An interesting assessment there, Richard, given that we have on this forum scientists who worked on the Human Genome Project, biology professors, and even the editor of one of the foremost peer-reviewed academic journals in cell biology.
What about you? What are your qualifications to assess who is a biologist or an evolutionary scholar and who isn’t?
Hopefully by the time you get to this response you will realize you were mistaken.
Also we have all kinds around here. This forum welcomes all opinions, unlike others, and it is not always easy to identify a person’s position based on a few lines of a comment.
Link? Can’t find
Haha thanks!
I said that I might be mistaken, and it appears that I am, so well and good. However, I have not seen the evidence, but that may be because I have not read every single posting. I note that no one volunteered the definitions, but perhaps they considered it beneath them. My own qualifications are dated but I did study Biology up to Collegic level I have tried to keep abrest of modern theory, but have despaired at the Popular assumptions encouraged by the BBC and David Attenborough, who appears to have got more radical as he has aged.
Please accept my apologies for any unintended insults
Richard
Sure thing, Richard. It does point out that when we have been around awhile, we tend to get familiar with the frequent flyers and that leads to assumptions that are not really fair to the newcomers. On the other hand, we tend not to tout creditials too much but rather ask that the arguments themselves be adequate, avoiding appeals to authority unlike some places on the internet. Still it is helpful to know when an argument is backed with a foundation of knowledge.
In any case, that is to say thank you for giving a little personal background on yourself, and we look forward to getting know you better. For myself, I studied biology as an undergrad, and am a semi-retired M.D. in family practice. I like to think the shape of my knowledge is wide but regretfully shallow.
Perhaps we should use the profile function of the forum software more to get to know one another. It is actually hard to find even if filled out.
When I first read your question I wasn’t certain what you were actually looking for. Definitions can sometimes depend on the person giving them, but I like to go to Wikipedia.
If you are looking for something more book length try these. I enjoyed both.
or
I prefer a personal answer which demonstrates their understanding. Wiki is notoriously popular and not reliable
Perhaps I should put my own cards on the table.
The Process of Evolution (As I understand it) is the process of change by which an organism deviates from the parent and this deviation becomes the future norm.
TOE is the extrapolation which tries to get from single cell to human via other organisms using the process of Evolution.
A little simplistic but hopefully clear enough
Richard
We had a long and involved discussion about the definition of evolution a while back that had some illuminating bits. Feel free to re-ignite any of the discussion there if you would find it helpful:
It looks like a discussion of the term “micro” and" Macro" (Evolution) which, were not prevalent when I was studying. I have tended to stick to the process (micro?) and TOE (macro?) The presupposition that anything can be achieved over time is (IMHO) a fallacy. There is a definite limit to the scope of change using the process of Evolution.(again IMHO)
Richard
Would you accept “change in allele frequency in a population over time” as the definition of evolution then?
If I read you right, you think of “TOE” as equivalent roughly to broad questions of macroevolution. That isn’t how the phrase is used by others. You might have better results with clear focus on processes/mechanisms (natural selection, genetic variation, drift, etc) as distinguished from patterns (common descent, evolvability, stuff like that).
No. I think it needs a little more clarification.
Richard
Evolution is applied to populations not individuals. The composition of the population changes over time.
There is a Common Question here that addresses What is Evolution?
Although I accept most of what your statement asserts it is still a little incomplete (IMHO) And too global in its understanding. Darwin’s original theory revolved around “Survival of the Fittest” but for your model to work it would involve mammals lying virtually dormant while Dinosaurs developed and “ruled”. And theistically God would have had to deliberately wiped them out.
As in many things I think that Evolution works on many levels not just as a global principle.
The old fashioned tree may have been broadly displaced by what amounts to a tuft of grass (The commonality being virtually at the roots) but that does not seem to be perfect either and is Theistically unsatisfactory as it removes any sort of control or creative purpose from God. Man becomes a result, not a creation.
Richard
Let me explain my position. Evolution is a process created by God as a part of His creation. Other processes also created by God would be rainfall and nuclear fusion. These processes can be studied by scientists and they will not detect the presence of God. I think this is the way God set up nature. Nature, or natural revelation, will never provide evidence that God exists. For that He provided the Bible or special revelation. So to make my statement complete I believe God directs the process of evolution to produce what He desires with the final outcome being us. So through evolution man has been created.
So mammals were evolving during the age of the dinosaurs but natural selection keep the mammals small so they could survive among the large meat eaters. After God removed the dinosaurs mammals were free to evolve into larger animals. Exactly HOW God removed the dinosaurs is still debated around here.
What do you think?
I think I am with you most of the way. I tend to think that God has a more directed hand in His creation than the rather haphazard Evolution than is usually promoted. There is merit in the “It takes a lot of preparation to make a perfect curry” principle of creating humankind but I am not sure that it goes back as far as first having to learn to boil an egg. (I hope that makes sense)
I think that my view of theistic Evolution is a little more hands on than most scientists (Christian or otherwise) would accept, so am still out on a bit of a limb. However I agree totally in the idea that God cannot be “proved” by creation. God must remain a God of faith so that must also apply to any perceived actions from Him.
(I do not know if there is a thread on this forum about the necessity of God being unproven but would be interested if there was, or would start one)
Richard
When you read anything about evolution you have to consider the source. The process itself doesn’t include God so just remember that when you read about evolution. EC on the other hand does include God which is probably more to your liking.
BTW, EC is preferred over TE by most around here. And there are a range of beliefs about how involved God is in the process. So it is a bit of a big tent.
I have never eaten curry, much less made it, so that doesn’t make any sense. 
To be honest when I look back at the long history of the recipe that resulted in humans I am in awe of what our God has accomplished.
It takes 2 -3 hours to infuse the spices properly. Not something you can rush. And you need to both understand the ingredients and the goal.
Creation is not haphazard.
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.