So much for trying to spark intelligent debate. Just for grins, let's try one more time. We'll start with a definition. Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years. A more precise breakdown of this statement divides the "atoms to people" transition into four realms:
1. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the universe (the "Big Bang" theory fits under this heading).
2. Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms from inanimate matter. This part of the theory of evolution is pure speculation, as it has not (despite much effort) been duplicated since it supposedly first happened.
3. Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species change through time. There are many published examples of speciation, if by the development of a new "species" we mean the development of a new population of individuals which will not breed with the original population to produce fertile offspring. Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists (the Pope, included), dispute.
4. Macro-evolution or general evolution refers to the progression to more complex forms of life. The mechanisms of macro-evolution, including whether or not micro-evolution over a long enough time leads to macro-evolution, can be regarded as a "research topic" (Berra 1990, 12). This part of the theory of evolution has also never been observed, but only postulized based on fosil records.
Now, which part of the above do you disagree with, and what do you base your disagreement on?
