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?
1 Like
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?
1 Like
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