What I want to know is this: If Darwin's theory cannot deal with origin problems, then what, really, can it have to say to us about "biology?"
The theory of evolution as formulated by Darwin, by others predating Darwin (Darwin's theory was not the first), or as it is currently understood, does not address the origin of life or nature of consciousness. It strictly deals with how biological organisms developed into such a large variety of forms, and how they continue to change forms (or evolve). It is very good for studying biology. It's not much good for anything else.
The only theory I know of that tries to explain the origin (of everything) is the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't address the origin of life, either.
Plus the other thing that is maddening about it is the theory itself seems to fall almost entirely outside the scope of the scientific method. It is more a historical science (described through a philosophical nominalist filter) than an experimental one....
The theory of evolution very much drives experimental science. I cannot imagine even trying to formulate a working hypothesis if I did not take into consideration various elements of the ToE. I do not think my work would be possible without it.
WHAT various elements of ToE?
When you say "ToE" to me, I instantly think: Theory of Everything (the physicists are going for that). But what you evidently intended was: Theory of Evolution.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with theories of evolution.
I just think Darwin's totally STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN: It classifies man as nothing other than a "clever animal" with "adaptive skill..."
I strongly doubt that is how the Creator thinks about His Creation, individual man somehow being its epitome....
Any questions???
Self-selection error. LOL.
Cheers!