speciation happens, and then declared, with no evidence, speciation is equivalent to all life having a common ancestor. That's why it's called equivocation and it is a very powerful propaganda technique, especially when we don't know it is being used against us.

Proving that the Special Theory of Evolution is true, does not prove that the General Theory of Evolution is true. BTW, bring this up with a evolution evangelist, and they will reject the Kerkut definitions. They know that, if they accept those definitions, they've lost the argument. They know that when they can no longer impose a false definition, they have lost the argument. Remember, whoever controls the definition, wins.

Another way to look at it is that in presenting a proof, ALL of the steps must be proven true. In high school algebra, leaving out one step (assuming that step is obvious, for example), means it's an invalid proof. Even if you have the right answer, the teacher will mark it wrong. Evolution evangelists never prove that speciation results in all life arising from a common ancestor... and becoming more complex in the process -- explaining the observed fact that we are much more complex than a bacteria, for example.

Next: BBC Gets It Wrong   Museum Exhibits: Dictionaries?