That is a pretty broad definition of evolution. If it is simply change over generations, I don't think anyone would disagree with it....
Creationists don't disagree with evolution because of definitions or facts or logic. They disagree because they're anti-science. You may be too young to remember but creationists used to deny microevolution. I've even heard creationists say that dinosaurs never existed. They've been in headlong retreat from reality for decades and it doesn't look like they'll ever run out of ways to deny science.
quote:ID has no issue with definitions 1-4, is somewhat agnostic on 5, and rejects the validity of 6.
where point #6 was:
quote:6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
If ID rejects what science concludes, that is anti-science.
I asked how the word "selection", which by definition implies doing something, applies to the term 'Natural Selection" when you claim that 'Natural Selection' doesn't do anything.
The word "selection" is modified by the word "natural". The "selection" is a result of "natural" events. The slowest zebras are the ones that get eaten first. It is a "natural" coincidence that the fast-zebra genes are preserved.