I am just responding to subbie's original post about whether or not I know "what evolution is" and "what is being preached as evolution." This is my first post on this board so I don't know if 'creos' is an agreed upon term for those like myself who believe in a Creator but I will admit that I prefer to think of myself as a scientist.
Let me preface my comments by saying that whether or not there is an official "theory of evolution" or not (in my experience in the scientific community it tends to be more of a general convergence of ideas on certain key points rather than a codified sort of thing) there is enough controversy surrounding the topic and people on this message boards are from diverse enough backgrounds that it would be foolishness in the extreme to even attempt a discussion of the subject without first agreeing upon the definitions of terms. I agree with subbie that is would be counterproductive to argue against evolution based on what it doesn't say. I further contend that what evolution 'says' depends upon the evolutionist you ask and so it would be much more productive to argue against a particular idea or against a set of beliefs held by a particular individual whose beliefs are well known (set out in a book, paper, post, etc...).
I am not going to source my comments because I am limiting my definition to the convergences of ideas that I mentioned previously. Someone who believes in evolution will likely hold some but not necessarily all of these beliefs. I will list them in the order of what I think are the most widely held and well established beliefs first.
1.) Natural selection and genetic mutation work through a variety of mechanisms to bring about biological change in a breeding population over time. These changes include: changes in allelic frequency for a certain biological trait, introduction of new biological traits by alterations in the genetic code, and loss of old biological traits through alterations in the genetic code. This is commonly referred to as microevolution in some circles and is, I think, scientifically established as true. This is primarily biological argument.
2.) The mechanisms of number one, at work for extreme periods of time are capable of producing and did historically produce, starting from a common, typically unicellular ancestor, all of the biological diversity that we observe on earth at the present time. This is commonly referred to as macroevolution. It is at this point where consensus on the exact pathway taken by evolution begins to diverge both mechanistically (between say punctuated equilibrium and neo-darwinian evolution) and historically (between various attempts at tracing out the exact flow of evolutionary development). This is both a biological and geological argument at present.
3.) The unicellular organism arose at some point in history and in some form from non-life. Commonly referred to as abiogenesis. This is an argument for biology and chemistry. The theories at this point are extremely diverse and not well-established.
4.) The Big-Bang Theory of the origin of the universe. Primarily and argument for physics.
5.) The universe as pre-existant. The philosophical debate underlying everything and one reason I believe that I don't have to reject science in order to believe in a Creator.
I don't know if that answers subbie's question as to whether or not I know what "the ToE says". But I do believe that it demonstrates that as a certifiable 'creo' I at least have a grasp of both the key points of the debate and some of the science that underlies it.
™ Version 4.2
