Or, the result of a omnipotent Creator who saw ahead of time that man will move beyond “livable” climates

What kind of examples are you looking for? Successful predictions from evolutionary theory? Examples of observations that are most successfully explained by evolution? Examples of radically different organisms that bear ample evidence of common ancestry? I’ll do the best I can to provide you examples for what you are asking, but do bear in mind, this would be somewhat difficult for an actual biologist or paleontologist to explain to a skeptical layman; so much the more so from satisfied layman to skeptical layman… Again, I’ll do my best.

As to why it isn’t called a law — that’s just jargon.. in science a “law” is something that is observed to happen, consistently, every time the conditions are met… it is a statement of observation, not of explanation… A theory is a model that explains that observation… Biological evolution is really closer to a paradigm — it is a framework of many well established theories that explain why we have such unity and diversity of living organisms, and the natural history of those organisms recorded in the fossil record (… also in their genes and molecular machinery). Evolutionary theory also explains and predicts the unique patterns of homology (something like “similarity”) between living organisms.

Tony… Microevolution is scientifically defined as evolution that occurs below the species level… The advent of a significant proportion of blue-eyed persons (within the human species) could be considered microevolution…. Macroevolution is evolution above that level – divergence of two species, or genera, etc..

The terms “micro-” and “macro-” evolution have been largely out of circulation since the 30′s when T. Dozhansky showed that the mechanisms for both were apparently identical.

Adapatation on an individual level really isn’t evolution at all – not even micro-evolution. Your ability to personally adapt to a range of climates is likely the result of evolution… but to do so isn’t an example of evolution… A better example of microevolution is the evolution of DDT resistance in malarial insects… that is a trait that is handed down from generation to generation… those who get it are resistant, the rest will die from exposure to DDT.

And yes, even though you may have blue eyes, you are STILL a human.. If, and only if, people who carried the alleles that make eyes blue only bred together, and the rest only bred together, for a very long time, while other mutations piled up that eventually prevented blue-eyed descendants from mating with the rest of us – at least spontaneously “in the wild”, then we would have two species… and they would still both be closely related enough to consider “human” – a genus-level designation… One might be homo sapiens, while the other might be homo azusapiens… Eventually, their descendents might diverge enough to make their differences qualify for genus level distinctions – as is the case between us and our closets cousins, the other great apes. This is something that happens over hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years… It is rare to observe that magnitude of change during a single human lifetime… yet such changes are abundantly recorded in the fossil record, and in “fossil” DNA….

Okay … now you’re talking more of a “micro-evolution” (Adaptability to changes in one’s environment). For example, I am a native Texan. I moved up to Idaho for almost two years. It was cold. I “got used to it” (adapted to my environment) …. “micro-evolved” … but, I’m STILL a human.

Don’t confuse evolution with adaptability.

But, to explain and predict the observed phenomona we see in the biological world, it has long been settled that evolution gives the most complete and reliable answer.

In that sense, there is no debate.

Can you give me an example? And if this is so, why is is not called the “law of evolution?”

1) Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different things altogether.

2) I believe the Bible to be 100% true and 100% inspired Word of God.

3) One cannot believe the Bible 100% true and the inspired Word of God AND believe in Evolution .. they are mutally exclusive.

But, to explain and predict the observed phenomona we see in the biological world, it has long been settled that evolution gives the most complete and reliable answer.

In that sense, there is no debate.

Kent Hovind probably does not understand that… But whether he does or not, his challenge has nothing to do with the science of evolution… it has to do with his cartoon version of same… By the way, you are aware, aren’t you, that Kent Hovind is among the most dishonest creationists in practice? I never like to recommend creationist pseudoscience to anyone, but I can at least say that some have higher standards of honesty than Hovind… Kurt Wise is about the only one who has enough honesty (not to mention competency) to gain my respect, but even people like Jon Sarfati and Ken Ham look good in comparison to Kent Hovind… I would advise you to steer clear of him.