THE L. F. NEXUS
THE STANDARD DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION
So far, in an effort to start a true dialogue with evolutionists we have offered 337 definitions of “evolution.” In each case, evolutionists have objected to our definition and:
REFUSED TO OFFER EVEN A CLUE AS TO WHAT THEY KNOW OR EVEN BELIEVE TO BE THE CORRECT DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION!
Therefore, we are taking the battle to the people and, in particular, to the worldwide family of bloggers. If you are either for or against evolution, post what you know or believe to be the correct definition of evolution somewhere in the blogosphere. Our Internet tracking software will find the blogs that get the most hits. We will use these blogs to present what the average person believes is the correct definition of evolution. Note that our tracking software especially notices references to the URL for our website – http://lfnexus.com. We will begin this venture with the standard definition of evolution (what follows is universally accepted). This definition is standard because:
1. It is found in the standard American dictionary†.
2. The standard American dictionary is standard because it is the most widely used American dictionary in the world.
3. The standard American dictionary is standard because it is the direct descendant of the work of Noah Webster, author of the first American dictionary.
4. The standard American dictionary is standard because it is confirmed by all major principles of “standanology” (the science of standards; partial etymology: from Old English “standan” meaning “to stand”) of which we are the innovators and with which there is universal agreement (seeing that the principles are all common sense principles; notably, “Wide Principle: The most widely used definition is the standard definition.”).
So, here is the “Standard Definition of Evolution”:
Note, in passing, that the definition says “a theory” and not “the theory.” This is consistent with the fact that there are a large number of theories of evolution. The definition above provides the elements that are common to all definitions of the word “evolution” and, indeed, the elements that are common to all theories of evolution. Any so-called theory of evolution that does not include the elements in the above definition is NOT a theory of evolution.
Now, note that it is implicit in the definition that human beings are (incorrectly) classified as animals. Human beings are not animals. However, this is a separate debate. We will address this matter at another time. The above definition can, logically (though incorrectly [separate debate]) be expanded to:
“a theory that the various types of animals, including human beings, and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations”
If we were to acknowledge the occurrence of adaptation, which we do not (see Darwin on adaptation) but which would make no difference anyway, we could accept the following as partially true, though it would not prove evolution since it would not be consistent with the definition of evolution:
“a theory that the various types of animals, EXCLUDING human beings, and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations”
Note for the sake of argument that, if adaptation occurred, there would still be no proof that all species were the result of adaptation and, in any event, evolutionists would not have a theory of evolution but a:
Theory of Partial Adaptation
†The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary
Note that because of the average .18% entry divergence between different editions of this work, in those cases where there is divergence, we have used a statistical average that always exceeds 99.6332% of the common differentia for the divergent definitions. In plain but somewhat oversimplified English, we use the “most standard of the standard definitions.” Note also that any debate in this area is dismissed by the fact that all points in contention have no bearing on the essential elements of the definitions. For example, whether we say “a dog” or “the dog,” we are still talking about a dog. See our work The Standard Dictionary (link not yet active) for technical, historical, etymological, and standanological data and information.
(3) Improved Web Page Template Adopted Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:00:56 PM CST (GMT-5)