Replies

It would be artificial for me to limit my discussion to changes within already living organisms.

Of course it would. If you did that, then you would have to stay on topic, and you can't win this debate by staying on topic.

The term and theory is broader than that.

No. It. Is. Not.

The theory of evolution covers changes within populations of organisms as a means to explain the diversity of species. That's it. It does not cover the origin of the first life forms, it does not cover the formation of the solar system and it does not cover the beginnings of the universe. That you insist upon redefining the theory to cover those three irrelevant topics rather than admitting that you were in error regarding the focus of the theory indicates that you're less interested in the truth and more interested in playing word games so that you can argue against your own strawman definitions of science.

Carl Sagan, high priest of evolution,

Carl Sagan was a high priest of evolution? I wasn't aware that he was even a biologist. Could you justify your claim regarding Sagan? You should start with the whole "high priest" thing, since evolution -- not being a religion and all -- doesn't have clergy of any sort.

preached the whole gospel of evolutionin his Cosmos series.

Specific citations, please?

He started with the big bang end ended with us.

Which means that, at the very most, Sagan offered his opinions on how we came about, starting with the Big Bang, and ending with the theory of evolution. So Sagan believes that the theory of evolution, amongst other other scientific theories and hypothesis, is responsible for the existence of the human species. That does not make the theory of evolution inextricably linked with the theory of the origin of the cosmos. Sagan's words do not define the theory of evolution, and he wasn't even trying to claim that all that he stated was part and parcel of the theory of evolution -- that is your bogus strawman assertion. You're really reaching if you think that we're going to be fooled by this rather pathetic attempt at a semantics game.

He repeated the them over and over.

How so?

This is what evolution is.

Once again, your constant assertion does not make it true. Evolution only covers changes within populations of living organisms. That's it. You've yet to show any credible scientific authority directly citing the formation of the cosmos as a part of the theory of evolution.

Once again, your constant assertion does not make it true. Evolution only covers changes within populations of living organisms. That's it. You've yet to show any credible scientific authority directly citing the formation of the cosmos as a part of the theory of evolution.

Confusing the different definitions of the word "evolution" is not a new Creationist tactic.

For those who have not seen this before, I will recapitulate the essentials:

"evolution" in the broadest sense means nothing more than "change over time." Astronomers talk about "stellar evolution" when they refer to the manner in which stars change their structure and characteristics over time. Musicologist talk about the "evolution of modern jazz music", and so on.

None of these forms of "evolution" have anything to do with biological evolution, which is the observed or inferred changes in species over broad periods of time, as explained by "the Theory of [biological] Evolution."

There is no science course in any reputable science department on the planet that I've ever heard of that teaches that there is a single "Theory of Evolution" that encompasses Cosmology, Stellar Evolution, Biological Evolution, and Musical Evolution.

Assertions to the contrary are figments of the imaginations of overactive Creationsists who are looking to inflate the boogey-man with which they have chosen to do battle.