in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Micro “Evolution” or, How to Use Jesus’ Apologetics

Engraving of Darwin's Finches from "Voyage of the Beagle" 1845

Bible-believers get confused with the terms “micro-evolution” versus “macro-evolution.”  They are misleading, at least the phrase “micro-evolution” is, because it is being misused.¹

Evolutionists are fond of citing things that can happen without evolution being true, and then citing those very same things as “proofs” of evolution being true. Darwin speculated endlessly, starting most of his arguments with the phrase, “Let us now suppose.”

This still happens.

Advertisement Below:

This is self-deception at best, and lying at worst. Evolutionists will say that since you look different from your grandparents, then that’s “proof” of evolution. And who can deny there are over 200 breeds of dogs? That’s “evolution” too, they’ll say. If these observable things were all that they are asking us to believe, if that’s all there is to “evolution,” then we could believe in “evolution.”

But that’s not all they mean by “evolution.” Evolution doesn’t just say that humans have changed or that Collies and Dachshunds are cousins. It says that worms became bald eagles, and that fish became dinosaurs, Collies, and people; and that people were once monkeys! The gross misrepresentation they say about “micro-evolution” is this: if you just “stretch this process out over billions of years, then you can easily see how this makes all the rest of the evolutionary model true, too.”

No. It doesn’t.

The processes that made you look different from your grandparents and that made the different breeds of dogs have nothing to do with any of the processes that would be needed for causing salamanders to turn into people (which, yes, is a part of their model). We could pretend that these processes have gone on for millions, billions, or even trillions of years, and we’d still never get any kind of an upward movement “as amphibians into reptiles,” etc., because these so-called “micro-evolutionary” processes do not originate any new genetic information.

But, this is the requirement for evolution to work

The reason that even billions of years of “micro-evolution” cannot achieve the claims of Darwin (namely, “the origins of the species”) is that “micro-evolution” is not “evolution,” no matter how much anybody tries to think that it is.

Micro-evolution really ought to be called “micro-variation.”

That’s more like what is really happening in nature. Only at that point, would the word be legitimate and in agreement with the observable truth.

Advertisement Below:

Remember that our genes are made of DNA and they contain all the information for the development of a human body.

  • Every generation that survives long enough to reproduce, must give a copy of their DNA to their offspring before they die.
  • You get half your DNA from the genes in the chromosomes of your father.
  • You get the other half from the chromosomes of your mother.
  • Since your parents each have their own version for every trait you will inherit, it becomes a 50:50 chance which of the genes you’ll get from Mom and which you’ll get from Dad.
  • You were born with two versions of every gene, one from your mom and one from your dad.
  • Later, when you have children of your own, each of your children will get just one of your two versions of every gene, and one of your spouse’s two versions.
  • This explains why your children look a lot like a combination of both you and your spouse.

Think of the genes in all of your chromosomes like the cards in a deck of playing cards.  All of this mix-and-match is going on with every new generation, and results in a sort of a “shuffling the deck” of genes between generations each time before a new “hand” of genes is dealt out to the next “round of players” (the offspring). This genetic re-shuffling is called “sexual recombination.”

This re-shuffling helps to defend against the dangers of inbreeding (this danger is caused by mutations, genetic copying errors) that have built up in the human genome over the past 6000 years since Adam and Eve. The re-shuffling explains why we look a little like our grandparents, but usually more like our parents. Families change a little with each new generation.

But this is not evolution, it is change guided by genetic information, not the change needed by the anti-Biblical and atheistic evolutionary model.

For evolution to work, it must have taken “3 billion year-old” bacteria, and then make them into everything from giraffes to dinosaurs and people. For that to be true, there must be some kind of a mechanism in place that is capable of creating brand new genes, with brand new information.  You can’t get that from just re-shuffling the genes that are already there!

  • Bacteria do not have the genes for a human brain.
  • Lizards do not have the genes for growing bird feathers.
  • Fish do not have the genes for horse hooves.

