Should Macro-Evolution be taught in school?

[Brichard]

I'm curious how people feel.

I have no problem with micro-evolution being taught in schools. Small changes within a species are verifiable scientific fact. So, I think teaching that is ok.

But, I have a big problem with macro-evolution being taught in schools. Macro-evolution is essentially the apes to man argument. Now obviously my Christian beliefs are in conflict with this, but it goes deeper then that.

I just think the theory is so flawed that it shouldn't be taught. Even Darwin himself said that unless an intermediary species was found (ie half-ape, half-man,) then basically his theories were wrong.

I also have problems with the validity of carbon dating. I had a Chemistry teacher at IU explain it at one of our Sunday School classes. It is amazing how many variables they assume are zero. Even if you assume one variable as zero you can get a distored result, but these are multiple variables! More then half as I recall!

There are some Christians that believe in an old earth and some a newer Earth. I believe in a newer earth, but I've read reasons for and against both. I say that just to let you know that the carbon dating thing isn't a religious sticking point to me as much as I think it is bad information.

I've read one book where a Christian creatioinist equated evolution as religion. There are so many unknowns that people accept on "faith" just because the scientific community says it is so. The Big bang theory is basically that the whole earth/world/people started as some big ball of Hydrogen gas.

To put this in perspective the teacher told us that they should change the definition of Hydrogen to this.

"A colorless, odorless, tasteless gas that when left alone for a long enough time... turns into people!"

:D lol

I guess I'm particularly interested in the response of the teachers out there, but I'm not sure how many are at the evolution teaching level. I do think this though, if you are going to teach evolution theories then you should also teach creation theories. If teaching creation gets in the way of church and state then I say don't teach either.

[Lynda/WA]

As a parent, I have no problem with micro or macro being taught. To me it doesn't interfere with creationism at all. When I first read the Bible I had this visual of a big guy rolling around balls of clay to make everything then it magically changing from clay to what ever. The more I thought about it though I decided that it's so easy to mistranslate a single word (ie *day*). Take whatever version of the Bible you are using. Just how many times has it been translated from one language to another? Frequently words just don't directly translate word for word or a word will have multiple meanings. So when the Bible says 1 day how do I know what 1 day really is to God? to him it may have been 1,000 years? Maybe in the very first Bible they used a word that could either mean 1 day or 1 set of time.

I firmly believe God set things in motion. Creating something doesn't mean you have to be hands on for every single aspect of the process either. When I bake a cake I take the existing items, mix, and put in the oven. Even though I'm not actually heating the thing up I still say I am baking it. Why couldn't God take the existing items, mixed them together, and let it evolve?

I see micro as being proof of macro evolution. I've never heard any scientific source say just were the origional elements came from. I say God. I also don't remember reading anywhere in the Bible that God hadn't created anything before Earth. So why couldn't he have created a couple of different items and then *banged* them together creating Earth? And who says he couldn't have taken an exisiting animal and recreated it into man (via evolution)?

I agree there are just to many contradictions in the specifics of how we and the earth came to being. Whatever the physical aspects were I think God was the force behind them.

[Brichard]

Originally posted by Lynda/WA
I see micro as being proof of macro evolution. I've never heard any scientific source say just were the origional elements came from. I say God. I also don't remember reading anywhere in the Bible that God hadn't created anything before Earth. So why couldn't he have created a couple of different items and then *banged* them together creating Earth? And who says he couldn't have taken an exisiting animal and recreated it into man (via evolution)?

I agree there are just to many contradictions in the specifics of how we and the earth came to being. Whatever the physical aspects were I think God was the force behind them.

I agree with alot of what you say, and I appreciate the different perspective. However, I am a little confused of how micro Evolution justifies macro evolution. There is a big difference to me between a human being born without an appendix versus a monkey turning into a human. I'm not intending to be sarcastic, I'm just genuinely curious why you think one would justify the other. You've articulated your thoughts very well, so I'd be curious of your thoughts on this.

The problem I have with Monkeys into man from a religious perspective is that I don't think it flows with the Bible. God specifically made animals and specifically made man. He made man ruler over all of the animals and man named them. Making man just another monkey that would evolve just doesn't jibe for me. There is also a huge leap in difference between man and monkey today. I don't think that is an accident and I personally believe that is the way it has always been.

I also have scientific problems with it as well. If Macro evolution were indeed a process, why is it not still happening today? Why don't we see a transitional species? Micro evolution continues to occur, so why not Macro? Again, it just doesn't make sense to me.

As far as dating the earth, I agree that it is difficult. It is impossible really. From a creationist perspective, I mean God created a mature man, not a baby. Who is to say that he didn't create a mature earth? I believe the Earth is young, but I don't think it is tantamount to my faith. Some very sharp Christians believe the Earth is older and in the "God day" theory, so who is to say?

Also any scientist worth his salt would also agree that dating the Earth is impossible. There are way too many variables set to zero.

My main problem with the "Big Bang" theory and Macro-evolution is that I regard it as poor science, regardless of the religious issues. The scientific method is to take a hypothesis, experiment, tabulate the results, and make a conclusion.

Since we really have no way of verifying the results, it just doesn't seem like science to me.

I'm not sure what our kids gain from it.

There was a famous case where they really nailed religion in order to teach evolution in the schools. Basically the Bible was ridiculed for not making sense. I just think you can take the same scientific principles, apply it to Macroevolution or carbon dating... and get the same results.

I think we have been teaching evolution in schools so long that many of us just take it as "scientific fact." But, when somebody opened my eyes to how porous the arguments were, it really made me change my perspective.

I really don't mean to turn this entirely into a religious debate. Even if you deleted religion from the equation, I still am not sure why we teach it.

[AnnW]

I have no problem with teaching evolution in schools cause they are teaching the 'THEORY of evolution" not the fact. I actually find it rather interesting...how do you explain the dinosaurs??? LOL Besides, as Christians, we know our religion is largely faith based and evolution does not threaten my faith.

[Brichard]

Originally posted by AnnW
I have no problem with teaching evolution in schools cause they are teaching the 'THEORY of evolution" not the fact. I actually find it rather interesting...how do you explain the dinosaurs??? LOL Besides, as Christians, we know our religion is largely faith based and evolution does not threaten my faith.

As I reread my reply it seems a little harsh for some reason. I'm not sure why it does, but please be assured that it wasn't the author's intent! I really love different perspectives. Part of the fun of coming to a debate board is to expand your mind and grow. I recognize that my opinions are just that... opinions. Dissenting opinions help me change my stance or further solidify it.

You know there are many great questions like...

How did the Flood Happen w/o wrecking the atmosphere? Where do dinosaurs come from? etc. I was surprised how many good resources there are for such questions.

I wish you all could have heard this guy who came to our Sunday School Class. He had a science background as a chemistry professor at Indiana University, so he knew his stuff. I wish if nothing else everybody could hear him going over the first few chapters of Genesis. I may try to post some of his notes if I find them, but it was really fascininating. There is alot more there than meets the eye.

I'll try to cover some of the dinosour theories. This is the stuff I remember, so I apologize for anything I leave out...

In the beginning, man was supposed to live forever in harmony. Things all changed when Adam first brought sin in the world. Read Genesis 1 and look at the definition of sky. I don't have my Bible in front of me, but it is described as "an expanse of water." This scientist viewed this not as the sky we know today, but as a genuine ring of water.

With this ring of water lots of the harmful rays would have been filtered. This would create an environment where things naturally lived longer. Remember in the early Bible, people lived for hundreds of years.

One thing that scientists conclude about dinosaurs is that they were reptiles. Do you know what makes reptiles unique? They never stop growing! With this different environment where people live longer, the animals surely did as well. Can you imagine a lizard living for 200 years... always growing? Voila, a dinosaur!

Also, remember that ring of water above the sky? It falls when the earth is flooded. After that point in time, the earths atmosphere changes. The life expectancies start to decrease etc. This would also explain why all those dinosaurs aren't around today. This theory all flows together.

I'm not asking you to buy this theory. But, it really challenges you to think a bit. I've read other Christian science books that believe the earth is billions of years old. So, again this is not something that I believe is tantamount to your faith.

But one thing he did convince me of is how flawed Macro evolution is. I have more problems teaching this theory than the Big Bang theory. There just aren't enough facts to teach it IMO.

[netmechwife]

Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis is a great organization that has scientifically studied Creationism and has so much information on the subject that it would be hard to read it all at once. There site is www.answersingenesis.org. Also as far as dinosaurs there is proof that they lived around people. It is also documented in most folklore about "dragons". And I believe they have found dinosaurs (dead of course) actually "frozen" with food still in their mouths as if they were eating when suddenly something caused them to die ie a flood :)

[Brichard]

Originally posted by netmechwife
Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis is a great organization that has scientifically studied Creationism and has so much information on the subject that it would be hard to read it all at once. There site is www.answersingenesis.org. Also as far as dinosaurs there is proof that they lived around people. It is also documented in most folklore about "dragons". And I believe they have found dinosaurs (dead of course) actually "frozen" with food still in their mouths as if they were eating when suddenly something caused them to die ie a flood :)

Yeah, Ken Ham is the guy that our instructor advised us to use as a source for more information. I've read the Ken Ham book "Evolution, the Lie." I guess he actually came and spoke at our church a few years ago. Unfortunately we didn't live here at the time and missed it! :(

My step Mother-in Law gave me a couple of different books by Christians who disagreed with Ken Ham and his theories. They were more in tune to an older earth and had some pretty good arguments to support their side.

I'm sticking with Ken Ham because it just makes more sense to me! :)

[Lynda/WA]

Trying to clarify why I think proof of micro-evolution means macro-evolution also probably happened.

From what I read (confessing I did a little research on difference of macro/micro) micro is small stuff. For instance a type of moth in England started white. Then evolved to gray during the industial revolution and have now evolved back to white with cleaner air (vs the gray soot of that age). Another example - off the coast of Africa a reccesive gene resistant malaria came about (mutation?). As those with the gene were more likely to survive and have more children (just by virtue of living longer) children with 2 resistant genes began being born. To much of a good thing isn't always good. Two of this reccesive gene wasn't good and was the beginning of Sickle Cell Anemia. That's also why Sickle Cell Anemia is more prevelant in the black population. Another example - more and more people are being born without molars. Could be that humans are evolving to get rid of a part no linger needed to rip meat apart?

From what I read of macro-evolution it is simply a larger change. Namely one species breaking into 2 different species or a dramatic change that you would no longer consider it the origional species. you can either have this happen by lots of little changes or a single large change probably caused by an external force (such as a world flood, a huge meteor, or volcanic ash covering the earth.

We already know that changes within a species happen. We also know that multiple changes to the same species have happened over the course of time. Therefore the next step is either a big change happening or enough little changes happening to splinter a species into two species. Little changes do happen. Lots of little changes do happen. I'd extrapolate that to big changes do happen. I'd say it's more a case of proving that big changes aren't possible.

I'd sat it's more a case of so many little changes happening over a long time that the progression is difficult to say this animal did this, then this, then this, then this, ect. Especially when you take into account that part of a species may move to a new locale. They would each change differently. Eventually the compilation of little changes could make them unrecognizable as starting out the same.

BTW, Does it say anywhere that God used *fresh material* when he made man? Many artists take an existing creation and improve on it to get their final creation. Or simply to get a new creation. Why couldn't God have taken one of the animals he created and changed it to create man? Does the Bible say he didn't or do we just assume we were made from fresh clay? That's were I would say macro-evolution comes into play. God taking something he had already created (earth) and changing it to a new plant or animal and finally changing that to man.

[netmechwife]

God's Word says
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

And also:
"Genesis 2:7
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

For me this is answer enough on how God created man and beast. And that he created them each seperately. It also answers any questions on "big bang" as well. God said it and "BANG" it happened... lol

[Brichard]

Lynda/WA,

I guess I just feel like macro is such a huge leap from micro. We can verifiably prove that changes happen within a species. But, to my knowlege, we have never proven a species changing in to another species. If it happened once, why doesn't it continue to happen?

I guess that is the type of question that come to my mind. I just don't see how one proves the other without any verification of macro-evolution. Oh well! Thanks for the information! :)

[Lynda/WA]

Brichard - very good point about the new species. But just to tangle things up more - I just now read an article about hybrid animals that are crosses between different species. It was in The Oregonian science section on May 30, 01 but looks like it came from the Boston Globe before that.
We already knew about some examples such as the mule. That one isn't a worry since a mule doesn't breed it doesn't matter. Another example is a cross between a lion and a tiger. Another is a horse and a zebra. one that surprised me was a whale (2 tons) and a dolphin (400 lbs). That one lived just 5 years and I don't know if it could even have babies.
Now they are finding current day examples that not only survive but also allow them to outcompete their parent species. Could be that this has been happening all along. There is a debate over whether the red wolf is really a hybrid between the gray wolf and coyotes.
I saw one TLC show where they talked about homosapeans (sp) and neaderthals living in Europe at the same time (28,000 yrs ago) but only one set of bones has been found that is a combination and it was from a child that died at about 4 yrs old.
I got a personal kick out of the article. Living in the northwest I sympathize with the loggers that have lost their living because of the spotted owl. Now they are finding that the spotted owl is cross breeding with a different species the barred owl. So should this new hybrid sparred owl become an endangered species like the spotted owl? And to make matters worse the new sparred owl is thought to not only be mating with other sparred owls but also with the barred owl and and spotted owl. Really blurs the lines!

[Brichard]

Lynda,

The examples you are using are good for showing how certain species can interbreed and produce a result. I know I've heard of "Coy-dogs" that are part coyote/part dog for example.

But, this still isn't macro-evolution as I would define it. Micro-evolution is where a certain environment generates a change in an animal. I can't remember specifics, but I've seen where certain fish that are in dark waters develop better capacities for site etc. Or how some humans are being born without an appendix as it isn't a necessary organ for survival.

But, for a monkey to eventually turn into a human... all by itself... just seems odd. Even if other types of monkeys were to interbreed, I still don't see how they come one step closer to being humans.

Now what would be odd is if a human could inter-breed with another animal. As sickening as it is, I'm sure some have tried!

I guess that further supports the argument in my mind that humans are so far removed from the animal kingdom. And, I don't think that is by accident.

I do find the information on the animals intriguing. Its funny, I start trying to recall all the Gregor Mendall (Sp?) species stuff from High School Biology! But all I can seem to remember is dominant and recessive genes!

[Amy2]

Brichard,
I imagine that it would be possible to breed a human with an ape or gorilla. With cloning and petrie dish fertilization, I imagine it won't be long before someone tries.
Amy

[Lynda/WA]

Brichard - Mendel (sp) was one of the answers on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. The question was who is considered the father of genetics. I was thrilled that I knew that one! And like you it was from back in my school days. When I was in middle school I went on a genetics kick and read about his sweet pea experiments and related stuff on my own one summer. Then as a freshman in HS I went on an exchange program for a day with a school in a nearby city. Wound up in a junior/senior science class. I think some of the kids were in a competitve mood and wanted to try and prove their school was better. They started in one lets see what Wausau West teaches and started drilling me. They shut up really quick when they realized a little old freshman was showing them up. Didn't ever tell them I hadn't studied it in school.
Back to the topic - I know they have proven we are NOT descendants of Neandethals. At one time scientists thought we were. They also know that all mankind is the descendents of a small number of people (via DNA). To me it doesn't really make a difference in my beliefs.

Amy - one show I watched said it would be possible to bring back the woolly mammoth by cloning. They'd cross it with an elephant since it is a close enough DNA match. Through repeated cloning you could get something that was 95-99% mammoth. I think Brichard is talking about a naturally occuring evolution though.

[TXmom]

Lynda

Macro evolution is above the species level.

