The Atlanta Journal/Constitution reports on an evolution-in-school dispute: David Bechler, a biology professor and head of the department of biology at Valdosta State University, said the statements suggest a basic misunderstanding of science. “I don’t think they understand the definition of a theory,” Bechler said. “You’re talking about a statement that describes a body of data that has gone through testing and proving. The theory of creation, intelligent design, or whatever you might want to call it, has not been tested and should not be discussed in science classes. It’s not the same thing.”
I enjoy it when scientists are just blatantly dishonest. As Joe Carter has pointed out, most people don’t realize that the leading evolutionists themselves have completely rejected Darwin’s notion of phyletic gradualism as an explanation for the origin of the species. As it turns out, his micro-evolution only serves to explain the origin of the breeds. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is completely untested and there is absolutely no scientific evidence for it, let alone proof of it. Apparently even Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost anti-religious champions of evolution, seeks to avoid the question of information being naturally added to DNA. In short, actual science has done in the quasi-scientific theory of Darwinian evolution. And so the secular giants of the 19th century continue to fall….
I was interested to see if my understanding of macro and micro was correct, interestingly enough, the situation is precisely the same in economics, where micro is based on observation and supported by evidence and macro is abstract theory maquerading as science, which turns out to be totally nonoperative in practice. Below is a decent start on understanding the difference between the two:
The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science…. a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwin’s observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species. However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.
The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. [Macro-evolution] This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the [macro] theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection that removes DNA information but does not add new information.
If you don’t understand what those three things are, best not to even think about claiming that science “proves” evolution. I don’t see why it’s so shocking to think that a scientific theory developed 144 years ago would get blown out of the water as science advances. Darwinism had a pretty respectable run compared to Marxism. Even Newton and Einstein turned out to be less than flawless, after all, to say nothing of Freud. And look at how many people are still Marxists despite its obviously absurd foundation on the labory theory of value and the concept of social class, when a little observation and logic are enough to explode it entirely.
This is not a battle between ignorant religionists and truth-seeking scientists, it is a battle waged on purely scientific grounds. And as such, iIt’s fascinating to see how in diverse scientific fields, it is the believers who are eager to wage the intellectual war using scientific methods, while the devotees of scientism are increasingly resorting to science fiction and inaccurate, juvenile name-calling.