I agree with this sentence if you are using the word "evolution" in the generic sense, i.e. meaning (roughly) "change". Obviously populations of critters change over time, and have done so in the past.
The problem is that's not the definition which relates to this discussion. This kind of dishonest definition-shifting causes much (though not all) of the confusion in this debate. Let's try to stick to the original, relevant definition, shall we?
The "theory of evolution", if you want to call it that, can be loosely summarized (I guess) by the statement "all life is a product of random mutations and natural selection". This is a very interesting statement for which there is certain evidence (and heck I may even accept it as the best explanation available) but it's a theory for how life, in all its varieties, has arisen.
And that's all that will be stated in the disclaimer: "that evolution is a theory".
What's the problem?
The claim that the opposition to evolution is not based on religion is a shallow legal fiction--a bald-faced lie. No one is fooled.
P.S. This,like several other of the sentences you wrote to me, has very little relevance to our discussion. I don't know what you are referring to here. Certainly not anything I wrote.
The confusion of course is intentional. Evolutionists do not want to state exactly the terms of the theory of evolution so they can dance around and cover all the bases. A good example of this is punctuated equilibrium. When their precious bones showed that there were no intermediates, they made up (out of whole cloth) the theory of punctuated equilibrium. So if there is graudal change, they call it evolution, if there is sudden change, they call it evolution also. This is a very deceitful manner of argument and also makes evolution impossible to disprove.
Go back far enough, and the smartest and most complicated thing around is a simple unicellular, or maybe a slime mold. Then you have sponges and so forth. If you want to call the voyage from then to now "change" rather than "evolution," then OK, but I don't see how it helps you.
The problem is that's not the definition which relates to this discussion. This kind of dishonest definition-shifting causes much (though not all) of the confusion in this debate. Let's try to stick to the original, relevant definition, shall we?
How about, "Let's try not to tap-dance away from the evidence." There is an incontrovertible convergence of independent lines of evidence that evolution has occurred.
The "theory of evolution", if you want to call it that, can be loosely summarized (I guess) by the statement "all life is a product of random mutations and natural selection". This is a very interesting statement for which there is certain evidence (and heck I may even accept it as the best explanation available) but it's a theory for how life, in all its varieties, has arisen.
That is the essential mechanism, although you can also include neutral drift. There are also detailed scenarios and patterns of speciation (allopatric, sympatric, polyploidy, etc.), which are a related but separate topic.
And that's all that will be stated in the disclaimer: "that evolution is a theory".
Again, you dodge the question of why the perfectly fact-based area of evolution is singled out for a disclaimer and not gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity ... But whether you continue to dodge or not, WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH YOU.
P.S. This [i.e, "The claim that the opposition to evolution is not based on religion is a shallow legal fiction--a bald-faced lie. No one is fooled."], like several other of the sentences you wrote to me, has very little relevance to our discussion. I don't know what you are referring to here. Certainly not anything I wrote.
(Snort!)