Micro-Evolution and the Creation Truth
“MICRO-EVOLUTION AND THE CREATION TRUTH”
“Micro-evolution is not mini-evolution.”
Most Bible-believers get confused when it comes to this “micro-evolution” versus “macro-evolution” thing. And the very worst obstacle to understanding the meaning of these words is – the very words themselves. They are misleading – at least the first one is. They are misleading because they are misused. That is the plain and simple truth of the matter. I will explain.
Evolutionists are fond of citing things that can happen without evolution being true, and then citing those very same things as “proofs” of evolution. This is self-deceptive at best, and outright deliberate lying at worst. They’ll say that since you look different from your grandparents – that’s proof of evolution. And who can deny there are over 200 breeds of dogs? – That’s evolution, they’ll say. And people are taller now than they were a century ago. Aha! – Evolution! If these observable things … were all they were asking us to believe – and that’s all there is to “evolution” – then I’d believe in evolution right now!
But that’s definitely not what they mean when they say the word “evolution.” Theorydoesn’t really only say that humans have changed or that Collies and Dachshunds are cousins. It says that worms became bald eagles, that fish became dinosaurs, and that dinosaurs became chickens, and of course – that people were once monkeys! The slick lie in everything they say about “micro-evolution” is this – “if you just stretch this thing out over hundreds of millions of years – then you can easily see how this makes all the rest of the theory of evolution true, too.” No. It doesn’t.
The processes that made you look different from your grandparents, that made the different breeds of dogs, that made people today taller – honestly have nothing to do at all with any of the processes that would be needed for salamanders to turn into people (which – yes – is a part of their theory)! We could pretend that these processes have gone on for millions, billions, or even trillions of years of time – and we’d still never get any kind of an upward movement of any species into the “evolution” of, or the “origin” of … any new, more complex, and better-functioning species.
“Micro-evolution should be called micro-variation.”
The reason that even billions of years of “micro-evolution” cannot achieve the claims of evolutionary theory (namely, “the origins of the species”), is that “micro-evolution” is not“evolution” – no matter how much anybody tries to talk like it is. Micro-evolution really ought to be called “micro-variation.” That’s more like what is really happening here. And the word is more honest and not as misleading from the observable truth.
Remember that genes are made up of DNA and that they contain all the information for the growth and development of your particular human body, physically. Every generation that survives long enough to reproduce and to make a new generation, must give their DNA to their offspring before they die. You get half your DNA from genes in the chromosomes of your father. You get the other half from the chromosomes of your mother. Since your parents each have two versions of every gene they’ve got, it becomes a 50:50 chance which of the two genes you’ll get of Mom’s and which of the two you’ll get of Dad’s. After that, then you will also be born with two versions of every gene – one you got from your mom and one you got from your dad. Later then, when you have children of your own, your child will get one of your two versions of each gene, and one of your spouse’s two versions … which explains why your children will look a lot like a combination of both you and your spouse. We may say you look somewhat like your mother’s side of the family, or maybe somewhat more like your father’s side. So, sometimes we see that chance plays out more heavily on one side than the other. I’m sure you can think of examples of this amongst the people that you know and in your own family.
Try to think of the genes in all of your chromosomes like the cards in a full deck of playing cards. All of this mix n’ match going on with every new generation, results in a sort of a “shuffling the deck” of genes between generations each time before a new “hand” of genes is dealt out to the next “round of players” (the offspring). This every-generational re-shuffling is called “sexual recombination.” It is a mechanism for the species’ defense against the dangers of inbreeding from the damages that mutations have built up in the human genome over the past 6000 years. The re-shuffling explains why we look a little like our grandparents, but usually more like our parents. Families change a little with each new generation. But this is not evolution – not in the way the word is used by our anti-Biblical and atheistic colleagues in the evolutionary community!
Yes, we change. But, how is this accomplished? – By shuffling and re-shuffling thealready-existing genes in the human population. For true evolution to do its work of taking bacteria “3 billion years ago,” and working with them and then making them into everything from giraffes to dinosaurs and people – you must have some kind of a mechanism in place that is capable of creating brand new genes! You can’t get that from just re-shuffling the genes that are already there! Bacteria do not have the genes for a human brain. Lizards do not have the genes to grow bird feathers. Fish do not have the genes for horse hooves. But each of these examples that I have given above, is a part of the evolutionary “story.” This whole thing is what they are talking about when they use the innocent-sounding word “evolution.”
Don’t believe it – when they tell you that evolution is the same process that got us poodles and boxers from wild dogs. Don’t you believe it – when they tell you that “evolution” is the same process that you got a different look from your grandparents. It is most definitely not the same thing. The processes that we can see – that are visible, observable and provable – are not the processes of the so-called “evolution” from molecules to man! The processes we can see every day, are not in any way what would be needed to changea salamander into a human being. No observable processes have ever been seen to produce new genes containing new genetic information coding new traits for the next generation of plants or animals – never.
