Most people know what elastic is. If not, they at least recognize the property of elasticity. We find it in all manner of items from clothes to plastic to bungee cords. Being elastic means able to be bent or stretched in any particular direction but always able to rebound to the original shape and size, provided a certain breaking point is not passed. While we expect to find elasticity in our clothes and housewares, we should not expect to find in our words. Words should have meanings that do not change in the middle of a conversation. And they don’t….unless you’re talking to an evolutionist. In this article, we will discuss a couple of the ways evolutionists turn standard words into elastic ones.
I repeatedly hear evolutionists make claims similar to this one. “Evolution has nothing to do with life’s origin. It only involves descent with modification via natural selection.” Many of these same evolutionists will then turn around in the next breathe and say. “There cannot be a God because evolution explains what we see in the world around us.” If you didn’t notice, the meaning of the word evolution changed between those sentences. Yet the evolutionist will claim there is no change or contradiction between their use of the term. In order to understand why the words change meaning so easily between sentences, we need to define terms.
Turns out evolution is an elastic word for a reason. There are six different kinds of evolution necessary for their worldview. They only ever really want to talk about two of them and really only present valid evidence for one. The first kind of evolution that the evolutionist must have is cosmological evolution. You can’t have life without a cosmos. This involves the origin of time, space, and matter. All three have to come into existence at once. The second kind of evolution is chemical evolution. The elements of chemistry comprise everything we observe. Without them, there could be no items to fill the space created by the purported cosmological evolution.
Once space and elements somehow evolved, we then come to stellar and planetary evolution. All the elements in the world are useless unless they form something cohesive. Once you manage to get the stars and the planets you come to the three more commonly discussed types of evolution. First, you have to have organic evolution. This is the origin of life evolution, otherwise called abiogenesis. Evolutionists don’t like talking about this considering Louis Pasteur disproved this possibility back in the mid-1800s. The last two are the ones most often brought up by evolutionists. Macroevolution is the change between one kind and another. This is the typical microbes to man evolution idea presented in the textbooks. These first five have little to no evidentiary support and are not observable.
The sixth type of evolution is called microevolution. I strongly object to the term, but I do not object to the idea. I’ve referenced the idea myself in multiple articles. It’s called speciation. This is variation within the kind, often by natural selection. No one except a few out on the lunatic fringe objects to this idea. There is variation within the kinds and new species do form quickly. One plant genetics study estimated as few as ten years to create a new species. This is not a surprise for creationists. In fact, speciation by natural selection was observed and published by a creationist twenty years before Darwin published.
What many evolutionists like to do is take evidence of speciation, which no one denies, then change the definition of evolution mid-sentence to mean macro-evolution. I’ll give you an example. In a recent conversation with an evolutionist, he brought up that a bacteria called Eschericia coli. E. coli is a bacteria common to human stomachs. He brought up the fact that, in the lab, E. coli has adapted to feed on citrate, which the wild E. coli do not have the ability to do. He then proceeded to claim that evolution was true because these bacteria had evolved to feed on citrate. Unfortunately, he’s wrong. The information to feed on citrate was already present in the bacteria. The bacteria are still bacteria. In fact, they are still the same species. That is not evolution. However, notice he changed the definition of evolution within the same statement. Let’s look at it again. His original statement was:
Evolution is true because these bacteria had evolved to feed on citrate.
Now let’s look at that sentence again and insert what he actually means by those words.
Evolution(organic evolution and molecules to man macroevolution) is true because these bacteria had evolved (microevolution, ie variation within the kind) to feed on citrate.
See the difference? He changed the meaning of the word evolution mid-sentence.
Evolutionists try to pass this off all the time. Usually, I’ll challenge them on it and ask them which of the six kinds of evolution they’re talking about. Some of the sneakier, more dishonest evolutionists, will pretend that they only care about macro and microevolution and will say that organic evolution actually isn’t evolution. Usually, they are deliberately trying to avoid arguing about origins because they know their theory is weak there. In that case, ask them if there is a God. Most will say no. Then ask them where life came from. They will try to sidestep saying evolution doesn’t involve that but don’t let them, particularly in a public forum. Instead simply point out that, since they deny the possibility of a God, then they must rely on evolution to create life. Ultimately though, the discussion is from the foundational worldview and that is where you have to take it eventually. Hopefully, this article will help you recognize when evolutionists start applying elastic to their words and be able to respond appropriately.