Friend Struggling with Evolution

[Ploutos]

It's not really all that big a deal unless one makes it a big deal unnecessarily.

Everything Alex said is 100% true. Everything you said is 100% true. If anyone takes a course in evolutionary biology, they will learn a ton of micro-evolution and radiometric dating in the context of serving a macro-evolutionary hypothesis in order to make it seem more than a hypothesis but solid theoretical modeling of proven fact. It is no small thing that it is taught by true believers and attended by true believers. God help our youth going into medicine, etc.

On one level, it's not a big deal, and it's just a semantic pet peeve of mine.

But micro-evolution is, in fact, a fundamentally different concept from macro-evolution. The term evolution is defined by evolutionary scientists in the context of a naturalistic worldview that presupposes certain notions of "progress" and the addition and improvement of genetic material over time. Micro-evolution is no such thing, and so there is no "evolving" in that baggage-laden sense of the word. Micro-evolution would more properly be called natural selection, or differentiation, or any number of perfectly reasonable terms. And no creationist in their right mind should deny that these things happen.

What happens is that, at a sub-conscious level, a mental link is created between micro-evolution and evolutionary theory, the one being seen as evidence of the other. Those with discernment won't be taken in by it. But many don't have discernment because of age, education, or deliberate choice.

 

[No Other Name]

On one level, it's not a big deal, and it's just a semantic pet peeve of mine.

But micro-evolution is, in fact, a fundamentally different concept from macro-evolution. The term evolution is defined by evolutionary scientists in the context of a naturalistic worldview that presupposes certain notions of "progress" and the addition and improvement of genetic material over time. Micro-evolution is no such thing, and so there is no "evolving" in that baggage-laden sense of the word. Micro-evolution would more properly be called natural selection, or differentiation, or any number of perfectly reasonable terms. And no creationist in their right mind should deny that these things happen.

What happens is that, at a sub-conscious level, a mental link is created between micro-evolution and evolutionary theory, the one being seen as evidence of the other. Those with discernment won't be taken in by it. But many don't have discernment because of age, education, or deliberate choice.

I am keenly aware of these issues.

"Evolution" is basically defined by secular scientists as micro-evolution stacking up and "proving" macro-evolution.

Your semantic pet peeve as you call it is sadly used in internal debates for YEC creation scientists regarding the role - even existence of - short-term phytogenetic drift and comparative anatomy. There are quite a few "creationists" [sic] (better to coin the term as creation scientists) that do indeed deny these methodologies as they "came from secular science (as if there is such a thing)" and will inevitably lead YEC who pursue these as studies into full evolution.

See this thread for more detail:

Internal Dispute Within the Young Earth Creationist Movement

(2 of 2) Q. Is this really all over one discovery that may suggest that some dinosaurs had feathers? Unfortunately no. There seems to be no end in sight for AiG (and ICR by the way) "calling out YEEs". Take a look at the latest article posted by AiG on "Walking Whales on Noah's Ark?" (March 10...

puritanboard.com