It seems the apparently simple question of "defining biological evolution" is not understood by the people asking for it, as TOTTF has been asked for two different things.
First, he was asked for a definition of biological evolution. He was subsequently asked for a definition of the theory of evolution. It would be extremely useful to get answers to both of these, but they should not be confused.
As an aside, why is it that when people are asked to define a process that they do not agree with, they feel a need to preface it with "a belief held by some people that"? Do they feel a need to attempt to devalue it with such a statement, knowing that they can't actually devalue the idea itself?
As for what science was valid before peer review, anything that was done with rigourous methodology was good science, anything that allowed bias to enter the process was bad science. Peer review could be seen as a method of checking methodology rather than actual results, though of course that is far too simple.
Consider Newton. We all know his work, but what about the stuff he did with alchemy? Not everything Newton did was good, not everything was bad. The good stuff emerged when he worked solely with the facts at hand and did not let bias enter in.
First, he was asked for a definition of biological evolution. He was subsequently asked for a definition of the theory of evolution. It would be extremely useful to get answers to both of these, but they should not be confused.
As an aside, why is it that when people are asked to define a process that they do not agree with, they feel a need to preface it with "a belief held by some people that"? Do they feel a need to attempt to devalue it with such a statement, knowing that they can't actually devalue the idea itself?
As for what science was valid before peer review, anything that was done with rigourous methodology was good science, anything that allowed bias to enter the process was bad science. Peer review could be seen as a method of checking methodology rather than actual results, though of course that is far too simple.
Consider Newton. We all know his work, but what about the stuff he did with alchemy? Not everything Newton did was good, not everything was bad. The good stuff emerged when he worked solely with the facts at hand and did not let bias enter in.