You are correct that this is not the only mechanism.There are tons more nuances to evolutionary theory than natural selection. Others can discuss this more, if they like. It’s not my area of expertise, but even in 1995, when I took my evolutionary biology course based on a Gould text, he discussed many others (like the founder effect). It’s interesting stuff!
In regard to other comments above–we have to be really careful, as believers, questioning motivation among others–after all, we agree that we choose to believe what we believe without empiric evidence–presumably, we’re far worse in that way than others.
But they are two separate problems, and talking of them under the one umbrella of “evolution” is both factually wrong and misleading. As @glipsnort said, working biologists overwhelmingly agree that evolution/common descent is a fact. On the other hand, they do not agree on how life originated. Trying to say that evolution is disputed because scientists have not solved the “origin of life” problem is twisting words to give a false impression.
[my own emphasis added to your last phrase]
That they well may be. There are also a lot of non-atheistic scientists who have no problem accepting the first observation there while rejecting the “no God” part.
You are correct that taken as a whole the “goo-to-zoo-to-you” scenario has a whole lot of unanswered and unexplained details, especially the abiogenesis part. The evolution part that already has heritable DNA to work with is where our confidence and grasp of at least some of the main mechanisms has reached certitude - even while there are still many details yet to nail down there too.
So the useful question isn’t “do we have absolutely no explanatory gaps left” or “does 100% of everyone agree on this now” - which is to artificially place a bar so high that nothing could be considered known anymore. A more useful question is: do enough scientists accept and profitably use this as their working model so that it still carries the day over any other rival models that may exist? Not only is the answer an unequivocal ‘yes’ in the case of evolution (which properly excludes abiogenesis), but in fact there aren’t even any other rival models on the table. Not because anybody has locked any rivals out - all contenders are welcome. But because no other model has been put forward that is so predictive and useful as evolution has been.
That is the real hurdle that has stymied anti-evolutionary creationists to this day … the challenge of coming up with something that can outperform the existing model.
I am not twisting words to give a false impression, I am just saying it as I see it. I thought I made it clear when I said I reject the idea that natural selection acting on random chance mutations can produce people from a single cell (or whatever you want to call it). You may be correct in saying that most biologists believe in evolution/common descent. Does this mean, therefore, that evolution (molecules to man) is true?
While those are some of the mechanisms, I think you’d be hard pressed to find any biologist that thinks that the only way genomes have changed is via single point mutations and natural selection. So then that makes you in good company or perhaps them in good company! However, there are some rather convincing tales that we learn from mutations that tell us common ancestry is the best explanation for the patterns we observe. Where exactly did you get the impression that these are the only mechanisms involved in the theory of evolution? Here is a nice summary from @evograd of some of the evidence from mutations (though there are many many examples):
They have a supernatural explanation for life. With regard to the patterns we see in life, it depends on your worldview. Evolutionists see evolution and creationists see creation.
If creationists have an explanation for the patterns we see in life, they’ve been awfully shy about sharing it with the rest of us. By ‘explanation’, I mean a reason why things are the way we see them rather than some other way. For example, when I look at the genetic differences between species, what I see looks exactly like the result of mutations acquired since the two species shared a common ancestor. (I explain what I mean in more detail here.) This is a clear pattern in what we observe. Evolution routinely explains these patterns. Creationism never does. That’s not a case of competing world views providing different explanations for the same data; it’s a detailed explanation from one camp and complete silence from the other.
“But at the same time they are adamant that life came about by some sort of natural process that involved no creator, no God.”
Yet, carry the “process” back far enough and something not part of our current universe and not bounded by the discoverable natural laws and constants happened to kick off the universe and all discoverable natural processes. No matter how hard they try, they cannot disprove God’s existence. I don’t believe such discussions are fruitful.
“Natural selection can only act on what already exists. It is a fine-tuning process but not a creative one.”
As Christians, I don’t believe we ought to confine God’s creative processes or involvement to a narrow timeframe. The Lord of time is not subject to time and the linearity we experience. Otherwise, Moses and Elijah are not on the Mount of Transfiguration because Christ had not yet redeemed them. Doesn’t the sheer abundance of color and form in life reflect the joy of an Eternal Creator?
“Why would creationists be looking for another natural explanation for life?”
Because they have not got one. Those who take a literal/ historical view of Genesis are acknowledging a supernatural origin and creative process, voluntarily bound by time, with some latitude for change either because of or in spite of the Fall (another bone of contention for some, I am sure.)
“With regard to the patterns we see in life, it depends on your worldview. Evolutionists see evolution and creationists see creation.”
If one believes God is using, guiding, and enjoying and evolutionary process of His own design, believes that God is the Creator and that none of us are accidents what, then, do you label him? It is not our worldview that shapes this, it is our theology.
Evolutionists see a common ancestor. Creationists see a common designer. Same facts, different interpretation. Each side convinced that they are right.
If God is guiding the evolutionary process then it’s something other than evolution. My understanding of evolution is that it is an unguided process. It is not logical to have a guided unguided process. With regard to God enjoying evolution, struggling to survive and having to die to make way for others is not very enjoyable for those taking part.
Sorry, but “common designer” is not an explanation for the patterns I’m talking about. Did you look at the data in the link I gave before replying? How does a common designer explain the large number of genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees at CpG sites, for example?
The process is sustained by God. Exactly what that means we aren’t told, just that He sustains all things, Hebrews 1:3. Different people have different ideas on what that means exactly. I also believe science can not detect the presence of God’s guiding hand (they aren’t looking for it in the first place), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Which is why science says it is an unguided process.
I doubt seriously whether anyone alive is able to avoid belief in things they can’t entirely justify. Of course some of us are not so extravagant as to insist on the supernatural but you’ll have to decide whether that is appropriate parsimony or cowardice.
Because they might be scientists? or even just curious?
I may see this a bit differently than Steve does, but I don’t expect creationists [as such] to provide a competing explanation to naturalistic ones. If they did, they wouldn’t be doing theology - they would be doing science. While some may look down on creationism for not being fruitful in this [scientific] way - I do not share in that competition mentality any more than I would criticize my music class for not teaching me how to cook. Science and “naturalistic” explanations are our best attempt to understand physical processes and their patterns. Theology and “creationism” is our best attempt to discern the meaning of God’s presence to and with us and our world. The latter already subsumes (entirely includes) the former and so has no need or obligation to help it out or do science’s job for it.
