So much of this debate is discussed in such ambiguous terms. Virtually every creationst, young earthers included, concede that "there is truth in evolution."
"evolution" can mean, simply, "change." Or it can mean "all living things developed in all their aspects by chance over time." Or it could mean something in between. The point is, "evolution" is such a loaded (or sometimes "unloaded") term that it obscures more than it enlightens.
"evolution" can mean, simply, "change." Or it can mean "all living things developed in all their aspects by chance over time." Or it could mean something in between. The point is, "evolution" is such a loaded (or sometimes "unloaded") term that it obscures more than it enlightens.
Only because the creationist side of the debate follows the pattern of denial until the denial is no longer viable, then they attempt to co-opt the science. Time was, the debate centered around the creationist insistence of the immutability of species (i.e., that the species that existed today were the same - unchanged - as those supposedly created by fiat by God.)
Now, as genetic evidence has proved this to be a silly notion, the creationists attempt to say, "Of course we believe in some variability of species, but only within a limit" (i.e., micro-evolution is now okay but not macro-evolution [Of course, macro-evolution and micro-evolution are the same process, plus time, the creationist position requires some method for stopping evolution. None, beyond, I guess, "God did it" has been even suggested.])
Heck, I've even seen an article by a creationist, albeit an opinion piece, stating "Thus, creationists predict and observe ongoing speciation as well as extinctions for those species unable to adapt to the rigors of natural selection" in an article dismissing Darwinism. (Time was that creationists refuse to even believe in extinction, let alone speciation. Moreover, if Darwinism is anything, it is speciation by natural selection, which, unless I read it wrong, this creationist is accepting, while bashing evolutionists.)
If there is any obscuring going on, it is the euphemism shuffle going on with Genesis literalists, er, I mean creationists, er, I mean creation scientists, er, I mean advocates of Intelligent Design, er, I mean whatever the hell else they call themselves these days.
But that is the great thing about science. In science terms mean one thing, and one thing only. Evolution is the theory that the diversity of life arose from a common ancestor due to the variation over time of allele frequencies in populations of organisms. Notice that this statement is neutral when it comes to questions about what drives the process; it simply states what occurs. It makes no mention about randomness or purpose (those ideas are probably beyond the realm of science anyway.) It makes no statement about either the existence or nonexistence of God. It makes no mention of design or lack thereof. It simply states the known fact that organisms change over time and uses that fact to account for all the species that exist. The evidence suggests that the primary mechanism for this process is mutations combined with natural selection, but even if it were shown that this mechanism couldn't account for the diversity of life, it isn't necessarily true that evolution can't account for it via some other evolutionary mechanism. When ID proponents argue that organisms do evolve and speciation does occur, but that there must be design inherent in the process, they are actually arguing in favor of evolution. They simply are injecting a nonscientific idea into the mix, namely the presence of a designer.