As to the defining of evolution, your response is certainly evocative of our post modern era. I’ll assume your widely read re science history, and that you know that in decades past such a definition would not have been warmly embraced, and poor Darwin would be left looking askance at you. I have made the point that when a theory explains everything, it explains nothing.. you are certainly free to change the parameters of your own thinking, or the requirements of what deserves your belief. But your definitions are not universal, nor your methods for all time.. Darwinian evolution, i grant, has evolved itself, but not for good reasons. It is for lack of evidence and not the plethora of it that has sprouted all of these variations and definitions, what is now considered evidence of evolution. And apparently it is just about anything at all. This is not a good sign for the field. Many recognize this, including, of course, those who have abandoned it. Go back fifty years and you had evolutionists and creationists. Now you have deistic, theistic, atheistic, evolutionists, creationists, progressive creationist (or theistic evolutionists), and intelligent design. While one way, i guess, of looking at this is that it is a sign of healthy dissent, another way, the way i look at it, is , sorry for borrowing a phrase, evolution is a theory in crisis. Now to those who were enjoying a warm dinner or after dinner nightcap aboard the Titanic topside, there appeared to be no reason for alarm. Those below knee deep in water knew differently. And all the charts, all the assurances that all was well were not going to change the fact that the old girl was going down.