Creation Corner
Almost everyone has heard at one time or another that "Evolution is a fact." What may be surprising is that creationists agree with that statement, provided that a clear definition of "evolution" has been made.
There are two types of evolution: macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution is what is generally meant when someone mentions evolution. It is the idea that a single cell evolved over millions of years into the many different forms of complex life we see today, including humans. This is also known as vertical evolution, for it involves an upward change from the simple to the complex.
Microevolution is the variation that we see within a basic kind. For example, some basic dog kind, a mutt if you will, has evolved over the years into the wolf, the coyote, the dingo, the huge St. Bernard, and the tiny Chihuahua. Another example is the basic human kind which was personified in Adam and which has evolved into Blacks, Whites, Reds, Yellows, Shorts, Talls, etc. This is also known as horizontal evolution, for it involves great variation all around the basic kind without any upward change from the simple to the complex.
Microevolution is a fact. It is demonstrated again and again in both the field and the science lab. Creationists have no problem accepting microevolution as fact. They do however object to the idea that macroevolution is fact. Many high school textbooks proclaim that (macro) evolution is fact and then trot out examples of microevolution to prove it. Most students are familiar with the textbook examples of the evolution of the black and white moths, or of the horse. But both of these are examples of microevolution. It is bad science to make a leap of faith from factual microevolution to theoretical macroevolution.
For thousands of years animal breeders have been trying to produce stronger, healthier, better animals, whether that means fatter cows or faster horses, and what has been demonstrated time and time again is that there are limits to how much change an animal type can undergo. Over the past 50 years or so, scientists in the lab have been breeding fruitflies to see how far evolution can go, and again, although they get all sorts of variations on the basic fruitfly, they all remain fruitflies. There are definite limits to biological change.
The textbooks may claim that there are no limits to variation, so that new species can evolve from current ones, but the actual scientific data indicates otherwise.
Almost everyone has heard at one time or another that "Evolution is a fact." What may be surprising is that creationists agree with that statement, provided that a clear definition of "evolution" has been made.
There are two types of evolution: macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution is what is generally meant when someone mentions evolution. It is the idea that a single cell evolved over millions of years into the many different forms of complex life we see today, including humans. This is also known as vertical evolution, for it involves an upward change from the simple to the complex.
Microevolution is the variation that we see within a basic kind. For example, some basic dog kind, a mutt if you will, has evolved over the years into the wolf, the coyote, the dingo, the huge St. Bernard, and the tiny Chihuahua. Another example is the basic human kind which was personified in Adam and which has evolved into Blacks, Whites, Reds, Yellows, Shorts, Talls, etc. This is also known as horizontal evolution, for it involves great variation all around the basic kind without any upward change from the simple to the complex.
Microevolution is a fact. It is demonstrated again and again in both the field and the science lab. Creationists have no problem accepting microevolution as fact. They do however object to the idea that macroevolution is fact. Many high school textbooks proclaim that (macro) evolution is fact and then trot out examples of microevolution to prove it. Most students are familiar with the textbook examples of the evolution of the black and white moths, or of the horse. But both of these are examples of microevolution. It is bad science to make a leap of faith from factual microevolution to theoretical macroevolution.
For thousands of years animal breeders have been trying to produce stronger, healthier, better animals, whether that means fatter cows or faster horses, and what has been demonstrated time and time again is that there are limits to how much change an animal type can undergo. Over the past 50 years or so, scientists in the lab have been breeding fruitflies to see how far evolution can go, and again, although they get all sorts of variations on the basic fruitfly, they all remain fruitflies. There are definite limits to biological change.
The textbooks may claim that there are no limits to variation, so that new species can evolve from current ones, but the actual scientific data indicates otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment