How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

You have the same privelage. IT would make you agnostic or perhaps a deist. No concept or idea on the origin of life includes it evolving from nothing. Even if it did - that would not be the kind of evolution discussed in the theory of biological evolution. 'Nothing' is not a biological concept. No - it would change our conception of natural history but it would not change the mechanisms we have discovered that lead to the change in populations over time. Those mechanisms are called the theory of evolution. So ToE would not change, natural history would.

I've never met a creationist that didn't! It's natural history they have the beef with.

Nobody believes in the ToE - scientists believe that it is the most complete and consistent scientific theory to explain how populations change over generations. One of the mechanisms is that chance variations occur that change populations over time. To not believe that this is one of the mechanisms of change would require one to believe that genetic science is completely wrong, that genes either don't mutate or that their mutation does not affect populations over generations.Naturally, knowing about all of the proposed mechanisms and how they work is beyond most people's interest levels. If you feel you'd like to learn more about them, there is a wealth of information out there for you. You may come to the conclusion that the theory is the best explanation for explaining changing populations though you may still disagree with just how much change is possible using the mechanisms described within.As I said earlier, that populations change is not under dispute from most creationists. That the mechanisms can account for most of that change is not usually in dispute from creationists (though it is by IDists - it's their sole argument in fact), the only real issue is how much change has occurred?

No, it is not the only theory. Lamarckism is another theory for example. However ToE is the most complete and consistent scientific theory to explain how populations change over generations. That is not a scientific theory though. That's a theological theory. Well - actually it isn't proven - we don't have a testable definition of a kind. So we can't test the hypothesis. So it isn't close to having been proven. Agreed. As I said 'the only real issue is how much change has occurred' Which is nothing to do with a biological theory of population change. Which is nothing to do with a biological theory of population change, unless we define populations in such a way to include entities which are not living.So, basically you agree with me that you accept the ToE, you just disagree with both the consenus view of natural history and that the ToE can account for the changes proposed by the consensus view of natural hisory.

And as we established, nobody believes in the theory of evolution. What I said was different. I said "So, basically you agree with me that you accept the ToE" You are employing selection, recombination, possibly mutation, to cause allele shifts in the population which leads to change.So you are using mechanisms contained within (or rather described by) the ToE to engage in some population change (evolution). This confirms that you actually accept the ToE. Unless you have some other explanation that does not appeal to the ToE? No - that is a fact. We need a theory to explain that fact. How do you explain these changes?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Welcome to EvC - always glad to see a new 'face' around here! I honestly don't understand the question. The Special Creation Theory should be scientific if it is going to be taught in a science class room. It isn't scientific because its mechanisms are untestable. Hopefully that satisfies your curiousity

Theories explain things. Can you guess what theory is used to explain anatomy? The theory of...evolution!Genetics of course, was synthesised with Darwinism to forge the neo-synthesis...which was the the accepted theory of evolution for a long time (I hear that other mechanisms being added to the explanation has caused some people to contemplate the theory is sufficiently far from the original neo-synthesis to warrant a new label to differentiate them).Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.