Isn't Evolution Just a Biological Theory and Nothing Else?
Darwin's Disingenuous Drones want it both ways. Far too often, we see news reports where scientific "discoveries" are merely speculation about evolution — even when evolution is not applicable, even by their own criteria. Good science is often tainted by attempts to turn something into an "explanation" or the newest great evolutionary breakthrough. And they fail.
On the other hand, post something refuting the Big Bang, or something that is not-directly-biological, or something about abiogenesis, in a creation group, and you'll often get rebuked by owlhoots that say it has "nothing to do with evolution". Sorry old son, but evolutionary thinking permeates and ruins many of the sciences. The Big Bang, abiogenesis and other things do relate to Darwinism. Attempts by the Evo Sith to distance themselves from failed theories are not fooling us.
In fact, theistic evolutionists and old earthers are sometimes called "moderate" or "reasonable" Christians by militant atheists. Why? Because they compromise so much on the Word of God, they agree with atheistic interpretations of the evidence and downplay the authority of the Bible that they claim to believe.
On the other hand, post something refuting the Big Bang, or something that is not-directly-biological, or something about abiogenesis, in a creation group, and you'll often get rebuked by owlhoots that say it has "nothing to do with evolution". Sorry old son, but evolutionary thinking permeates and ruins many of the sciences. The Big Bang, abiogenesis and other things do relate to Darwinism. Attempts by the Evo Sith to distance themselves from failed theories are not fooling us.
In fact, theistic evolutionists and old earthers are sometimes called "moderate" or "reasonable" Christians by militant atheists. Why? Because they compromise so much on the Word of God, they agree with atheistic interpretations of the evidence and downplay the authority of the Bible that they claim to believe.
‘That’s got nothing to do with evolution!’ This is a common response evolutionists give when creationists challenge them to produce evidence for abiogenesis (the idea that life spontaneously arose from non-life). Evolution, they say, is not about the origin of life; it’s only about the subsequent development of that first life form into the vast and diverse array of living things that now populate our world.To finish reading, click on "Evolution: not just about biology".
Of course, it is fair to distinguish between the two claims. However, in referring to abiogenesis as ‘evolution’, creationists are generally not confusing the proposition that life had a naturalistic origin with the proposition that all life is related by common descent. Rather, the point is that concepts like abiogenesis, universal common ancestry, and even the alleged development of stars, galaxies and planets from simpler structures are all connected to each other like intersecting threads in a much larger web of controversy. Our critics may want to arbitrarily limit the scope of the debate, especially when it comes to areas such as the origin of life, in which the evidence is so strongly stacked against them. But ultimately, this battle isn’t just about biology—it’s a battle of worldviews. And as we shall see, leading evolutionist sources themselves often use the term ‘evolution’ to refer to much more than a biological theory of common descent.