Reaching Evolutionists
What is Evolution?
In theological and philosophical discussions, the definition of Evolution is heavily disputed. Modern Evolutionists like to define it as simply "change over time", giving the impression that no sane person could deny Evolution. This definition, however, is functionally useless for such discussions. It fails to adequately define anything, and allows Evolutionists to conceal their true beliefs, as well as legitimise their less defensible beliefs, simply by appealing to what all but the most fringe group of Creationists believe.
This can actually go the other way, as "change over time" is so unbelievably vague, it often features in that which we all recognise as fiction, such as Pokemon. If Evolutionists insist on equivocating Evolution to make it sound like Creationists don't believe species change over time, we may as easily equivocate Evolution to make it sound like they DO believe in Pokemon.
Having established the problem with the popular, modern apologetics definition, we can begin explaining a more useful definition. From a purely biological standpoint, Gerald A. Kerkut, an Evolutionist himself, provided one of the most useful definitions in his book "Implications of Evolution", where he wrote "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’ 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’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place."
Kerkut's definition of the "General theory of Evolution" works very well regarding the biological aspect of Evolution, as it adequately distinguishes between what many Creationists (myself excluded) would call "micro-Evolution" and "macro-Evolution". Almost all Creationists believe species change over time, but the type of change, and amount of time, are questionable, and will be questioned. You may be able to prove one finch can become many finches given enough time, it's another thing entirely to say they are descendants of a t-rex.
Although Kerkut's definition of Evolution works well for the biological aspect of Evolution, it falls short in that it fails to include things like Cosmic Evolution, a term used to describe how the universe changes over time. Stories like the Big Bang, as a part of human beliefs regarding Cosmic Evolution, are legitimately called "Evolution", and of course legitimately rejected by anyone who understands that explosions are not creative forces.
What, then, is the best definition of Evolution? For sake of clarity, Bible Brain officially endorses Kerkut's definition when dealing with biological Evolution. However, Evolution as a whole is defined as "any Naturalistic belief wherein gradual change is said to explain origins". This definition adequately encompasses all things called "Evolution", while distinguishing between the beliefs we all hold (such as Speciation) and beliefs such as the descent of man from "ape like" ancestors.
There is one additional complication in that, although the Church has been historically opposed to old Earth narratives, there have been attempts within the last 200 years to reconcile the Christian faith with Naturalistic origins beliefs. These will not be discussed in this section, but will instead be found in the Theistic Evolution section.
Key articles
Evolution is a religion
The mythical mountain of evidence
Question Evolution Day (February 12th)
Bad arguments against Evolution, and why you shouldn't use them
Charles Darwin
The history of Evolution
Evolutionary equivocation/language use
Natural Selection
Implications of Evolution
Historical vs. Operational science
Evolutionary blunders & failed predictions
Living fossils
Bad design argument
Vestigial organs
