Micro vs Macro – The Creationist’s Selective Acceptance


Last week I did a special after-show recording with David Smalley & Rachel Nanon Brown for the “4th Listeners” about micro-evolution vs macro-evolution on Dogma Debate. I was helping them prep for a Christian who will be joining them next week when I can’t be there.  This guy says he accepts micro-evolution, but claims that “macro-evolution has no concrete evidence.” That is so irritating.  So in the after show, I help prep Rachel for the typical creationist distortions and non-definitions they use to avoid admitting that macroevolution has been confirmed just as solidly as microevolution. Getting them to understand that is easy.  Getting them to admit it on the air is another matter.
This talk between Rachel and I is exclusive for members of the site, but once you’re a member you get behind-the-scenes access to our in-studio web cam, forums, live chat, and other stuff from the Dogma Debate radio show.
We make this kind of extra-special content as a “thank you” for those loyal listeners that support the show with $5/mo – and help us bring more shows (and more behind-the-scenes access) week after week.
If you want to hear our off-air discussion on micro vs macro (and many more like this), and join up, we’d love to have you as part of the family so we can get your feedback on the forums, share our videos, and chat with you live during the show. You can join us here: http://login.dogmadebate.com

Comments

  1. spike13 says

    Aronra,

    First off I would like to thank you for taking time to make your videos. You’ve opened up an entire world of learning that I had not previously dared to try to understand.(not to mention, my sons getting straight A’s in science/biology because they watched them repeatedly. Their teachers were very impressed with the grasp and knowledge they displayed in class. You my friend should be required watching in high school classes.
    I’d like to give something back.(even if it is small) How do I go about donating to the show?
    Many thanks to yourself and Lilandra!
    Keep those Texas Cassadores at bay!

  2. sbuh says

    Gradualism is just such an unintuitive concept that even the open-minded can have trouble wrapping their heads around it. You’ve given me some of my favorite metaphors to deal with that.

    If you can get someone to admit that species can change a small amount and even split into two or more non-interfertile populations, they never have a satisfactory answer for why these small changes accumulations and splits can’t keep going on indefinitely and accumulate into large changes and significant diversity.

    I’m just recently getting into Dogma Debate but I didn’t know about the aftershow. I might have to start kicking in $5 for that.

  3. robert79 says

    I’ve always been of the opinion that the fight versus creationism needs to focus a bit more on the age of the Earth part. No matter how much evidence for macroevolution you give, if one firmly believes that the Earth is 6000 old, then evolution MUST be false and so there must be something flawed with the given evidence. There simply wasn’t enough time for macroevolution.

    • swedgen says

      Good point. I do think that radiometric dating – what’s involved in it, how precise it is – needs to be clarified and illustrated far more. Too many people, not just creationists, don’t understand even the basics of how it works. People need to know that rocks aren’t aged by guesswork, there are very accurate techniques that underlie it.

      I’m doing an Earth Sciences unit at University in a few months’ time. Can’t wait.

  4. ianeymeaney says

    Saying that “micro”evolution can happen but “macro”evolution can’t is like saying that I can take one step, but I can’t walk to the store to buy a sixer.
    /facepalm

  5. Holms says

    This micro/macro distinction reminds me somewhat of the sorites paradox – how much of [tiny thing] is required before we have [big thing]? In one sense, there is no such distinction except for the convenience of our own limited vision. How much of something invisibly small is required before it is visible? Whatever the amount required, it is still the same thing being looked at.

  6. bill says

    Sorry but I am new here. I have a daughter very interested in science and see the comment above..

    “First off I would like to thank you for taking time to make your videos. You’ve opened up an entire world of learning that I had not previously dared to try to understand.(not to mention, my sons getting straight A’s in science/biology because they watched them repeatedly”

    Are those videos at dogmadebate and I have to join or are those videos, you mention, somewhere else? Thanks

  7. says

    What’s even more amusing[*] is to ask a creationist about the limiting mechanism which prevents the accumulation of micro-changes into a macro-change.

    [*] Though probably not for the creationist.

  8. lpetrich says

    In this connection, OEC Hugh Ross once criticized his YEC colleagues for being “hyperevolutionists”, for believing in superfast evolution of the animals that got off Noah’s Ark.

    Hugh Ross believes that a baramin or created kind is one species, while the YEC’s he criticizes believe that baramins are usually much bigger.