Why do theists reject evolution?

Now, you have a talking dictionary to prove that a word exists. Would you like a list of words in the dictionary which refer to things that do not exist?
The "thing" to which you refer by that label continues to remain unclear.
Suppose the "thing" did exist, of what would it consist that can be rejected, without rejecting any other aspect of evolutionary science?
A short summary of the central concept would suffice.

What, exactly, do you reject? In a nutshell.
So when anyone says “darwinism” you know what they mean.
In my experience, proponents of evolution very often present it as contrary to creation. I don't know why they'd do that.
In my experience, they have not done that. They have generally not said anything about "creation". However, they have countered arguments, honest and ignorant, as well as bogus and contrived, against evolution.
In my experience, proponents of evolution don't usually start arguments about creation, whereas, creationists do often start arguments about evolution.
I know why they would do that.
So when anyone says “darwinism” you know what they mean.
Yes, I do know that.
What I'm asking is:
Suppose the "thing" you call Darwinism did exist - of what would it consist?
A short summary of the central concept would suffice.
What, exactly, do you reject? In a nutshell.
In my experience, proponents of evolution very often present it as contrary to creation. I don't know why they'd do that.
In my experience proponents of magical sky daddies very often present it as contrary to Darwinism and the theory of evolution.
The notion that one type of animal eventually becomes a completely different type. Eg: whale evolution.
Macro as well as micro Darwinism evolution is a fact, whether or not you accept it.
The notion that one type of animal eventually becomes a completely different type. Eg: whale evolution.

Why is such a well evidenced process so difficult for you to accept Jan.

I know you think the cartoon re the Fido to Willy is silly but try and think of the reality as if each frame of the cartoon represented the creature as it was for thousands of years, one gradual change in just one male or female that their offspring had that eventually showed up in all the line...Are you at least able to follow how an animal will change over time...say apes... some staying in the trees and when they walk use all limbs continue that way for thousands of years yet some move away and find the trees in their homeland disappear gradually and they have need to walk upright to look for predictors in the long grass..the ones who stand tallest end up surviving over the families that don't manage as well...and these changes although gradual finally mean that we end up with two different species...the only thing that is a problem is you think that process goes against what you interpret from the Bible. Change your interpretation and you will find you can have the Bible supporting your dawinism..let's face it Jan take the book of relevations...you can't take it literally and think of how it becomes interpreted...I say the Bible supports evolution and introduces the concept of mass extinction via the flood story..you can find what you want..wouldn't it be nice if you found that all the stories, the anologies, clearly support the science and the science supports your stories.
I can't see how you can read Noah's flood and not see the message...and the message is Darwinism...
In my experience, proponents of evolution very often present it as contrary to creation. I don't know why they'd do that.

Perhaps the proponents of Creation via god did it started the ball rolling

And again Creation is totally seperate from evolution

But I am sure you know that

So that adds to the mystery.
In the mythology of its origin, there is no mystery. The gods had all the attributes they copied onto the humans. They ate, drank, fought, debauched and fornicated like mortals.
Artistic licence speaks to god NOT having nipples but thinking he would look better with them???
In the joke: not necessarily. Artists rarely make their self-portrait more attractive than they are in life; usually the opposite.
However, if were to think the best of this creator-god, we might imagine that he knew the mortals would eventually engage in sex-play and wanted to give them reciprocal toys. A truly dedicated artist might even fashion a pair of breasts for himself - just because.
I know you do.

How is referring to what you believe as darwinism, childish and pedantic?

It's not what I believe, it's what I understand, big difference.

Evolution is a theory built on what Darwin started over 150 years ago and since then has evolved and expanded to include things Darwin didn't know at the time due to the lack of technology such as the field of microbiology, so we call it Evolution. Darwinism refers to mostly what was written in his book, "On the Origin of Species".
How is referring to what you believe as darwinism, childish and pedantic?
Because you ignore the hard irrefutable overwhelming evidence that tells us [us being average intelligent people] that it is fact.
Most normal level-headed christians accept the evidence that it is fact.
How is referring to what you believe as darwinism, childish and pedantic?
The pedantic part was listing all those citations that simply repeat the same simplistic definition.
The childish part is insisting on a word that's inaccurate in any context and that you yourself can't explain.
("e.g whale evolution" may be a very small nutshell, but is not a summary of scientific concepts)
Exactly. Whale EVOLUTION. Not Darwinism. You have finally figured this out.

