Thank you for the reply Russ. You say:
The problem with deception is that it is so often based in redefining basic terms so as to coerce a conclusion.
For example, evolution was taught to me in school as rock-to-cell and then cell-to-man evolution. As this became clearly absurd (to many academics at least), the definition of evolution changed. Not only that, but processes within the theory changed as well, like abrupt appearance; This being nothing more than an attempt to explain away deficiencies in earlier parts of the theory.
I note several things about your post:
First, that I gave a link to a website by the University of Michigan that supplies a definition of evolution as it is taught in earning a degree in evolutionary biology at that university, and it does not talk about "rocks to cell" or "cell to man" as being part of the theory of evolution or the definition of the process of evolution, rather it is evidence of natural history that is explained by evolution.
Second, I don't see you showing that my definition is false.
Third, my definition complies with Darwin's original statement of evolution being descent with modification, but it provides more information rather than any changes.
Fourth, my definition also complies with the “
modern synthesis” which was made between 1936-1947:
Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection.
Fifth, you pasted a document that is really just irrelevant to the issue of kids shooting people because they were taught evolution. Nor does it provide a definition of evolution to show a contrast to my definition.
Finally, I don't see you explaining how teaching evolution by either my definition (or the one in the University of Michigan or Darwin's or the Modern Synthesis version), would result in kids shooting people in the opening post. Presumably these kids today would be taught a theory of evolution similar to one of these,
even if the definition had changed in your life-time and is now “watered down.”
The point of the thread is that teaching the theory of evolution today would result in kids shooting people. That would necessarily use definitions of evolution and the theory of evolution that are in use today within the science of evolutionary biology.
Frankly I just don't see how this follows and ask for clarification.
A logical deduction based on premises starting with “Evolution is ... (insert your version if you want)” and leading by sound valid argument to “Teaching kids evolution will drive them to kill people” is the kind of thing I am looking for.
Please address the point.
... the "new" definition is the most watered down version yet.
"Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation."
I say this to make sure we're always talking about the same thing because so often discussions like this devolve into a mass of misunderstandings because no definitions have been established.
This is my understanding of what evolution (not the theory but the process) involves, including recent research from 'evo/devo' on the formation of phenotypes with the modern synthesis of genetics with classical Darwinism.
You have your understanding of what evolution is, and it seems clear that both cannot be true. We can test our understanding against the evidence of reality and see which one is true.
Can you clearly state what you think the definition of “evolution” is (the process not the theory) so we can test each others definition against the facts to see which is true?
Perhaps we will find out who is trying to change the definition of evolution in the process.
Enjoy.
