Evolutionary Sophistry: The Newspeak of Naturalism

The postmodern age introduced speech regulation and redefinition eerily reminiscent of George Orwell's "newspeak" in his dystopian novel, 1984 and it would seem even science has embraced it. Concepts such as "Regimes of Truth," derived from Michel Foucault's ideas (who coincidentally died in 1984), are mixed with those of Jacques Derrida that claim language doesn't have actual meaning, but rather, words only derive meaning by how they are related to other words. This philosophical concoction has produced the modern "metaphysics of discourse" that asserts the way we speak about things actually shapes what is and isn't true. In other words, whoever controls the words controls the narrative, defines truth, and shapes society. It seems this pedantic game of semantics and sophistry is now being played with the word evolution.

The word itself, though now strongly associated with scientific theories and figures such as Charles Darwin, first emerged in the English language in the early 1600's as a military term. It described certain tactical maneuvers and was derived from the Latin, evolutio, meaning the unrolling or opening of a scroll. It wasn't for another two-hundred years that geologist Charles Lyell then used the term in a biological context to describe the transmutation of species (one species changing into another) in 1832. Ironically, Charles Darwin only used the word once in his entire book On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, instead preferring the phrase, "descent with modification."

However, after Darwin, the term obviously took off and became infused with scientific meaning and connotations, eventually becoming nearly synonymous with the concept of naturalism—the idea that life, consciousness, and the universe itself all came into existence through purely material processes and random chance. Merriam-Webster lists no less than six different definitions of the word evolution, ranging from Darwin's descent with modification from preexisting species, to the general process of change over time, and even the extraction of a mathematical root, as well as more of the original military meaning of a set of prescribed movements.

However, the field of evolutionary biology defines evolution in a very particular and narrow sense as change in the gene pool of a population, measurable as changes in allele frequencies in a population over time. While this may be referred to as biological evolution, one could use the term microevolution interchangeably as it has a nearly identical definition of a change in gene frequency within a population. These are small-scale evolutionary adaptations and changes within species which are observed, documented, and utterly uncontroversial. In contrast, macroevolution, includes the large-scale transmutations of species and body plans hypothesized by scientists, but never actually observed. It is this theory, which posits a branching tree of life where all organisms descend from a common ancestor, that has sparked intense debate, both among scientists and theologians.

But now, it is increasingly common to find that the terms micro and macroevolution are derided by evolutionists as pseudo-scientific verbiage utilized by ignorant creationists and proponents of intelligent design. Some may even assert the distinction between micro and macroevolution is an invention of these antievolutionists despite the fact that the terms were demonstrably introduced to the English-speaking world by evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1937 and have been used in evolutionary biology ever since. It is fair to say, however, that macroevolution is a little trickier to define, and as such, evolutionists and antievolutionists can often talk past one another unless they clearly define their terms.

But beyond evolutionists attempting to dissolve the distinctions between micro and macro, ostensibly to set up a framework where evidence for the former equates to evidence for the latter, they now are attempting to rewrite history in another way and allege that the word evolution has always and only meant changes in allele frequencies in a population over time. In this revisionist history, the military use of the word is surreptitiously erased from time, and the evolutionary or naturalistic explanations for the origin of life and the universe are also quietly memory-holed (another concept from 1984). Without a distinction between micro and macroevolution, this narrative then asserts Lyell's and Darwin's use established the modern definition which has been constrained to those parameters ever since. Evolution, the evolutionists now claim, was never concerned with the origin of life or the universe.

So, when an antievolutionist questions the scientific basis of life coming from non-life, or all matter and energy coming from nothing, the evolutionist now mocks the argument as ignorant of what evolution even is. With this sleight of hand, they take on a condescending tone, and gaslight their opponent, claiming evolution is a proven fact, and has only ever meant what modern evolutionary biology defines it as.

Unfortunately, this redefining of terms appears to be gaining traction even with Christian apologists. While I have a great deal of respect for Sean McDowell (son of Josh McDowell, and co-author of the book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict), in a recent video short he published, he seemed to engage in this tactic. He agreed with the evolutionist in the clip that the word evolution doesn't actually mean what his antievolution opponent alleged, and accused the antievolutionist (likely a fellow Christian) of a strawman argument. But all one has to do is refer to the fifth definition of the word evolution by Merriam-Webster to see through all the gaslighting (whether intentional or not).

