Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
S. Michael Houdman, in a very simple layman’s language, explains it very well: the difference between ‘microevolution’ and ‘macroevolution’. With this precise understanding in the back of one’s mind, no one should have any difficulty in confusing ‘macroevolution’ with ‘microevolution’. These two processes in nature are uniquely different from each other. As such, one will know for sure that by ‘evolution’ it doesn't always mean, one and the same thing. There is no reason for anyone to allow oneself from being misled by the zealous evolutionists who, so often, resort to scientific discoveries in the area of ‘microevolution’ and extrapolate the same into explaining ‘macroevolution’ as a scientific fact. When briefly stated “Microevolution is an uncontroversial, well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon” that “happens every day” (Houdman). To the contrary, “macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical”. It is not something that we observe in nature. It is blindly assumed to have taken place through the course of millions or billions of years. As such, we need to exercise blind faith in the same and accept it without the support of any concrete observable evidence. In no way, it is different from any religious belief accepted blindly. The only difference is that in religious beliefs, God is in the picture; whereas, in the evolutionary beliefs, God is not in the picture; instead, ‘blind chance’ comes into play. So, on the one hand, Creationists are targeted and branded by the evolutionists as superstitious and unscientific for bringing an Intelligent God into the picture to explain life’s complexities; on the other hand, the evolutionists devotedly indulge in explaining life’s complexities by assigning it all to blind chance, superstitiously believing mother nature resorted to evolution through the course of millions of years in bringing about the complex life forms we see today. This is neither true science nor true religion but merely superstitious unscientific speculation. Anyway, the reader is advised to read: Atheistic Evolutionism. Visit:> http://christianreading.com/jmartins/files/2012/03/Atheistic-Theory-of-Evolution1.pdf
The Bible tells us that God created, in a 6 day period 6,000 years ago, everything after its own kind like humans, hippos, bananas, cats, dogs, monkeys etc. Darwinian theory or evolution gives a different version to the bible in that microbes went to mice to monkeys and eventually man over many millions of years. First evolution from one kind (eg cat) to another (dog) just cannot occur. Biology has never been shown to work that way and so the process of macro-evolution is impossible. Therefore if you accept macro-evolution or change from one kind to another you not only concede to a biological untruth but also admit that the Bible story maybe is really a fable/myth. This then leads to a doubt about the authenticity about Adam and Eve and eventually about original sin. This then leads to a big question mark about the need for salvation and the role of Christ in redemption. The New Testament, including Jesus, speaks of us as coming from one man and woman and our fall from grace originating in the Garden of Eden. The take home message is that if you concede that one part of the Bible may not be literally true (eg the process of creation) then the whole salvation message falls apart. In short, one should not compromise not even one part of the Bible as it is Holy Spirit inspired and therefore absolute truth.
Evolution in any form requires the addition of information not currently present so that the form may evolve. Otherwise, mutation is what actually happens with the manipulation of current information or loss of information. For example, certain viruses under attack from pharmaceuticals will mutate by dropping off a part of their structure that is vulnerable to a drug or combination of drugs. Such is the case with HIV and that is why the "drug cocktail" was formed to attack the virus from different directions. If the virus drops a part of its makeup, the remaining drugs kill off another part of the virus killing the cell. The evolution debate is a debate of foolishness regardless of what modifier is placed in front of the word evolution. The proper framing of the debate would be is there such a thing as evolution in living forms. IMHO, the answer is no. Anything done to change the composition of a living form has required the hand of a scientist, and that has only been a controlled process of mutation. God is the only One who can bring about evolution in the human form, and that will happen after we die and are reunited with our bodies. After we die, God will perfect our bodies so that they will be perfect and never susceptible to disease, death or sin again. Now that's an evolution worth waiting for and the only one I care to think about.
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.