But each of these examples is a part of the evolutionary “story.”  This whole process is what they are talking about when they use the innocent-sounding word “evolution.”

Don’t believe it when they tell you that “evolution” is the same process that developed poodles and boxers from wild dogs.
Don’t believe it when they tell you that “evolution” is the same process that caused you to look different from your grandparents.

It is most definitely not the same process.  The processes that we can see, that are

Advertisement Below:
  • visible
  • observable
  • and provable

are not in any way what would be needed to change a salamander into a human being. No observable processes have ever been seen to produce new genes containing new genetic information coding new traits for the next generation of plants or animals.


Exceptions Prove the Rule

Something slightly akin to this does happen, however, in viruses and even in some bacteria.  Virus DNA mutates about a million times faster than other DNA. So, since mutations are supposed to be the driving force behind “evolution,” this means that viruses should be driven to “evolve” a million times faster than we do.

Do they?  Well, this does make them change genetically much faster than we do.

But is it evolution?  Stop here and think a minute.

Evolutionists say viruses can evolve a million times faster than we can. And evolutionists say that viruses have been at it for over a billion years longer than we have.

So then, after all this time of super-fast “evolution,” just what have the viruses become?

Nothing different.
They are still viruses.
They have not “evolved” into anything else.
Why not? If they’ve had all this time and evolution is real?

The point, is that the processes we observe in the real world, whether given the Biblical time-frame of 6000 years or even the evolutionary time-frame of three billion years, cannot ever create new orders of living things.

Nobody has ever seen them do so, and no one ever will.

Viruses are still viruses. Bacteria have never been able to become anything but bacteria, not in our observation, not in the real world, not in the world of science.

So, what the evolutionists are asking you to do is to look at processes that we indeed know to be true and then just take it on faith that these processes can somehow produce things that we have never seen them produce. Darwin-believers ask you to join them in believing it anyway, just because they told you so.

Is that good enough?

No point can be proven by the one-word argument: “Because!

Most of us learned that in elementary school.

Working with What You Have

Does micro-evolution produce macro-evolution? Let’s go back to our analogy of the deck of playing cards.

Take a deck of “Uno” cards. Shuffle them. Deal out a hand to the players for the next round of the game.  Shuffle and deal, shuffle and deal. Do it all you want.
You’ll never deal out the Old Maid or the King of Hearts, or a “go to jail” card.  That’s obvious.

But this is exactly what evolution demands that you believe—that you can deal out new and different cards from the same old deck—cards that were never there before.  Real life doesn’t work that way.  It cannot work that way.

Textbooks tell us that “mutations can make the changes” from one kind of a card into another kind of card.  They simply cannot do this.  It is not in the cards.  How could they?

Do Darwin-believers ever tell us HOW this can be accomplished?

No. That’s because they can’t. There isn’t a “how.” There isn’t a mechanism for this evolutionary thing to happen.

  • No process has ever been demonstrated that is known to do all that is needed by Darwin’s model.
  • What principles of science are involved?  None can be named.
  • Can you observe this to happen?  That answer, too, is “no.”

Upward changes in plants and animals have never been observed.  And even the sideways changes have only been observed in bacteria or viruses, which are a thousand times simpler than even the one-celled organisms you may have observed under a microscope in high school biology class… like amoebae, paramecia, or euglena.

Not only are evolutionists expecting you to believe in something that they themselves have never seen—they are asking you to believe in something which they themselves cannot even imagine a possible process that could make it happen!

Yet, they expect you to believe it, that it “somehow” did happen.

It’s not a matter of “overcoming the odds.”  There are no odds. This has a zero chance of happening.

As far as the known laws of science in nature and in biology, in light of all of the observations we have made of living things in the history of science, there is no way to imagine how any truly new DNA instructions in new genes could ever be developed or created.

