As I was surfing the web tonight, I stumbled upon an article about how deep the Congo river is: Evolution in the Deepest River in the World. As often happens if the word “evolution” is used, an evolution debate broke out in the comments. I get both amused and frustrated reading such conversations. Both by ignorant or arrogant evolutionists as well as overly simplistic or dogmatic anti-evolutionist. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind disagreeing with evolutionists. I have a honorary evolutionist friend who reads my blog (and will most likely jump on this post) and is now a friend on facebook (you know who you are) who I’ve enjoyed sparing with because he wasn’t arrogant or condescending even as he sharply disagrees with my theology and science – in fact, I’d rather argue with him than many Christians who I find petty or too quick to quote a Bible verse rather than use their brain.
So for the sake of knowing someone will read it, I want to re-post here, my soap-box comment that I posted on the article linked above. Feel free to add your comments below: (I was limited to 2000 characters, hence the brevity)
I love reading these evolution debates… usually they appear on barely related articles, like this one.
I’m glad SOMEONE brought up Micro and Macro evolution, since most people miss that there are two COMPLETELY different types of evolution, and I have to read people arguing and they are usually talking about two completely different ones.
Macro – change from one species to another – never seen or proven. ever.
Micro – changes within a species – YES, a fact and proven. repeatedly.
Christians and non-Christians, no need to argue about this, whether you believe the Bible and love Jesus or think its an old dusty book and Jesus was just a nice guy. Micro evolution is what all evolutionists use for evidence of evolution. only problem is, they tend to argue micro evolution as their proof for macro evolution. This is unfair and wrong.
Christians also, goof up by denying micro evolution when they start quoting the Bible to deny micro evolution (usually because they won’t be quiet long enough to listen to facts about micro) But evolutionist don’t want to admit THERE IS NO PROOF OF MACRO EVOLUTION. NONE. ZIPPO. ZILCH. frankly, its non-sense. but they can’t see it, because they don’t like the alternative, they realllly dont want to end up on the side of those wacky Christians. and that’s where I’m stuck.
I accept both the FACTS of micro evolution and truth of science*, everything that can be DEMONSTRATED and SEEN today, but also have to accept what CANT BE PROVEN, macro, which puts me in agreement with the goofy Christians, who turns out, all the evidence is on their side if you really look in to it with their explanation for creation and the flood & fossil record. I just wish they weren’t so goofy with the micro evolution stuff, and maybe more non-Christians would take a look at their facts on macro side. but then, most people don’t know there are TWO EVOLUTIONS. maybe a few will read this post and learn there are 2.
1) Most non-Christians are right on Micro Evolution but
2) Most Christians are right on Macro Evolution two bad we can’t stop calling names and be objective and get to the truth!
So, there is my rant and contribution to the looooong heated debate on evolution in the public square.
By the way, the world “Science” is thrown around a LOT and I get irritated because it seems a lot of the people who use the word science have no idea what science is. When I say I believe in true science, I am mean as defined by what can be demonstrated, otherwise, it isn’t science, it is meta physics. Anytime someone refers to evolution as science, please correct them. Micro evolution IS science. Macro evolution is not. You can politely say, “Oh, you mean the science of micro evolution? Oh, yes, that is scientific. I have no issue with that, nor does the Bible. But please don’t mix macro evolution with micro evolution. They are two completely different arenas of study. One can be studied and proven, they other can only be speculated and hypothesized to a reasonable degree.”
Make no mistake, there is an intentional effort to mix and confuse the two in secular education and media. The blur is being made on purpose, and we must make sure our children understand the difference. When they do, it helps them not only defend their faith, but in their own mind, separate the confusing messages they see and hear in text books, educational films and in museums. They can constantly recognize, “Oh, that’s micro – I can accept that as true.” or “Nope, that’s macro – that’s just their theory.” They can still learn it, but know its probably contrary to what the Bible teaches and therefore false.
Understanding the difference between Micro and Macro evolution makes all the difference in the world in navigating the Creation / Evolution debate.
Hey Karl, I don’t know if I’m they guy you mentioned, but I figure I’m as close to it as you need for these purposes. You are, unfortunately, incorrect in your assertions about the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. These terms are very rarely used in real evolution research because they, at best, are broad placeholders for what sort of time scale we’re working at. To suggest that microevolution works and macroevolution doesn’t is to suggest that you can walk into the kitchen to grab a glass of milk, but you couldn’t possibly ever walk a mile down the road to buy a new gallon of milk. The processes are precisely and exactly the same in both micro- and macroevolution. The difference is only in how long a time you let them run.
