The Beauty of (the word) Evolution

'Is evolution good for anything? There’s no question it keeps a lot of scientists busy, but has it helped the proverbial man on the street? Here is one perspective.

Quotes and comments;

Michael LePage [ May 7, 2008] hit the sales beat for evolution on New Scientist this week:
"Evolution is a beautiful theory. It explains everything from why some birds lose the ability to fly, to the bizarre meandering path of the vagus nerve in our bodies.
Sure, evolution makes sense of the extraordinary diversity of life on Earth, but can it actually be put to practical use? The answer is: it can and it should." [1.]

- This is the kind of hack writing that annoys me. What he's pointing to is variation (and negative mutation) within the created kinds. This isn't evolution at all. [Not as the public thinks of the term.] We need a new terminology in the whole area of biology. The one Materialists use is utterly useless; as it prevents understanding, rather than facilitate it. Variation has nothing to do with M2M (molecules to man) Evolution. Nothing. Though they're aware this is the case, Materialist continue to use the word evolution in many different ways; deliberately muddying the waters.

- This lack of precision is a disgrace; especially when you consider that the Eskimo have over a dozen words for snow. Maybe the Eskimo are better scientists; or maybe they have no reason to lie about the subject at hand.

- The downward loss of function has nothing to do with the supposed upward gain of novel function. This is like saying gravity and life are the same thing; like saying entropy and specified information are the same thing. It's really sad that people like LePage play this game, but what can you do? If people refuse to be honest you have to somehow deal with their lies and deceit. One way you do this is to continually point out what's going on. Maybe one day people will get tired of all the deceit and come up with a meaningful vocabulary.

- He uses the word 'should' - a Materialist has no right to use the word should. The word 'should' is a moral and theistic term, it has no basis in the physics based universe of Materialism.

- He speaks of things being beautiful. There's no foundation for such a concept in materialism. Doesn't he know that what he considers beautiful is just a hormonal imbalance? a bit of gene programmed delusion? (Over and over you see how materialists cannot live in terms of the theory they insist is true. They trumpet the theory when writing articles, but as soon as they move away from the keyboard, they seem to forget everything they've written.)

- Evolution is just a word; it can't explain anything. I get annoyed at this endless personification of the word evolution. (In our day it's word that means a thousand and one different and often contradictory things.)

Notes;
1. How Useful Is Evolution Theory? Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/07/2008
2. I called Lepage's article hack writing because it's meant to confuse people, and because it's part of this project to portray evolution is false ways. (e.g. to portray it as a useful theory in practical, every day science. In my opinion this is fallacious, and amounts to deliberate myth making.)
3. No creationist denies mutations, or loss of function that result from mutation. (The doctrine of the Fall was around for millenia before Darwin hopped out of bed.)