Perchance

(I freely admit that I may be misinterpreting the creationist position here. If so, someone feel free to correct me).

I have read posts by people who self-identify as creationists (here and elsewhere) who say they accept microevolution but not macroevolution. As I understand it, microevolution consists of small changes and adaptations in a species over time that are not enough to make it into a completely new species. (Again, if my understanding of this is faulty, someone please correct me!)

My question is this:

Doesn't the creationist position preclude accepting microevolution? If God (or a designer, if we want to move away from overtly theistic language) created the species as they are without the need for change over millennia of existence, then why do some creationists admit small changes are occurring? Wouldn't the designer have created species perfectly adapted to their environnments, without the need for change?

Again, this may be a simple problem of misinterpretation, but I haven't found a statement as to why some creationists accept microevolution that clarifies it for me.

-Perchance.

Mageth

Well, they have to have some way of explaining how the ark could hold all of the millions of species...

hyzer

Or it could be that to deny micro-evolution would be just perverse (since the examples are obvious).

And with the artificial boundary let have erected, they can, when given examples of macro-evolution, wave their hands and claim that it is “really just micro-evolution.”



Acceptance of micro-evolution and the ID “movement” are examples of how creationists have been painted, by science, into a smaller and smaller corner.

Duvenoy

Micro evolution, macro evolution, don't worry about it. It's all evolution. For example, X number of micros equals 1 macro. There's no difference.

Now, here's where the feces collides with the turbine. Creationists insist that macroevolution be from one 'kind' to another. The problem here is that you can never pin them down to exactly what a 'kind' is. Show them a genuine, transisitional fossil (fish to tetrapod) such as acanthrostega and most likely they'll call it something like, "Salamander kind.", completely ignoring the creatures internal gills (NOT found on modern, adult amphibians) and so forth.

It would be humorous, if they weren't trying to get this hogwash taught in the schools.

luck,

doov

Perchance

Thanks for your responses, everyone!

I know I still have a lot of learning to do as regards evolution in particular, and science in general. It looks as though I have even more learning to do about how a creationist can actually believe in a designer (without invoking 'god-of-the-gaps' or some other similar argument).

Thanks,
Perchance.