[asa] Microevolution

From: Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu Sep 18 2008 - 23:38:43 EDT

It seems that most of those today who are anti-evolution based on a literal
reading of Genesis are willing to accept "microevolution" (which they define
as variation within species or possibly change between species, but not at
higher levels). This morning I thought about several claims, which I think
are generally held. The first, second and fourth claims are religious, the
third is scientific (not saying that any of the claims are necessarily


a. If God declared his creation "good" and "finished" in the first two
chapters of Genesis, then evolution's claims that species can adapt and
change over time contradicts a literal reading.


b. God created the various "kinds" and told them to reproduce "after their
kind", which is taken to mean that there can't be change between species.
They continue to reproduce according to how God created them originally.


c. All mutations are detrimental.


d. Evolution of humans from apes and other animals with common traits as
humans puts humans on the level of animal, and nullifies the special of
humans who were made "in the image of God".



However, given that microevolution is accepted by creationists, what does
microevolution entail?


1. Species can mutate from their originally created "good" condition. This
means that the creation was not "finished" in Genesis 2, but continues to
adapt and develop over time.

2. Natural selection along with mutation can be observed to cause species to
develop in beneficial ways for their perpetuation, which means that natural
selection must be accepted by anti-evolutionists as a viable mechanism for
positive change within or between species.

3. This means that not all mutations are necessarily detrimental or "bad".

4. If a given species can change over time so that it produces entirely
different "kinds" of entities, to me this undercuts the whole idea of
animals always necessarily reproducing "after their kind" (meaning within
the same originally created "kind").

5. Just as humans share common, apparently inherited characteristics with
other animals, humans are also made of the same atoms and chemicals as all
the rest of creation. If chemistry and particle physics don't contradict
the special "image of God" nature of humanity, then why should common
biological elements be considered any differently?


Thus, acceptance of microevolution (which is tacitly acknowledged by most
creationists) requires acceptance of the possibility of beneficial mutations
and natural selection and fundamental change from God's originally created
"kinds". Acceptance of the common chemistry within the human species is
equivalent to the common elements of biology. Thus, all the above arguments
against macroevolution seem to be contradicted by logical comparison with


Does this line of reasoning make sense?


I realize this still doesn't answer the belief that "kinds" include not only
species but genus and maybe even family, and some allow for microevolution
within groups larger than the species. In response it is asserted that the
creationists' definition of "kind" is ad hoc and inconsistent, meaning
simply "all the areas in which I don't want to admit the possibility of


And of course another line of evidence is the biological data showing not
only change between species, but between families, orders, and even phyla.


Jon Tandy



To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 18 23:39:39 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 18 2008 - 23:39:39 EDT