Do you adhere to microevolution as opposed to macroevolution? This presupposes you know the difference I guess.

I am inclined to say that I do accept the natural phenomenon of microevolution, or what we sometimes know as genetic drift. Now, I can duct for cover, as people throw rotten produce at me.

__________________
Ryan
1689 London Baptist Confession

If by microevolution you mean that the animals that Adam named have changed to a degree over the ? thousand years since his day and ours, I don't see why it would be unscriptural.

__________________
Mark Li
International University Church
New South Wales, Australia

Of course I believe in microwaves we have one in the kitchen! What a silly question!

__________________
~etexas~

Yes, I've seen it first hand. It's no different than animal breeding for certain traits. Deer in the Florida Keys are whitetails, but much smaller than mainland whitetails. That's because the littler ones didn't eat as much and survived on the limited forage.

And I knew an old rancher who raised cattle in a wild part of Montana. He didn't do any selection at all, didn't try to save the weak or sick ones. After 10 generations his herd was noticeably different from standard cattle. The were definitely more agile and longer legged to handle the rough terrain.

Nothing mysterious about it. I don't like to call it "microevolution". Instead, it is just selection for traits within a species. Either the environment does it or the breeder does it.

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Yes, I "believe" in variation within species. Speciation, however, is an enormous fairy-tale.

__________________
My name is Davis. I am the Lord's.

I gather with saints at Bethel Presbyterian Church here in Lake Charles, LA, where I live.

[b][SIZE="3"]"[/SIZE][/b][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]I dwell in the high and holy place, also with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones[/COLOR].[b][SIZE="3"]"[/SIZE][/b] -Our Father, the Lord God (Isaiah 57:15)

Microevolution is taught in the Bible, Genesis 30:410-42.

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
B.B. Warfield's definition of Theological Students: "Angels preparing to sound the Trumpets."

Yes, I do.
Why are you expecting rotten produce to come your way?

__________________
Jessica H.
Church: www.eopckent.org (OPC)
Work: www.uwmedicine.org/Facilities/Harborview/

Oh make this heart rejoice or ache; / Decide this doubt for me; / And if it be not broken, break -- / And heal it, if it be. ~William Cowper

It just goes to show that when people aren't careful to define terms, that misunderstandings occur.

As to the original OP, yes, microevolution is true. Easily observed.

I'm sure the "evolutionists" though when we say "I don't believe in evolution" think we mean micro-evolution.

__________________
BJ Mora
Grace OPC, Modesto, CA
Reformed & Presbyterian Churches & Denominations in North America

I find nothing unbiblical or faith challenging by the idea of microevolution. So... I reckon I hold to that as well!

__________________
1st Kings 18:21 - "And Elijah came near to all the people and said, 'How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.' And the people did not answer him a word." (ESV)

Joshua H.
Layman - Sound Guy
Fayetteville First Baptist
Fayetteville, Ohio

Yep, microevolution is absolutely scientifically proven (i.e. it is observable) and in no way contradicts scripture.

Macroevolution (change from one species to another), is an entirely different matter.

__________________
Jonathan Hunt

Preaching Elder
Cheltenham Evangelical Free Church (Confessionally Based)
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
-- Thomas Elsworth

I would try and be a precisionist and say that I would disagree with naturalistic micro-evolution. IOW, evolution is such a loaded term imbibed with a naturalistic worldview that this would force the discussion that Jesus upholds the world with His Word.

I would also force the conversation that enough microevolution does not lead to macroevolution as some would maintain.

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

Books like Darwin's Black Box and the irreducible complexity theory are nice intellectual broadside against macroevolution and any tenuous attempts to muddle micro- and macro- evolution.

__________________
Ryan
1689 London Baptist Confession

In college I majored in Chemistry and minored in Biology. Wasn't a Christian until halfway through my schooling but if I had to go through it now my head would probably explode. They were teaching stuff that has been disproven in scientific journals years ago.

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

I don't think I live believe in microevolution, but it's possible I do and just don't know it. It's hard to do two verbs at once.

__________________
Brad
Deacon
Redeemer Church
Jackson, MS

Has anyone attempted a refutation of Darwin's Black Box?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/

I've raised the same objection in the past. What does "believe in" mean? Maybe "believe that" would be better.

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Yes, I believe microevolution happens.

Now I'll divert some produce my way just for you, Ryan.

I'm not sure that macroevolution is contrary to scripture, either. As an explanation for the origin of all species there are major problems, yes, but I don't see any problem with speciation in theory.

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

Macroevolution != speciation. You can hold to speciation and still easily reject macroevolution.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

I understand macroevolution to be evolution above the level of species. Is that not your own understanding?

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

Variation within a given species, yes. Transition from one species into a completely different one, no.

__________________
~~Greg Carpenter~~
Deerfield Beach, FL

"It is a throne of grace that God in Christ is represented to us upon; but yet it is a throne still whereon majesty and glory do reside, and God is always to be considered by us as on a throne." –John Owen

All microevolution refers to is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population over a period of time, or what some call genetic drift. I hardly see how that gives rises to new species. The irreducible complexity of organisms is a monkeywrench in Darwinian macoevolutionary theory. One enzyme isn't in the right place, and whole organs come to a failure.

__________________
Ryan
1689 London Baptist Confession

I don't think Behe claims that irreducible complexity throws a monkey wrench into macroevolution in general. Irreducible complexity is only applied to the development of the specific systems that Behe identifies.

In any case, my point was that I don't see all macroevolution ruled out by scripture. I wasn't considering the scientific evidence.

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

Hey:

Talk Origins has tried:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Grace,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
B.B. Warfield's definition of Theological Students: "Angels preparing to sound the Trumpets."

The folks over at the one-stop shop for Internet Atheism (infidels.org) have tons of stuff against Behe: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...nism/behe.html

__________________
Joel Batts
Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) - Memphis, TN

"Why wasn't God watching? Why wasn't God listening? Why wasn't God there for Georgia Lee?"
- Tom Waits
But you, O God, do see trouble and grief;you consider it to take it in hand. The victim commits himself to you; you are the helper of the fatherless. - Psalm 10:14

Micro-evolution is variation using existing genetic information from within interbreeding species. So calling it a form of evolution is misleading. The problem is that when mutations occur, the evolving that occurs is going the opposite direction that macro-evolutionary theory is predicting it would go. In other words the term that best describes this process should be devolution. But this would contradict their philosophical beliefs of naturalism.

The best “evidence” that macro-evolutionists have been able to produce is what is called a copy mutation, like a two wing fruit fly in which a mutation causes a copying of the existing genetic information for the two wings giving the mutant four wings. Unfortunately for the poor mutated fruit fly, since the mutation did not have all of the other components copied with the wing information, such as the additional breadth needed to house the muscles, the muscles themselves, a larger capacity heart ect. The fruit fly was essentially crippled and only provided an evolutionary advantage for the predator that was going to consume some additional protein that the extra set of wings provided. There are also mutations that cause a net loss of genetic information, but non-the-less provide an advantage based on a loss of a certain function. Cases of insects that become immune to some pesticides are most often cited cases of this kind of mutation. Then again a net loss is not what the macro-evolutionist needs to prove his case, so he typically doesn’t highlight this fact.

The only reason that it has held so much sway in the world is that people that hate our Lord have taken over the science classes and have censored out all opposing views. We have let the evolutionist frame the questions, define the terms and use misleading language to pump up his case. But a well placed pin in this balloon that they have blown up will pop their so called evidence and ought to cause them to shut their mouths, though this usually doesn’t happen. I remember hearing about a famous evolutionist