Definition:
Evolve (verb): to develop gradually to a higher or more advanced state.
That is an accepted standard conventional definition of the word “evolve,” from which the noun “evolution” is derived.
Definition:
Evolution (noun): the gradual development to a higher or more advanced state.
Now, if one believes in evolution, then one believes that humanity is a product of such a gradual process. That is, in the very distant past, there was some kind of primordial soup of unaccounted-for origin that contained within it some kind of entity that was the only “living” thing that had ever existed. (We leave behind for the present discussion the issue of how any entity at that juncture can be described as “living.”)
Then that one-celled “living” thing evolved – developing gradually, over immeasurable time, by some seemingly feasible process, to the higher, more advanced state which we now think of as The Human Race.
Question:
By what standard do we humans now count our current state of development to be an improvement or “advancement” beyond that one-celled “living” thing that supposedly started out in the primordial soup? One might say it is obvious that any human being in the current epoch is clearly superior in every recognizable way to a mere primordial cell.
But…
Really?
By what rational standard is such an evaluation to be made? A “religious” one, the credibility of which we have already dismissed? A “scientific” one, based on supposedly objective data that has been gathered and evaluated by the very subjective mind that was formed by the process it is examining?
Using only tested, confirmed, objective criteria, can you prove beyond objective reasonable doubt that contemporary human cultures are more sophisticated, practical, or valuable than a convocation of “living” cells in a petri dish?
If you cannot do so, then you do not believe in evolution in its conventional sense. Rather, at a minimum, you believe in what is called “intelligent design,” a term typically used by those who want to retain credibility in both scientific and Christian settings. You believe, however feebly, in some sort of Will or Personality behind the whole thing.
How can I say with confidence that you do not believe in evolution in its conventional sense? Here’s how:
• You make an assumption, unproven by scientific methods, that contemporary human cultures are more sophisticated, practical, and valuable than a culture of “living” cells moving around in a petri dish.
• You make this assumption based only on comparisons of value that seem obvious to you, but which cannot be objectively demonstrated except to those who share your unproven subjective unscientific assumptions. Comparisons of inherent moral or ontological value are not within the purview of the scientific method.
• Outside of a biblical (or perhaps to a lesser degree, another (“religious”) viewpoint, compelling scientific arguments cannot be made in support of a proposition that a culture of “living” cells moving around in a petri dish is inferior in various ways to conventional human cultures. Science cannot prove the relative value of two entities using only the scientific method. Thus science demands reconsideration of biological evolve-olution.
Tags: polemicisms
Fragments 
Further discussion is welcome...