Over at Uncommon Descent GilDodgen has A Modest Proposal. It consists mostly of telling scientists what they think about evolution.
“Evolution” is an ill-defined term. It can mean:This is unbelievable! The standard definition of evolution is in any evolutionary biology textbook and all it takes is a little effort to find it. (If you know how to read.)
1) Change over time.
2) Common ancestry.
3) Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence.
Change over time is obvious and undeniable. Common ancestry seems reasonable to me, although universal common ancestry appears to be in big trouble with mounting evidence that Darwin’s unidirectional “tree of life” never existed. It might have been something more akin to a hologram than a tree, as far as I can tell.
What Darwinists really want us to accept — without question, dissent, annoying logical/evidential challenges, or apostasy — is definition 3), so let me make a modest proposal to substitute it for “evolution,” and reveal the Darwinian bait-and-switch scam.
What I'd like to know is whether there's any evolutionary biologist who accepts definition #3. Not even the most ardent adaptationist would accept such a silly definition of evolution.
Does Intelligent Design Creationism select for people with very low IQ's or does accepting Intelligent Design Creationism just make you stupid?