Something slightly akin to this does happen however, in viruses, and even in some bacteria. Virus DNA mutates about a million times faster than other DNA. So, since mutations are supposed to be the driving force behind evolution, this means that viruses should be driven to “evolve” a million times faster than we do. Do they? Well, this does make them change genetically much faster than we do. But is it evolution? Stop here and think a minute. Evolutionists say viruses can evolve a million times faster than we can. And evolutionists say that viruses have been at it for over a billion years longer than we have (keep up with me now!). They believe viruses can “evolve” a million times faster than we can. Think. So then, after all this time of super-fast “evolution,” just what have the viruses become by the magic of evolution? They are still viruses. They have not “evolved” into anything else! Why not – if they’ve had all this time, and evolution is real?
The point of course is, that the processes we observe in the real world – whether given the Biblical time-frame of 6000 years or even the evolutionary time-frame of three billionyears – obviously cannot create new species. Nobody’s ever seen them do so. It is therefore logical to assume that no one ever will. Viruses never got out of being viruses. Bacteria have never been able to become anything but bacteria – not in our observation – not in the real world – not in the world of science.
So, what the evolutionists are asking you to do, is to look at processes that we indeed know to be true, and then just take it on faith that these processes can somehow magically produce things that we have never seen them to produce while we were watching them. But evo-believers ask you to join them in believing it, anyway – because they told you so … because they told you so. Is that good enough for you? It’s not good enough for me. And no point can be proven by the one-word argument – “because.” I learned that in gradeschool.
“Micro-evolution produces macro-evolution?”
Let’s go back to our analogy of the deck of playing cards. Take a deck of “Uno” cards. Shuffle them. Deal out a hand to the players for the next round of the game. Shuffle and deal – shuffle and deal – do it all you want! You’ll never deal out a hand with an “Old Maid”card in it – or a King of Hearts – or a “go to jail” card. That’s obvious – right? But this isexactly what evolution demands you to believe – that you can deal out new and different cards from the same old deck, that were never there before! But you can’t. It doesn’t work that way. It can never work that way. They’ll tell you “mutations can make the changes” of one kind of a card into another kind of a card. No they can’t. How could they? Do evo-believers ever tell us the “how?” No. That’s because they can’t. There is no “how.” There is no mechanism for this thing they say can happen – to happen! None has ever been verified. What is the process? No process has ever been demonstrated that is known to do all this that is needed by their theory. What principles of science are involved? None can be named. Can you observe this to happen? That answer too is “no.” Upward changes in species have never been observed. And even the sideways changes, have only been observed in bacteria or viruses, which are a thousand times simpler than even the one-celled organisms that you may have looked at under a microscope in high school biology class … like amoebas, or paramecia or euglena.
Not only are the evolutionists expecting you to believe in something that they themselveshave never seen – they are asking you to believe in something which they themselves cannot even imagine the process by which it may happen! Yet – they expect you to believe it – that it “somehow” did happen. This doesn’t have just a “slim chance” of happening. It’s not a matter of “overcoming the odds.” There are no odds. It has a zero chance of happening! As far as the known laws of science in nature and in biology, in light of all of the observations we have made of living things in the history of the enterprise of science, there is not even any way to imagine how any truly novel DNA instructions in new genes could ever be created. New cards just cannot “appear” in the old original deck. New genes cannot just appear in an old original chromosome, to be dealt out to the next generation and to make them “more evolved” than their parents’ generation was. All of that part of evolutionary thinking – the main part – must forever remain under the heading of puremake-believe. Yet it is still presented as a “proven fact” in most all science textbooks, by teachers and professors, and on every science cable TV channel that you can name! This is bad science. This is bad logic. It is bad thinking. It’s – well, this is lying.
“Expose macro-evolution as faith-based.”
So how do you deal with evo-believers who cannot even acknowledge the known facts of science? How can you reason with someone who has become most certain – that things which cannot be seen are really there, that processes without proof are really happening –in spite of all evidence to the contrary? How did the Creator Himself deal with such questions and problems, when he walked and talked and debated the truth among human beings, as one of us on this Earth? In other words, “what did Jesus do?”
So, we must begin by looking at how Jesus dealt with the ill doctrines and unbelievers of His days on Earth. First of all, he never tried to bring the Pharisees over to His side. Nicodemus came to Jesus, not the other way around. But “the common people heard Him gladly.” Jesus never argued with any of the Pharisees or the Scribes or Sadducees in private. It was always in public – and there was always an audience of “people” standing by as witnesses, as Jesus showed openly and plainly what were all of the flaws in the arguments of those who opposed His own words of life.
