But I don't wish to argue about/against evolution. It is clear to me that the universe and all its constituents evolve in time and space.
What I want to know is: What is the ordering principle or natural law that accounts for this?
This is precisely the question that modern-day neo-Darwinism refuses to engage. Even though there are voices in other scientific disciplines that strongly suggest that such an accounting must be made -- in order for science to be science, consistent with the integrity of its own methodology.
The life sciences cannot shut its doors to inconvenient facts as adduced by other sicentific disciplies without putting blinders on, and "braces on its brains." FWIW
Science is never a "done deal." It never reaches conclusions that may never be challenged. If it did, it wouldn't be science anymore, but something else entirely.
Karl Marx specialized in that sort of thing: that is, the forbidding of questions. But this sort of thing is not appropriate for people who claim to be scientists.
I honestly lost your argument as I read your post. Not one of us (AFIK) ever said science was static and TOE was an absolute. I do see that from the creationist side however.
It is useless to continue this circular argument when you wont even stipulate that the Theory of Evolution is what it is. You are twisting it into something it has nothing to do with, in order to discredit it.
"What I want to know is: What is the ordering principle or natural law that accounts for this? "
Explain to me what an ordering principle of "natural law" (whatis that?) is? That has nothing to do with science.
I will say that evolution and geography are almost perfectly compatible. In fact, if the geological record conflicted with the Theory and the fossil record it would be a huge problem. (obviously it fits just about perfectly) The Plate tectonics Theory also bolsters evolution. These are scientific disciplines that could cause problems for evolution if they were contradictary.
No matter what scientists who work in this field tell you, you refuse to accept that abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. You refuse to accept that the only thing needed for evolution to work is life that can reproduce. No matter how much you try to widen the scope of the Theory, the definition will remain the same:
In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by changes in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones.
All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record.
Show me where abiogenesis has anything to do with that. PLEASE.
Also, what do you think is responsible for the vast diversity of life on earth? And how would you explain the fossil record? Let's see how well your ideas stand to scrutiny.