Definition number five clearly states that evolution can mean a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena. In other words, the term evolution can be used as a synonym of naturalism, the idea that life, consciousness, and the universe all came into existence by purely material processes. But this usage is suddenly forbidden by the newspeak speech police, who instead insist the definition of the qualified term biological evolution is the only valid use of the the more general term evolution, and to suggest otherwise is sign of ignorance.

But, despite the self-appointed language gatekeepers dogmatically insisting that the word evolution has only ever meant how it is now narrowly defined in the field of evolutionary biology, arguably the most famous and influential evolutionary biologist alive uses the word in the very manner which they claim only the ignorant and uneducated would.

"The great beauty of Darwin's theory of evolution is that it explains how complex, difficult to understand things could have arisen step by plausible step, from simple, easy to understand beginnings. We start our explanation from almost infinitely simple beginnings: pure hydrogen and a huge amount of energy. Our scientific, Darwinian explanations carry us through a series of well-understood gradual steps to all the spectacular beauty and complexity of life."

"A passionate interest in human evolution has developed into an interest in the evolution of the universe."

"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."

Those quotes are from none other than esteemed scientist, evolutionist, and atheist, Richard Dawkins, spanning decades of his career, and taken from both populist books he's written, as well as addresses given to fellow scientists. So, the idea that evolution only means "changes in allele frequency in a population over time," and that is the only way in which scientists have ever intended for it to be understood, is patently false and demonstrably absurd. Dawkins and many others clearly use the term to denote the process of the universe coming into being, with nothing more than matter and energy being responsible for all that we observe, including life, consciousness, and abstract thought and ideas.

The notion that the theory of evolution has never even concerned itself with the question of the origin of life is also absurd. It is certainly true that the study of biological evolution is a different field than origin of life research, but it is often asserted that scientists in the latter group never employ the term evolution to describe their work, and that only antievolutionists conflate these terms either in ignorance or in bad faith. Never mind the fact that these scientists regularly use the term chemical evolution to describe the hypothesized process of abiogenesis (life spontaneously arising from non-living matter). Ignore the fact that the astrobiology department of NASA also uses this term, or the fact that an entire evolutionary origin of life research group is named The Center for Chemical Evolution. No, no, you must not believe your lying eyes, for evolution is only used by credible scientists to mean the changes in allele frequencies in a population over time.

This is why clarifying terms is so important in any discussion, disagreement, or debate between people holding opposing views, as it is incredibly easy to talk past one another and therefore be accused of strawman arguments. This has always been the case, but in the age of newspeak and the metaphysics of discourse, it is absolutely critical. I do not think it would be wise to allow the academic gatekeepers to restrict the definition of words to narrow, ideologically-approved meanings as they are meant (either intentionally or unintentionally) to advance an agenda or support a narrative. However, that does not mean that one should be unaware of how the game is played and fall into an avoidable trap by using broad terminology rather than specificity.

Biological evolution, chemical evolution, and cosmic or physical evolution are certainly bedfellows in the overarching theory of evolution, but they are indeed different arguments and different fields, and conflating them can quickly lead to confusion or even ridicule. This is why scientists and intelligent design proponents like Dr. Stephen Meyer consistently ask the clarifying question, "What do you mean by evolution?" before engaging in debate or addressing an evolutionist's claim. Because while it is true that biological evolution or microevolution is a proven fact, it can be misleading to claim evolution is a proven fact as the word encompasses multiple meanings and connotations even within the scientific community.

When discussing the big tent of ideas sense of the word evolution, it may be better to use the term naturalism instead, but we should not allow the evolutionists to rewrite history and control the narrative, because words have meaning. Yes, language can gradually change or evolve over time, but there is a categorical difference between natural social shifts and social engineering just as there is a difference between gene pool shifts and selective breeding.

Newspeak may be in vogue, and deception, obfuscation, and sophistry may be of some utility in an age of relative truth. But in order to engage in any intelligible communication and the meaningful exchange of ideas in a functioning society, we must do so with charity, clarity, and integrity, lest we devolve into anarchy.