Macro vs Micro

One huge advantage that evolutionists have over creationists is that they can adjust their theory continually. Years ago, evolutionists nearly all believed in Uniformitarianism (that all evolutionary processes happened gradually over millions of years). Now most deny that and lean towards Punctuated Equilibrium (the idea that most changes happened in short bursts followed by long periods of relative sameness, followed by the next burst). One of the reasons for this shift was the growing discovery of significant evidence pointing to Catastrophism (that one or more cataclysmic natural events occurred in the past, producing as a by-product, the fossil record).

Creationists, on the other hand, have agreed that their explanation of origins be governed by a series of 66 books, the earliest of which were written between the 16th and 12th centuries BC and the latest of which were completed before 100 AD - the Bible. Christians believe these 66 books, penned by many authors from many different walks of life over perhaps 1500 years, were inspired by God. Although the Bible is primarily a theological book, when it touches on matters of science, it would need to also be accurate, if it is God-inspired. So, in this debate about origins, evolutionists have much room to manoeuvre, whereas creationists do not. But if the Bible is indeed God-given, that presents less of a problem.

Evolutionists believe in Macro evolution, the idea that one species evolved into a completely different one. And they believe that this happened not just once as in the case of humans, but that it happened in multipled cases, both animal and vegetable. Macro evolution is the foundational plank of evolutionary theory. If it did not occur, the argument for evolution crumbles entirely. Suffice it to say, if Macro evolution occurred on this scale, the evidence for it ought to be abounding. There ought to be far more intermediary forms that completed ones. Of course, the problem is where might these intermediary forms now be found? Only in the fossil record, as it is only by the accidental trapping of fossils that any semi-permanent record would have been possible.

The second concept involved is Micro evolution, the concept that within any given species, a large degree of variation is possible, none of which might lead to a species change, but all of which allows the species to adapt significantly to environmental flux. Evolutionists believe strongly in Micro evolution, but so do creationists. Creationists believe that dogs were always dogs, they were never anything else. But within the dog species is possible a terrific amount of variation, brought on by any amount of altered environmental and breeding conditions. Creationists believe this is the case because of the benign forethought of a loving Creator. The Book of Genesis, although written over 3,000 years ago states that God created each creature and plant type according to it's "kind" (Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25) and then lastly created a species, man, also a unique kind (Genesis 1: 26:27). In other words, He created separate, fully developed species from the outset. If this is true, macro evolution never occurred and the theory of evolution as a whole is of course incorrect and should be abandoned, just like Uniformitarianism.

A lot of the argument supporting evolutionary writing muddles up Macro and Micro evolution as if they were part of the same thing. Evidence for Micro evolution is used to support Macro evolution as though they were one and the same.

 

For example, in a recent BBC Science report * regarding the  finding of the above ancient bone at a Kenyan grave site, the single bone is presented as evidence in the context of human species change. Yet the article says " In all ways, the bone - a well-preserved metacarpal that connects to the middle finger - resembles that of modern man". In other words, not only is it not evidence of Macro evolution, it isn't even an example of Micro evolution. Yet the article goes on to say the bone is 1.6 million years old. Why, because any human who used stone implements such as were found in the area, must be Neanderthal and over a Million years old - that is assumed as a given. Evolutionary fossil, object and bone dating is riddled with this kind of age assumption, but that's another topic. The fact is, this bone sample adds nothing whatsoever to the Macro evolutionary hypothesis of species change. It is used in this way simply because this is the widespread evolutionary approach.

Whatever scientists of all persuasions discover in the future about our origins, the goalposts will not be able to be moved for the Creationist. They were set in the Book of Genesis at a time when the Theory of Evolution did not exist, at a time when nobody was trying hard to argue about origins. Genesis was not written against the background of an open power struggle between major belief systems. It was written in a relative backwater, simply in the context of the authors experience and (from the Bible's point of view) out of his personal encounter with God. It stands unchanged after the intervening period. Yet it directly challenges Macro evolutionary belief. Creationists would contend that God knew millennia in advance the battle that would in the future rage for human hearts and minds. So in the Genesis verses quoted above, He made vitally clear statements about that nature of species and against Macro evolution, the central plank of evolutionary belief.

*  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25398642