The definitions you point to are not the actual definitions used. Responding to the last part first, the colloquial sense of the 'theory of evolution' extends it far beyond its reach. Evolutionary theory refers exclusively to the change in organisms over generations. The origin of life itself is a separate matter known as "Abiogenesis", and planetary formation itself is a matter for many fields (geology, astrophysics, chemistry, etc) but Biology is not among them.Redhawkmillenium said:Let me make a distinction first:
The "theory of evolution" as in the hypothesis that animals do adapt (not did, but do) to their surroundings through generations by survival of the fittest is one thing. With regards to that, creationists/IDers like to use the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution are adaptations that bring traits in a population that already existed (a longer or shorter beak, for example) and simply make it more common or accentuated. This uses genetic information that already exists. Macroevolution are adaptations that create traits in a population that didn't exist at all before (a reptile suddenly developing feathers, for example). Macroevolution is the result of genetic information appearing that was not present at all in the population beforehand.
Microevolution is observable and is essentially a scientific fact; no creationists or IDers worth their salt will tell you that animals don't adapt and change to their environment. What they will tell you is that we have never observed conditions in the wild that would cause new, never-before-seen genetic information to appear in population. There are reasons one might lose genetic information, but not gain it. This IMO makes the macroevolution side of the theory of evolution tentative at best, and certainly not on the level of the theory of gravity. I can let go of an apple in front of me and observe it drop. No one has actually observed a change like fish turning into reptiles or reptiles turning into birds and mammals.
In a colloquial sense, though, the "theory of evolution" refers to the entire idea that the earth is billions of years old, life developed from some sort of primordial amino acid soup, and then slowly over the course of millions of years evolved into the life we know now. This is not a scientific theory that can be observed, tested, or repeated (and thus isn't even comparable to the theory of gravity); this is a suggested history of the world. Scientists start with the assumption that there has been no supernatural involvement in the development of the world, but they know life had to develop somehow. The proposed idea that life evolved slowly over time is the explanation for how life got to be how it is. The thing is, I reject that premise from the beginning. I don't think that there was no supernatural involvement in the development of the world. Without that premise, I simply have no reason to believe in an evolutionary history of the world over the history recorded in the Bible.
Additionally, the claim of our inability to test/observe evolution is wildly overstated largely due to a misconception that testing must be conducted in a lab or in-real-time. Truth be told, while such testing is very useful, it is far from required. At its core testability only requires that you be able to predict results with a reasonable level of accuracy. Mind you, a prediction does not have to be of a future event, but can take the form of piecing together the past, much as is the case with the Forensic Sciences we employ to catch criminals. And Evolution certainly isn't lacking for predictions like that.
As per the 'no supernatural' bit...that's a foundational rule of logic in general. One cannot assume that your observations are due to a force that by definition exists outside our means of comprehension. At the risk of seeming snide, invoking the supernatural is quite literally to suggest that we stop searching for answers because one (or more) people suggest that we can't understand it. Cultural bias aside, there is no qualitative difference between "Jimmy is sick because he's possessed by a demon", "Jimmy is sick because God is angry at him", "Jimmy is sick because Ms. Frizzle cast an evil spell on him", and "Jimmy is sick because he's allergic to his best friend Harvey, the 6'3.5" invisible rabbit". The very reason that we've succeeded as well as we have in the world is because we do NOT go around insisting that things fall because some intelligent undetectible force wills them towards the ground, that there's a physical reason for the combustion that powers our engines, and that chemistry is not some mystical magical study, but has predictable results based on how various elements interact with one another. This is not to say that a man cannot be religious, mind you, but that the assumption of the supernatural as the solution to a problem is exceptionally rare and in practice is usually reviled even among the religious due to its equally exceptionally poor track record (see faith healing as a primary form of medicine as a case in point).
Moving back to the earlier point though about macro/microevolution, I actually had a post earlier in the thread about that which might help to clarify a few things. Let me just go ahead and quote it:
Asita said:...Hate to break it to you, but that characterization of 'macroevolution' is hardly what the term means. Quite literally, by scientific standards macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over many generations. Personally, I think the old paintbucket analogy works very well for this, but I think this image works just as well.Ragsnstitches said:I say that Macroevolution is "theoreitcally" possible in regards to huge change which could happen without the need for long periods of time and many minute mutations... it's just highly unlikely. This is coming from the original comments line about frogs growing 7 legs as result of exposure to a toxic environment. While in that case the frogs are liable to die off, it is very much possible, though highly improbable, that such a significant change in a short space of time could be ultimately beneficial. Heck, plants have been used to observe speciation in a single generation, which means that Macroevolution can happen, though I haven't found records of how successful these knew species are over their parent species which makes it difficult to class as an evolutionary leap... just a drastic mutation.
To reinterate what the image said, every minute change in color could be considered a microevolutionary change, whereas the process of changing from red to purple and then purple to blue (or red to blue, if you prefer) is best equated to macroevolution.
What you refer to is closer to 'punctuated equilibrium' than macroevolution, but even then the timescale seems...well, hollywood-esque for most intents and purposes.