That however is not the definition of evolution.
Andrew: <<The Evolutionist might say (usually a non-scientist) say "Why not adhere
to how scientists use the term?" This is the error of appeal to authority
and it is a total disregard for logic and reason.>>
It is a disregard to logic and reasoning to use an incorrect 'popular' understanding of the term.
Andrew: <<So, why insult our intelligence with blatantly irrelevant definitions, faulty
reason, personal attacks, etc.? The answer is to derail debate and
avoid the evidence. After all, Evolutionists can't censor in all places>>
What did you say about 'insulting intelligence with personal attacks etc ?
Andrew: <<What is the evidence? Natural Evolution itself is illogical (cause and
effect) and contrary to empirical observation. >>
On the contrary, empirical observation strongly support evolution. That it appears 'illogical' to you is merely an argument out of incredulity. Unless perhaps you can make an argument that goes beyond this ?
Andrew: <<Species become extinct, species lose genetic diversity, harmful mutations increase within species. >>
Harmful mutations lead most often to extinction of the individual so I am not sure if you are correct that harmful mutations increase. Could you given an example ?
Andrew: <<And, when the Evolutionist tries to present an observation of Evolution,
he points to something based on his irrelevant definition of Evolution
(e.g. pepper moths),>>
That is evidence supporting the proposed mechanism of evolution, natural selection
Andrew: <<he points to the opposite of Evolution -- the loss of complexity (e.g. sickle-cell anemia), >>
How is sickle cell anemia, less complex ? Me thinks you do not understand what the sickle cell anemia argument is truely about ?
Andrew: <<or he points to the deterministic expression of pre-existing complexity (e.g. the snow flake).>>
Only when confronted by the unscientific assertion that complexity can not naturally increase ? And how is the snowflake a 'pre-existing complexity' ?
Andrew: <<There may be some instances of an increase in complexity in the natural
world, but nothing significant.>>
On the contrary, complexity increases, occur quite often in far equilibrium systems in nature. THeir significance is quite relevant
Andrew: << It is highly absurd to believe that random variation and natural selection can account for the complexity that we see.>>
Argument from personal incredulity. Perhaps you should explain this further as well ?
Andrew: <<In the broadest sense, Evolutionists believe that natural processes create complexity. Creationists believe that intelligence creates complexity. The scientific method is as confirming that Creationists are generally right as it is that the law of gravity is right.>>
Intelligence can create complexity as much as nature can. THere are no limitations to either. So the scientific method shows that creationists are right and evolutionists are more right.