You may be tempted to think that Jesus won his public encounters with His opponents, because He was so much smarter than they were, or by virtue of being the Word of God made flesh. He didn’t. If that were the case, then He couldn’t have been setting an example for us to follow (since none of us are God incarnate, though He does live in us by His Spirit) and neither are any of us as smart as Jesus clearly was. “Greater works than these, shall ye do,” He said to His disciples. And that word comes down to us – to you and me in today’s world. What was Jesus really doing in His example of answering the naysayers of that day?
In every response, Jesus was going straight to the flaw in His opponent’s thinking – not just the flaws in their words, but the actual flaws behind those words. In the “giving tribute to Caesar” encounter, He drew the crowd’s attention to His opponents’ lack of understanding about the place for the authority of man versus the authority of God (which He also did in His question to them about the Baptism of John). With the woman caught in adultery, He showed up their lack of understanding in matters of “the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law” (as He also did when His disciples were criticized for gleaning wheat on the Sabbath, and His healings on the Sabbath).
So what is the flaw of understanding with our evolution-believing friends, when it comes to this question of “micro-evolution” versus “macro-evolution?” And what is, by the way, the flaw in many Bible-believers’ minds on the exact same subject? In both cases, it is the taking of something that we can see as being true and applying it as though it is some kind of proof that something which we cannot see is true. Now there is nothing wrong with this, on the surface. Actually, that’s what “faith” is (see Hebrews 11:1), and there’s nothing wrong with a person holding onto their faith. But, as the evo-believer will be most quick to tell you … they claim that their position does not depend on any faith of any kind. They will tell you that their position does not arise from any “presuppositions” or “presumptions” that bear any resemblance to “faith” in the slightest. This is not true. And this is what must be seen by the people, even if it can never be seen by those who are trapped in the clutches of the dark Darwinian deception themselves. Their position is based solely upon faith – and certainly not on any science, logic, data, or evidence viewed honestly.
They will say they are “slaves to the evidence” or that their position is “driven by the data only.” This is not the case. But how can you show up their lack of understanding in this matter? Be ready to be verbally abused when you do this. But their faith can be shown up for what it is, much in the same way that Jesus showed up the ill-conceived tenets of the doctrines of the Pharisees. Just ask a simple question. Ask “how?”
This is a question that they cannot answer. There are many questions for which they have been prompted with replies – but not this one. How? How did that happen? How do you know that’s true? How did they prove that? From what source are you getting this information? How do you know it is reliable, or do you just put that much trust in someone else’s integrity and/or authority? And now, do you really want to rattle their New-Age Post-modernistic cage? Then just ask them the question “why?” This is a question that even the framing of which creates an horror in the deepest pits of their souls. Do not ask the “why” question, unless you feel urged by the Spirit of God to probe deeper down inside them, all the way right down to where the source of their hurt resides – into their very soul. And God may give you that job – just be open to it.
You may not know much about science. Or, you may know a lot. That doesn’t really matter as much as you might think it does. Remember; their theory is not true. So when you merely ask them “how” it works – they merely will not be able to answer you. And do not let them give you the “what happens” answer to your “how it happens” question – and that’s what they’ll try to do – to save face and to camouflage their desperation. If they answer you with just more “information” on the details of their theory, then go back to your original question about the original part of the theory and ask again “yeah, but how?” You may get a violent response on cornering them with the “how” question, since they are only used to the “what” question, for which they have much love (because it gives them a chance to recite and burp back up what they have been taught) and for which they have many words . But keep to it. Do not back down. Do not let them pass over your question. Just keep asking “how” it supposedly works. If you get far enough before they freak out and storm away, you will get them to the point where (when you’ve asked “how” enough times in a row) they will be forced to admit that – yes, it is a faith-based position that they hold indeed. At that point, you can tell them you’re okay with that, and you too understand about faith. But now there’s no justification for them to look down on you, just because you do not choose to hold the same faith-position that they have chosen. Truth, reason, and logic are the great equalizers here. Science and the evidence are on our side. These things are not our enemies, but friends. Don’t listen to the propaganda about Bible-belief being “anti-science.” It’s just not so.
And when it comes to micro-evolution versus macro-evolution, just remind them that micro doesn’t lead to macro. It can’t. The processes that give the result which we attribute to “micro-evolution” are processes that do things other than what would be necessary to eventually produce the results which would be attributed to “macro-evolution.” There is a great wall between them. It’s like expecting to drink apple juice from a carton of orange juice – if you’ll just have the “patience to wait longer and longer enough” until the miraclehappens. At least creationists believe in miracles with a Miracle-maker. Evo’s believe in miracles, and yet deny the existence of a miracle-maker of any kind. Think about which one makes more logical sense.