The Definition for the Theory of Evolution

Hi RAZD,You probably won't find my comments too useful, but I was still interested in the topic, and I had a small thought.Your definition; and the Forum definition, would probably not cause the fundies to lose any sleep. This one would.I suggest you put it all out there on the table so that there can be no misconception.I also have found it useful to dwell on BIG changes happening one small step at a time. Much of the doubt arises when us neophites try to think on a large scale. Macro evolution, if I understand genetics rightly, is something which occurs on a 'micro' level.I guess I am wondering if your def. is for those 'in the know', or for the average layman?

Yeah, point taken. I was going to say that the abiogenesis reference should be removed.The common ancestry part seems a little more important.I am not suggesting that anyone TRY to cause insomnia...but decent with modification is not the thing that creationists contest. That is easily observable. To ensure no oversight, it must be clear that macro evolution happens.The best means I personally have found for understanding, is in breaking things down to the smallest level. That is not conclusively common ancestry, BUT the possibility of common ancestry, with modification, seems to make the most sense. Similar ancestry would probably suit as well, but it is up to you guys to decide which is more plausible.

So would you say creationists are more afraid of the implications of evolution, than the theory, and that a definition should not reflect anything which is a plausible inference? I'd agree with that. Right, so it should be clear that decent with modification CAN explain all diversity on earth.Anyway, don't take me too seriously.

The theory of evolution unifies what is observed in nature. That may just so happen to exclude the views held by some Christians, like special creation. There is no need to mention that in any definition. It is accidental, marginal, irrelevent. It is perhaps even pompous to suggest that science is particularly interested in Christian beliefs.Still, I would not have a definition beat around the bushes about the ToE's ability to make special creation false. That would not be doing it justice. This is why I said that 'decent with modification' could be further expounded.

Of course it doesn't rule out God. It just rules out some ideas of what God did, or how. It rules out the God of some Christians' belief.