All of this part of evolutionary thinking, the main part, must forever remain under the heading of pure make-believe.  Yet it is still presented as a “proven fact” in most science textbooks, by teachers and professors, and on every science cable TV channel that can be named.

This is bad science, bad logic, and bad thinking.  It is lying.

Is macro-evolution faith-based? How do you deal with Darwin-believers who cannot acknowledge the known facts of science? How can you reason with someone who has become convinced that things which cannot be seen are really there, that processes without proof are really happening, in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary?

How did the Creator Himself deal with such questions and problems, when he walked and talked and debated the truth among human beings, as one of us on earth?

In other words, “what did Jesus do?”

We must begin by looking at how Jesus dealt with the false doctrines of unbelievers during His days on earth. First of all, he never tried to bring the Pharisees over to His side. Nicodemus came to Jesus, not the other way around (John 3). But “the common people heard Him gladly” (Mark 12:37). Jesus never argued with any of the Pharisees or the Scribes or Sadducees in private.

He always confronted them in public, and there was always an audience of “people” standing by as witnesses, as Jesus showed openly and plainly the flaws in the arguments of those who opposed His Words of life.

You may be tempted to think that Jesus won his public encounters with opponents, because he was so much smarter, or by virtue of being the Word of God made flesh.  He didn’t.

If that were the case, then he couldn’t have been setting an example for us to follow (since none of us are God incarnate, though He does live in us by His Spirit). Neither are any of us as smart as Jesus clearly was.

Remember, he confronted Satan during his temptation with the phrase, “It is written.”

He used the written Word of God for his defense. Moreover, he said to his disciples, “Greater works than these, shall ye do.” (John 14:12) And that promise comes down to us, to you and me in today’s world.  What was Jesus really doing in his example of answering the naysayers of that day?

In every response, Jesus went straight to the flaw in his opponent’s thinking, not just the flaws in their words, but the actual flaws behind those words. He was not using a strategy or style that we cannot emulate and use.  In the “giving tribute to Caesar” encounter (Matthew 22:21), he drew the crowd’s attention to his opponents’ lack of understanding about the authority of man versus the authority of God. Which He also did in his question to them about the Baptism of John (see Matthew 21:25).

With the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11), Jesus showed up their lack of understanding in matters of “the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.” As he also did when his disciples were criticized for gleaning wheat on the Sabbath, and his healings on the Sabbath (Luke 6:9, 14:3).

So what is the flaw of understanding with Darwin-believers, when it comes to this question of “micro-evolution” versus “macro-evolution”?

In both cases, it is the assumption that genetic variety has the ability to build up over time causing major changes, like from worms to eagles. However, this is a testable reality. Can worms become eagles simply by natural processes? No.

Well then, why do evolutionists continue to believe this?

Because their evolutionary position demands this.
Actually, that’s what “faith” is (see Hebrews 11:1). There’s nothing wrong with a person holding onto their faith. But—as the evolutionary believer will be most quick to tell you—they claim that their position does not depend on faith of any kind.  They will tell you that their position does not arise from any “presuppositions” or “presumptions” that bear any resemblance to “faith” in the slightest.

This is not true. And this is what must be seen by the public, even if it can never be seen by those who are trapped in the Darwinian deception themselves. Their position is based solely upon faith, and certainly not on any science, logic, data, or evidence viewed with any honesty.

They will say they are “slaves to the evidence” or that their position is “driven by the data only.”  This is clearly not the case. How can their lack of understanding in this matter be demonstrated? Evolutionary faith can be exhibited for what it is, much in the same way that Jesus showed up the ill-conceived doctrines of the Pharisees.

Just ask a simple question. Just ask “how?”

This is a question that they cannot answer. There are many questions for which they have been prompted with replies—but they are not ready for this one.

How did that happen?
How do you know that’s true?
How did they prove that?
From what source are you getting this information?
How do you know it is reliable, or do you just put that much trust in someone else’s integrity and authority?

