Creationist Wisdom #670: Two Vital Definitions

Today’s letter-to-the-editor, like the one we wrote about a week ago (#669: Wham-Bam-Pow!), appears in the Reading Eagle of Reading, Pennsylvania — known as “The Pretzel City” because of numerous local pretzel bakeries. The letter is titled Macroevolution is a religion, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Jacob. We’ll call him “Jake.” Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

The word “evolution” has many different meanings. Two definitions vital to Darwinian evolution are microevoloution and macroevolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! No, Jake, but — like Hambo’s arbitrary distinction between “operational” and “historical” science — such definitions are vital to creationists. See the section titled “Micro-yes, Macro-no” in our Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Back to the letter:

Microevolution, also called adaption or variation, is a change within a species. The Galapagos finches are a prime example of microevolution. Finches from different Islands have small differences, such as their beaks. However they are all still finches.

Jeepers, who knew? Let’s read on:

Macroevolution is the change from one kind of animal to another, such as a monkey to a man.

Gasp — that’s impossible! Jake continues:

When Darwinists say that evolution is a scientific fact, they are talking about the facts supporting microevolution. They then say macroevolution is true, even though it is not scientifically supported. There is no evidence for macroevolution. There is no evidence observable, demonstrable or repeatable. However macroevolution is presented as fact, even though it isn’t.

Wow — there’s no evidence for the evolution of new species! Why haven’t we been told about this before? Here’s more:

The whole theory is a religion against a creator. Using the science behind microevolution, Darwin created the religion of macroevolution.

Egad — he’s right! Evolution is a religion! Moving along:

Charles Darwin created his theory of macroevolution based on two fundamental concepts: the world and all the animals exist, and that a creator does not exist.

What a brilliant analysis! Yes — that’s all there is to Darwin’s theory. And this is Jake’s stunning conclusion:

Microevolution is fact, macroevolution is a religion.

We’re grateful to Jake. First, he told us about evolution’s two vital definitions. Then he told us about Darwin’s two fundamental concepts. He has forever changed the way we’re going to think about Darwin and his so-called theory. How about you, dear reader?

Copyright © 2016. 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 #670: Two Vital Definitions

  1. And Jake has never even once had to read a single science book to “establish” his “facts”! I am willing to bet that he is really proud of his “achievement”.

  2. Jacob has obviously learned science in Ken Hams school of regressive learning!!!

  3. The whole theory is a religion against a creator. Using the science behind microevolution, Darwin created the religion of macroevolution. . . .

    Charles Darwin created his theory of macroevolution based on two fundamental concepts: the world and all the animals exist, and that a creator does not exist.

    First, nowhere does Darwin distinguish between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” as creationists use those terms.

    Second, nowhere does Darwin say there is no creator. Fair-minded people can acknowledge that God could have created “the world and all the animals” (hey, what about the plants?) by natural means, including, in the case of living things, evolution. But creationists want biblical creation, exactly as in Genesis, period, so they reinvent Darwin as the God-hating purveyor of a secular religion.

    Good thing for them he’s dead and so can’t sue for slander.

  4. Have any creationists even read On the Origin of Species? Probably not, because it’s long and some of the arguments are seem too difficult. In any case, it’s clear that if any creationist did read it, none of them, including Jake, whose thoughts twist like a pretzel, understand it.

  5. Microevolution…is a change within a species.

    Since “species” is a label made up by fallible man to make sense of relationships between organisms, by Jake’s definition, macroevolution could occur by simply reclassifying an organism to a different species, or inventing a new one. (Maybe that would be an act of creation?)

    A far more useful definition of “microevolution” would be evolution which creationists accept, as opposed to “macroevolution”, or evolution which creationists do not accept.

    I suspect Hambo’s list of animal “kinds” on the ark (surely he has one?) include many that post-flood hyper-evolved into numerous modern species. Was that “macro” or just extremely fast “micro?”

  6. “a change within a species”
    “they are all still finches”
    Different species of finches, Jake.

    “There is no evidence observable”
    Yes, Jake, there is. You just gave it yourself.

  7. There are Creationist web sites which caution against arguing that there are no cases of natural speciation. Not only are there examples, but rapid widespread speciation has been resorted to by baraminology.

  8. Yeah, but I doubt if Jake has read them. Or he would understand the difference between species and kind.

  9. Techreseller

    Did Jake change the way I think about evolution? 10 microseconds of thought. Nope. I still accept evolution as the explanation that best fits the available facts.