I’m very sorry someone has misled you on the state of the science. I’d love to chat with you at length on it, which I’m sure you know I can. However, I actually have my general exam on Wednesday for my PhD (in evolutionary biology) and I’ve got to get back to studying. I’ll try to chime in more after the exam is over in the hopes of us reaching a better understanding. I’m quite heartened by your acceptance of microevolution, because that means that all which needs to now be dispelled are the misconceptions you’re under regarding it versus macroevolution.
Now … I have to get back to learning what lies we’re going to tell the children next in our evil, global evolutionist conspiracy to cover up the “truth” about creationism. ;)
Josh, you are da man! (Hope you don’t mind)
I approve your comments because:
1) I love that you passionately disagree with me – and argue in the same passionate spirit as I do, but are never rude or disrespectful. Maybe a little sarcastic with your “lies to tell children” but I can hear your tongue in cheek, and I can take it.
Can I make a distinction: I don’t think evolutionists are evil – just wrong. OK? Being wrong isn’t evil. Some might say evolution is evil, but I think that’s kinda unnecessary and overboard. I would say the IMPACT of evolution is evil – if we have no value as humans, we are just an animal, it leads to evil and many young people who commit crimes have pointed to evolution in their reasoning. BUT (i too will be quick to point out, right with non-Christians) that the IMPACT of some religion, even Christianity can be evil too… Crusades? So, I don’t throw the word evil around, its a distraction and a cheap shot I don’t use. I know YOU WEREN’T just saying, I don’t like when Christians do it to non-Christians. Its a cheap shot.
2) I like dissenting opinions. If I can’t approve an opinion that says I’m wrong or misguided – I’m not really on a pursuit of truth. Too many people aren’t willing to listen to those who disagree. That’s why I like that you read my facebook and blog and engage me. Thanks.
3) I too am heartened that we agree! There is hope! We have a common place of agreement from which to start. Hey, contact the Associated Press – Karl and Josh agree! Send out a Press Release!
OK – here’s the heart of the matter: You say, using the milk example, “The processes are precisely and exactly the same in both micro- and macro-evolution.”
The problem is, that is a HUGE ASSUMPTION, which for your reasons, you are willing to accept, and I am unwilling to accept. Using your milk illustration – I have gotten milk from the fridge AND not only from down the street but from a market in Manila, Philippines! So I can scientifically demonstrate the milk can be gotten here AND there – they are BOTH micro-milkology!
MACRO-MILKOLOGY teaches that there was milk before a cow, or that milk somehow slowly formed over a loooooong period of time, but we both know the milk would have spoiled! And no one has ever seen that – it can’t be demonstrated, or proven.
You see, evolutionist use TIME (long periods of it, the longer the better) as their excuse for everything – it is the cushion for everything – “it took millions of years” – its sounds great, but doesn’t hold up. We know from the Second Law of Thermodynamics that things get worse, not better. And even in Micro Evolution, things may change or adapt, but as one of the comments on the original article linked above well stated:
“Although species may change, they do not gain new genetic information. The genes may be arranged differently to produce different characteristics, but there is no information added. The addition of new information is essential for evolution to occur, and we do not have evidence of that occurring. Living things may adapt to the environment they live in, but they certainly do not evolve into something more genetically complex.”
So I stand by what I posted – there is evidence for Micro-evolution (and micro-milkology), but Macro-evolution has yet to produce ANY evidence. (and I’ll be waiting for evidence of macro-milkology too!) :)
(I know you’ve got tests, so I won’t expect a beating for a few days)
Oh Karl, you tempt me so! I cannot hold forth, though you have baited the hook with a veritable smorgasbord of Creationist classics! Micro- vs. Macroevolution, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and No New Genetic Information? All in one post? It’s like Christmas! :)
But, we’ll have to wait to unwrap our presents for a few more days. This is likely to take a while once we get started. Be prepared to define your terms as I’ll be having a number of specific questions for you before long and I don’t want us to waste any more time than we have to in semantic arguments in which we are using the same word to mean two different things.
I’m looking for the evolution of this discussion. Where did it go? How is it not here? Why is it not here? Did it evolve into a whole new species of conversation? Was all the information here to begin with? Was new viral information added and the discussion became more complex? Was this whole discussion planned and designed from The Beginning, or did it just come about by an unimaginably long series of random cause-and-effect mechanisms? Perhaps my questions exist in more than one universe simultaneously, and the resulting translations represent an entirely different set of questions depending upon the universe from which the questions are viewed? Can we construct a nexus between these universes within which we can understand each other and, indeed, understand ourselves? Can we exist in this nexus long enough to get a glimpse of why we ourselves ask the questions we ask? And if I ask “Why?” am I already not partially existing in this nexus, yet deluding myself that I am not?