The Blog

Macroevolution is the belief that all life forms have descended from a common ancestor – the first one-celled creature – and all this has happened by natural processes without any intellectual intervention. Darwinists say this has happened by natural selection.

The term “natural selection” is a misnomer. Since the process of evolution is, by definition, without intelligence, there is no “selection” at all going on. It is a blind process.

The term “natural selection” simply means that the fittest creatures survive. So what? That is true by definition – the fittest survive.

Logically, there are creatures that are best equipped genetically or structurally to deal with changing environmental conditions (that is why they survive). As an example of “natural selection”, consider what happens to bacteria attacked by antibiotics. When bacteria survive with antibiotics and multiply, that surviving group of bacteria may be resistant to that antibiotic. The surviving group of bacteria may be resistant to that antibiotic because the parent bacteria possessed the genetic capacity to resist. Since the sensitive bacteria die, the surviving bacteria multiply and now dominate. Darwinists say that the surviving bacteria have evolved. Having adapted to the environment, the surviving bacteria provide us with an example of evolution. Fair enough, but what kind of evolution? The answer is absolutely critical.

In fact, outside of the philosophical presuppositions we have been exposing, defining “evolution” is perhaps the greatest point of confusion in the creation-evolution controversy. This is where Darwinian errors and false claims multiply like bacteria. If not checked by those who believe observation is pertinent to science, their so-called conclusions will be presented as truth.

Here is what observation tells us: the surviving bacteria always stay bacteria. They do not evolve into another type of organism. That would be macroevolution.

Natural selection has never been observed to create new types.

But macroevolution is exactly what Darwinists claim from the data. They say that those observable micro changes can be extrapolated to prove that unobservable macroevolution has occurred. They make no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and thus use the evidence to prove macro. By failing to make this critical distinction, Darwinists can dupe the public into thinking that every observable change in any organism proves that all life evolved from the first one-celled creature.

Personal Reflection:
Why is it essential that the right distinctions be made and that all hidden distinctions be exposed when discussing the creation-evolution controversy?