Evolution is ambiguously defined

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 External Links 6 Further Reading 7 Related claims 8 See Also 9 Acknowledgments

Claim

Evolution is defined ambiguously, and claims that it is fact are based on the ambiguity. It is usually defined as "change in heritable characteristics in a population over time" (often expressed as "change in allele frequencies"), which everyone accepts as fact, but that doesn't mean that macroevolution or common descent are fact.

Source

• Citizen's Request for Reconsideration of Library and/or Instructional Material: Biology Text Review.

Responses

1. Actually, the above definitions are quite precise. Here 'population' means a given group within a particular species, and 'allele frequency' means how often a specific variant of a gene appears in a population.
2. A more accurate claim would be "Evolution is ambiguously or inaccurately understood"
3. It does actually mean that macroevolution is fact, since there is no biological basis for drawing a distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. Even Answers in Genesis recommends that creationists avoid this as a point of argument.
4. Furthermore, "macroevolution" and common descent are facts, especially since there is massive evidence for both in the fossil record, as well as in living organisms.
5. It is hypocritical of creationists to make accusations of ambiguity, as many creationists are infamous for manipulating ambiguity for their own purposes, such as Kent Hovind's conflagration of cosmological evolution with biological evolution.
6. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Straw Man (evolution defenders are accused of Equivocation)
• Argument from incredulity (It doesn't make sense to us, therefore it isn't true).

External Links

• Mark Isaak's page for this claim [1]
• CreationWiki's comments [2]
• Second-to-last point

Further Reading

• Wilkins, John, 2001. Defining Evolution. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(1-2): 29-37 [3]
• Gould, Stephen J., 2002. What Does the Dreaded 'E' Word Mean Anyway? In: I Have Landed, p. 246.

Related claims

• Evolution can't be falsified

See Also

Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments