Macro vs. Micro
For one to acknowledge “microevolution” — the observable fact that any species demonstrates subtle changes from one generation to the next — but not be willing to recognize the possibility of “macroevolution” — the idea that many of these small changes over eons of time can eventually result in a species no longer being classified with its distant ancestors — makes about as much sense as one acknowledging “micro-aging” — the undeniable truth that a child is always older today than he was yesterday — without also admitting that one day this little one will become an adult. Since it is physically impossible for any person to make the leap from the child stage to the adult stage without the cumulative effect of each passing day, the concept “macro-aging” is rightfully considered nonsense.
Rather than describe what actually takes place on the physical level, the term macroevolution — like macro-aging — describes only how things might appear in the absence of continuous observation, and therefore has little scientific utility. It is a pseudo-intellectual term employed by anti-evolutionists who want to accept the obvious without acknowledging the its cumulative effect over time.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:12 am
I have friends who say they accept microevolution but reject macroevolution. Actually, I tell them, there is no such thing as “macroevolution” if you see is as something distinct from microevolution. Such macroevolution never happens! It is, as you suggest, merely the compiling of hundreds or thousands of microevolutionary changes. I sometimes think we’d be better off without these two terms. They have only served to muddy the waters.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I like your aging analogy. Imagine, though, that you were an extraterrestrial brought to visit this planet for a day and that you did not see any aging. You could assume that people came in all these forms and that is how they were forever, wrinkly and frail, fat, stout, tiny and weak. Does your argument that aging occurs still hold up? Yes! It would be quite easy to notice patterns and types of people similar to other types of people. If you lined them up on a gradient of similarity, you could infer that your were seeing God’s thought pattern during creation (which in this case goes from fragile to strong to fragile again) or that perhaps a developmental pattern exists and must take place over time.
Which is the bigger can of worms? 1) Building a theology to accommodate the observation, or 2) building a new theory called “aging” that challenges the theology that God made things just as they are?
The point is, you don’t need to see micro evolution to realize macro evolution. From simple observation, one can start by organizing the data to come up with a story that fits. The challenge for creationists is trying to assemble a story that fits biological data. When one interprets biological observations through the story of evolution, either it fits precisely, or it broadens our understanding of evolutionary processes, but it never opposes it.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Hey Tom. The scenario you propose is more than just hypothetical. In fact, YEC astronomers study the stars exactly how your imaginary “alien” race would (mistankenly) study humans. Since YEC astronomers are theologically opposed to “star-birth” (because only God creates) and insist that “star-death” is a recent (post-fall) phenomenon, they foolishly assert that the various stages of steller evolution are simply different “kinds” of stars created by God — rather than a continuum from birth, along the “main sequence” and into the red-giant phase. Apparently stars are not even allowed to evolve (or age). Add to this the silly ad-hoc theory of c-decay and you have something that looks like “astronomy” but is basically only good for selling books in Christian bookstores.
Your last sentence about seeing the facts through an interpretive framework is what I had in mind when I came up with the puzzle analogy (next post). The problem with creationists is that they keep trying to solve the puzzle using the wrong box! I’m using this analogy in my current writing project. You can actually get a lot mileage out of it if you think about it for a minute.
Good to hear from you again!
April 14th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Accepting microevolution while rejecting macroevolution is like saying you believe in pennies but not dollars.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Good one.