I think it is best to use Dawinism back at people like Jan simply to diffuse their agenda which is getting a bite from using the word.

Things are back firing on him all over and there is nothing he can do.

And look how Jan slipped up saying whale evolution... he is becoming impotent... run out of puff and forgetting the cults tactics.

Jan Ardena:

You say that you accept "evolution" but reject "Darwinism".

Do you accept that "Darwinism" is a theory that attempts to explain why evolution occurs?

Seeing as you reject "Darwinism", but accept "evolution", do you have some other theory as to why and how evolution occurs? Or do you just believe that it occurs and you don't know anything about the process?

Your own definition of "Darwinism" seems to be this:
The notion that one type of animal eventually becomes a completely different type.
You quote this definition quite often when you talk about "Darwinism". I have also noticed that you often drop the capitalisation of Darwin's name, writing "darwinism". Is there a reason for that, or is it just a careless slip you make? Is "Darwinism" the same as "darwinism", or are they different for you?

Your definition of "Darwinism" strikes me as a very imprecise one, especially since you apparently can't explain what the phrase "type of animal" means to you. Biologists, for instance, use terms such as "species", "family", "genus", and so on, which all have fairly specific agreed meanings. But what is this "type" you keep mentioning? Is it the same as a species, or different? I get the impression that your "type" is wider than a species, because you class dogs and wolves into the same "type", don't you?

"Darwinism", as I understand it, never mentions "types", but you describe "Darwinism" as the notion that one type turns into another.

Do you understand what it is you are rejecting? If so, can you tell us, beyond giving us a label?

Let's work through the definitions in your list above, because doing so might help you to identify where your point of disagreement lies, rather than this sort of vague waffling you've been doing for years:

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin(1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.
This definition talks about species, natural selection, inherited variations and the abilities of individuals.

Do you reject species? Natural Selection? Inherited variation?

If you reject "Darwinism", I assume you must take issue with one or more of these things. Tell us which ones you disagree with and why.

Darwinism, theory of the evolutionary mechanism propounded by Charles Darwin as an explanation of organic change.
This one doesn't help us drill down, since the no particular mechanism is mentioned in the definition.

I assume you don't reject "Darwinism" just because you don't like Charles Darwin the man. It isn't that, is it?

Darwinism, the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.
This one mentions only "natural selection".

Is natural selection the thing you reject?

Darwinism: a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent
Here are some more possibilities.

Do you reject one or more of: variation? Natural selection? The idea of new species?

Darwinism, the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.
Do you reject: descent? variation? parents? natural selection? adaptation?

Darwinism, a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms have developed from other species, primarily through natural selection. Also called Darwinian theory .
I'm sensing a common theme in most these by now, aren't you?

Those words "natural selection" come up repeatedly in definitions of "Darwinism", although they are notably absent from your own posts about "Darwinism".

Is it natural selection that you reject, then? Is so, tell us why.

Let's hope this helps focus you a bit, Jan.
And what would make you think that my answer is in any way limited to literal-minded fundamentalists? Do you think those comprise "most" theists?
Did you read my previous post where I discussed "most theists"? If not, perhaps now would be a good time. Otherwise, a good time to review to refresh your memory, perhaps.

I notice you avoided answering my question, too. Why?

I my experience, when both are brought up together zero effort is made to distinguish the two and often evolution is used to argue in favor of abiogenesis. Your mileage may vary.
Interesting. In your experience, how is evolution used to argue in favour of abiogenesis?

Regardless, evolution has long been used to argue against God and creation. I doubt you can deny that.
It is apparent that God is not needed to explain evolution. If you consider that an argument against God and creation, then I agree with you.

There are presumptions that need to be made to accept a theory of evolution that explains as much as most purport it does.
Like what? What are you thinking of?

That doesn't mean that aspects of it are without evidence.
Good to know that aspects of evolution are not without evidence!

Actually, I'm interested to know your own position on evolution, Vociferous. You're another theist data point. Do you accept evolution or reject it? If you reject it, of course I'm interested to find out why, seeing as that's the thread topic and all.

If abiogenesis did not occur, there is every reason to expect science will not crack it.
There's every reason to expect that it occurred, though, isn't there?