With evolution I mean “the idea that the complexity and diversity of life was caused mainly by random mutations + natural selection. Using this definition, evolution would be a controversial idea.
That is not the definition of biological evolution. Random mutation is not the sole determinant of genetic variation. There is also gene reshuffling occurring during meiosis and the founder effect, for example.
what exactly do you mean by “evolution”?
I'm using the scientific definition of biological evolution, which refers to varying allele frequencies over time occurring within the gene pools of living populations due to blind, unguided genetic variation subjected to natural selection, which leads to phenotypic changes in these populations over time and descent with modification. This differs from your definition
Sure, and my suggestion is that genetic changes are not always random, and that non random genetic changes play a major role in creating the diversity and the complexity of life, while random mutations play a minor role.
That's an interesting idea. By non-random (undirected or unintended is probably a better term than random), do you mean an intelligent designer? Presently, we have no need of that hypothesis. Although it is possibly the case, there is no reason to believe at this time that undirected, naturalistic processes are not up to the task.
there is a true controversy in the scientific community on whether if random genetic changes and natural selection are sufficient to explain the diversity of life. Most scientists won’t go as far as proclaiming YEC but they would argue that the mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection are not sufficient to explain the diversity of life
I'm not aware of any controversy in the scientific community about the validity of Darwin's theory. The consensus is that it's settled science.
I hear a handful of creationists objecting, a fraction of those who are scientists, But who are you going to take your science from - the community of people whose agenda is to discover how the world works, or people trying to promote a religious idea?
The scientific theory unified mountains of data, accurately predicts things that can and cannot be found in nature, accounts for the diversity and commonality of all life, provides a mechanism that undeniably occurs (genetic variation + natural selection) and has practical applications in areas like medicine and agriculture that have improved the human condition. That's what we expect from a correct idea - it is useful.
Creationism does none of that and can be used for nothing practical. Isn't that the sine qua non of a wrong idea? That was also true about astrology and alchemy, a couple of faith based systems of thought predicated on faulty assumptions that produced nothing of value.
Maybe you disagree. What have the creationists / ID advocates discovered to support their hypothesis? To my knowledge, nothing.
IC is a hypothesis that is currently being developed. It is unfair to call it pseudoscience.
I called ID pseudoscience, not irreversible complexity. ID is predicated on an undemonstrated premise just like astrology, and it is a search to confirm that assumption. That is not science. Science goes where the evidence takes it. Pseudoscience searches for evidence to support an assumption held by faith, a process that introduces confirmation bias.
Science considers all of the relevant evidence dispassionately. Pseudoscience begins with an unsupported premise and then massages the evidence to reverse engineer an argument that seems to lead to the original premise now presented as a conclusion derived from reason applied to evidence, when it is actually no such thing.
Do you know why medical trials are double blinded? It's to help reduce confirmation bias in clinicians and patients, the kind that characterizes pseudoscience.