[Brichard]

Originally posted by Amy
Brichard,
I imagine that it would be possible to breed a human with an ape or gorilla. With cloning and petrie dish fertilization, I imagine it won't be long before someone tries.
Amy

Yeah, I can see where it may be possible. If they couldn't do it, that would solidify my arguement even more. But if they can do it, it wouldn't change my mind. For example, if a human sperm and gorilla sperm can be merged... you may get something to resemble a neanderthal. But, we are still relying on a low-life form (gorilla) to mix with a high life form (man) to get the result.

For me personally, it just doesn't explain the progress from lower life form to higher life form.

I hope it doesn't happen just from a morality standpoint. I think there are certain things that man shouldn't mess with and cloning/altering species is one of them in my opinion!

[netmechwife]

For those who are interested (I assume you are interested in learning more if you are on this debate :)) I found a great website with food for thought on Evolution and Creationism. Lots of really interesting articles to make both sides of the debate really think. I learned a lot that I didn't know or thought I knew but was wrong...

www.projectcreation.org

For the question of animals changing into other animals I thought this was interesting:

http://www.projectcreation.org/Spotlights/May01.htm

http://www.projectcreation.org/Spotlights/Jan01.htm

[netmechwife]

DINOSAURS:
FACTS vs. IMAGINATION
July 2000

Millions of years ago when dinosaurs ruled the earth is how evolutionists present dinosaurs in books and movies to the general public and there has been a high level interest in dinosaurs for well over 150 years. Hundreds of books and dozens of movies have been produced on this subject. These books and movies usually present the characteristics of dinosaurs as though the facts about them were established with absolute accuracy. The reality of dinosaurs is actually quite different.

What is really known about dinosaurs is limited to what has been found in the fossil record and that is actually very little.

The fossil record gives us a clear idea of the size and shape of dinosaurs, most of which were no bigger than a horse. Fossilized dinosaur skin has been found indicating that dinosaur skin was bumpy, much like lizard skin. Fossil footprints give some idea of their level of physical activity. A fossil of a four chambered dinosaur heart and unfossilized bones with blood cells still in them are convincing many paleontologists that dinosaurs were actually warm blooded. And that is all that is really known about dinosaurs.

One of the many things not known about dinosaurs is what color they were. The color of dinosaurs, or of anything else, does not fossilize. As an item undergoes the fossilization process, the minerals replace the organic material so that the color of the mineral becomes the color of the fossil.

Despite movies like Jurassic Park and Disney's Dinosaur, virtually nothing is known about dinosaur behavior. Imaginative writers and artists not withstanding, it is not known if dinosaurs hunted in packs, if there was any of dinosaur family life, how fast they grew or if dinosaurs were ferocious killers. Groups of dinosaur tracks have been found, but that doesn't prove that the tracks were made at the same time. Dinosaurs did lay eggs in nests, but there is no real evidence that the mothers took care of the young after birth. And while some dinosaurs may have been hunters, almost all of the coprolite, fossil dinosaur dung, found is from plant eating dinosaurs, indicating that the vast majority of dinosaurs were plant and not meat eaters.

Imagination, not science, has become the driving force for most dinosaur storytelling today. For the overriding purpose of most dinosaur stories is not to teach the facts about dinosaurs, but rather to make money and spread the religion of evolution.

How this combination of imagination and desire to spread the religion of evolution can lead to absurdity is well illustrated in the nonsense regarding the "discovery" of a so-called "feathered dinosaur" named archaeoraptor. The story of archaeoraptor is an illustration of the desperation of many evolutionists to find any evidence for a supposed dinosaur to bird link. The archaeoraptor fossil from China was found at a rock show in Utah and claimed to be proof of dinosaur to bird evolution. Promoted extensively by National Geographic, it was later learned that the fossil was a fake. Someone in China had simply attached the fossil of a dinosaur tail to the fossil of a bird. But so desperate were the evolutionists for fame, money and "proof" of dinosaur to bird evolution, they didn't bother to check to see if the fossil was real or not.

The expression "seeing is believing" doesn't really apply to so many evolutionary dinosaur claims, because imagination and desperation, not science, has become the motivation for so many of the evolutionary claims about dinosaurs.