Creationist Wisdom #352: Micro-Macro

Today’s letter-to-the-editor is actually two weeks old and it’s not very original, but we can’t find anything else today. It appears in the Salina Journal of Salina, Kansas, and it’s titled Two kinds of evolution. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. As we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Get ready, dear reader, here we go:

The occasional letters to the Journal regarding evolution are interesting, but the category being discussed needs to be specified. Microevolution, or variations within kinds sometimes leading to new species, is observable.

Lordy, lordy — it’s the micro-macro mambo. We’ve written about that maybe a hundred times. It’s the first item mentioned in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Then the letter-writer patiently explains the concept for those who aren’t as informed as he is:

The dog “kind” has within it many types or breeds, and there are many kinds and species of birds, insects, fish, etc. But there are genetic boundaries in place that limit the possible progeny that can be produced.

Yes. All creationists know about the Great Barrier that keeps track of mutations and prevents them from occurring after a limited number. Only a miracle can overcome the Great Barrier. Here’s more of the letter-writer’s explanation:

Genesis 1 uses the phrase “according to its kind” or “according to their kinds” many times in the creation account for both plants and animals, a reference to these boundaries. Inherent in this is that the genetic codes necessary for both life and reproduction within these kinds were put in place by God at creation.

That was good. Even an idiot can understand it. In fact, every idiot does understand it. Let’s read on:

Macroevolution — the theory that all the myriad life forms we see today descended from a primitive, one-celled organism that arose by chance eons ago — is not observable and has no evidence to support it.

No evidence! Well, there’s this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. The letter continues:

Proteins are essential components of all living cells, and advances in cellular and molecular biology have shown that the odds for even a simple, functional protein to arise by chance is in the order of 1 in 10 to the 160th power, a statistical impossibility.

Wow — that’s a big number! Like most creationists, the letter-writer has enough intelligence to reject the imaginary Theory of Spontaneous Assembly of Very Complex Molecules from Start to Finish from Utterly Isolated Atoms (TSAVCMSFUIA). But that’s not evolution’s only problem. He describes even more:

Macroevolution also has a big problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that of increasing entropy or disorder of systems over time. The fossil record, rather than supporting macroevolution, is better explained by the cataclysm associated with the global flood recorded in Genesis 7.

Ah yes, the Flood explains so much. Here’s how it ends:

The theory of macroevolution lacks scientific support, and to say that it is an established fact is intellectual dishonesty.

As we said at the start, this wasn’t much of a letter. But considering that it’s from Kansas, it’s the best that can be expected.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #352: Micro-Macro

  1. The freshness and originality of this guy’s argument must surely be regarded as nothing less than amazing! Where did he get these ideas, these stunningly original insights from?

  2. But how did he possibly manage to leave out, “If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” Evil Darwinists particularly tremble at that unanswerable challenge…

  3. Alex Shuffell

    Is believing in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution the same as believing in weeks but not years? I’ve been alive for over 1,000 weeks, they just happened to follow each other one after the other, I was 6 years old then I was 7 years, I never jumped to 22 and then back to 14 years old, one week after the other in the exact order needed for me to be me. This is equivalent odds to winning the lottery, yet we all do it.

  4. Along the same lines of Alex’s point, why do we never hear of belief in micro-ancestry (my parents produced me) but disavowal of macro-ancestry (belief in grandparents is crazy talk… were you there?!)

  5. A quick search discovers the writer is the Mayor of his little Kansas town, and also is apparently in charge of Gas, and Sewer. Why am I not astonished to find a creationist in those particular departments?

  6. You’re right, skmarshall. Here’s a directory of the city’s officials: Agenda, Kansas.

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    You know, we do the same thing to the creationists, dragging out the same old arguments that have been proven over and over, we just don’t believe their answer. Like: how did kangaroos get to Australia after the flood? Of course the creationist is just going to say they hopped (or got blown there by a volcano i.e. Eric Hovind), yet we refuse to believe their scientific and rational hypothesis.

  8. First of all, I liked the close juxtaposition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics with the ordering effects of the Flood. Usually evolution deniers put a little more separation between their contradictory statements.

    And then, I’d like to mention how micro-evolution, in the form of “evolution within man-kind”, is the only part of evolution which can even remotely be associated with the evils of those unmentionable social-political movements of the early 20th century. (Of course, the promoters of those movements more often than not spurned “darwinism”, so it would be unfair to make a connection between those movements and support of micro-evolution.)

  9. Alex – I like the weeks-years analogy, and intend to use it on my relatives! Thanks 🙂