If you really want to rattle the New-Age Post-modernist, then ask the question “WHY?”  This question creates horror in the deepest pit of the atheistic soul. 

You may not know much about science. That doesn’t matter as much as you might think it does.

Remember, their model is totally based in faith.  So when you ask them “how” it happened, they will not be able to answer you. If they attempt an answer, watch for the introductory words and phrases like

“perhaps,” “probably,” “it may have,” “it seems,” etc.

These are words and phrases that reveal the belief system that is associated with their answer.

If they answer you with just more “information” on the details of their point of view, then go back to your original question about the original part of the model and ask again “yes, I understand that, but how did it happen?”

You may get a violent response, since they are only prepared for the “what” question, for which they have much love (because it gives them a chance to recite what they have been taught) and for which they have many words.

Keep to it.
Do not back down.
Do not let them pass over your question.
Just keep asking “how” it supposedly works. If you get far enough before they walk away, you will get them to the point where (when you’ve asked “how” enough times in a row) they will be forced to admit that, yes, this is a faith-based position.

At that point, you can tell them you’re okay with that, and you too understand about faith. But now there’s no justification for them to look down on you, just because you do not choose to hold the same faith-position that they have chosen.

Truth, reason, and logic are the great equalizers here. Science and the evidence are on our side.  These things are not our enemies, but friends.  Don’t listen to the propaganda about Bible-belief being “anti-science.”  It’s just not true.

So, when it comes to “micro-evolution” versus “macro-evolution,” just remember there is a great difference between the beak of a finch and the origin of the finch itself. The different characteristics found among the finch populations on the Galapagos Islands do not prove evolution, because all the finches are still finches. It does show genetic variety, but not Darwinian evolution. The processes that we attribute to “micro-evolution” (variety within a Kind) are not the processes that would be necessary to produce “macro-evolution” (transition between Kinds).  There is a great wall between them.

It’s like expecting to drink apple juice from a milk carton.

Editor’s Footnote:

  1. For additional information on microevolution and our use of this term in apologetics, see the article: Do We Believe in Microevolution? A Warning to Us Indies

Dr Charl

Written by Dr. Charles Jackson

Dr. Charles Jackson has four degrees in science and education and taught secondary school sciences 11 years, then college biology and chemistry 6 years, and then teacher education classes 6. In 2003, Dr. Jackson founded Points of Origins and began teaching, speaking, and debating in creation science education. Keenly interested in liberating Christian students from the delusion that their faith has been refuted by modern science, Dr. J crusades against evolutionary dogma on college campuses across the United States. He has presented creation science instruction in churches, to both secular and Christian high school and college faculties, to student assemblies from elementary through high school, and to Christian groups on many college campuses.

Advertisement Below:


Leave a Reply
  1. Very good points. This realization should allow anyone to stand up for what they believe. I agree that using the word “faith” for evolutionary assertions is much better than calling it “science.” However, it’s not like the Christian faith. The difference is that evolutionists have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-23); in their heart of hearts, they know that God is there, but they ignore Him. We have a sure faith that rests on the unchanging truth of God’s Word!

  2. One more thing I’d like to add. I think the primary issue when discussing with evolutionists on this subject is differing definitions. Evolutionists often use the word “evolution” to refer to both micro- and macroevolution, without distinguishing between variations and new information. Also, the term “macroevolution” is sometimes defined as change above the level of species, which is observed. In fact, if we place the biblical kind near the family level, creationists would also believe in macroevolution (by this definition). I think the term “variation” is much better than “microevolution,” and it’s usually better to say “change between kinds,” or something similar rather than “macroevolution.”

    If we clearly define our terms before debating with evolutionists, it will reduce confusion enormously.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Advertisement Below:
Advertisement Below:
DNA 3D rendering

Science Fiction and Real World Genetics Moral Dilemmas

Keep Your Own Brain Turned On – And Question!