Creationism doesn't deny all evolution, it simply explains the beginnings of a universe far too vast and complicated to have happened from nothing. (considering evolution as the explanation of the beginning denies the very laws of physics) The important point that was left out of this opinionated article is there is a difference between macro and micro evolution. Macro-evolution is basically the evolving of one species into an entirely different species, such as a monkey to a human. Whereas, micro-evolution is the evolution within a species in response to things such as environmental changes in light, heat, food sources such as your salamander example now living below ground and no longer needing working eyes while having other, more necessary senses heightened. You might want to do a little less with the 'broad strokes' of your opinions and little more homework on what you're talking about.

Wow! You should explain that to the guys here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/

Belief in Creation doesn't deny evolution at all as far as I know. Evolution is a matter of how everything evolves in a circle.

Evolution never ends and fossils are made to be found.

BaselessGull wrote : "Belief in Creation doesn't deny evolution at all as far as I know."

Then you obviously don't know Ken Ham.

Norman Doering:

Then you obviously don't know Ken Ham.

I don't know Ham, but evolution is true and false claims about evolution are not true.

“Creationism doesn't deny all evolution, it simply explains the beginnings of a universe far too vast and complicated to have happened from nothing. (considering evolution as the explanation of the beginning denies the very laws of physics)”

>>Evolution, however, makes no statements nor predictions about the origin of the universe, or for that matter about the origin of the first living organism on earth. It only addresses changes in the genetic composition of populations of already living organisms on an already existing planet in an already existing universe. You’re conflating evolution with cosmology.

I’ll also note that the creationist model similarly violates the laws of physics.

“The important point that was left out of this opinionated article is there is a difference between macro and micro evolution. Macro-evolution is basically the evolving of one species into an entirely different species, such as a monkey to a human.”

>>No theory of evolution or common descent predicts that humans arose by descent from monkeys.

Here’s a formal definition for the term ‘macroevolution’ : “Evolution on a species level (speciation and extinction) and at higher taxonomic classifications (appearance and disappearance of genuses, families, orders, etc.).” (from the Biotech Life Sciences Dictionary)

An example of macroevolution would be a new species of mouse arising by descent from an existing species of mouse—there’s no necessity that the change be as dramatic as a monkey becoming a human, as you suggest.

And in fact, as we have directly observed new species arise by descent from existing ones, in plants, insects, amphibians, birds, mice, etc., we have—by definition—directly observed macroevolution.

“Whereas, micro-evolution is the evolution within a species in response to things such as environmental changes in light, heat, food sources such as your salamander example now living below ground and no longer needing working eyes while having other, more necessary senses heightened. You might want to do a little less with the 'broad strokes' of your opinions and little more homework on what you're talking about.”

>>Always a good idea.

Thanks for a thoughtful response JGC!

You are correct that on the surface evolutionary theory deals with the observations of genetic changes within already existing life on this planet and beyond. But you have to admit that both the 'routine argument' for evolution and Darwin's theories have their founding in a cosmology based upon the idea that 'first there was nothing, then something (along the lines of bacterial life), then everything evolved from there.' I realize that I'm simplifying things quite a lot, but doing so because I was leaving a response to make others think further than the original article allowed.

Creationism actually doesn't deny the laws of physics, it offers an explanation outside of natural law. The God of creationism is 'supernatural' and therefore natural laws that would clearly apply to evolutionary theory, a Creator would stand 'outside of.' It at the least offers a better possibility than the 'something from nothing' theories that much of the scientific realm brings forth. But it does require a willingness to believe that man and nature aren't the 'center of the universe'.

Most evolutionary theory that is taught both in our schools and at any Natural History Museum not only teaches that man evolved from a common ancestor, the ape, but demands that we all accept that as the only viable option. My use of the term 'monkey' was simply using a common thread of conversation regarding evolution.

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale, such as the development of a new species. Your example of a new 'species' of mouse would only apply if that new 'species' was unable to interbreed with any other breed of mouse. Most often what you're referring to is actually a new breed, not a new species. Typically a species is an entirely different variety of life, with possible similarities to another species, but genetically unable to interbreed with other species, such as humans and apes.

Anyway, appreciate the repartee and thought provoking conversation.

“But you have to admit that both the 'routine argument' for evolution and Darwin's theories have their founding in a cosmology based upon the idea that 'first there was nothing, then something (along the lines of bacterial life), then everything evolved from there.'”

>>Evolution, however, makes no statements nor predictions regarding the transition from “'first there was nothing, then something”: it only addresses what happened once that something—populations of living organisms—were there.

How they got there—whether they arose as the result of magic, natural biogenetic mechanisms from non-living self-replicators, seeding onto the planet by extraterrestrials, etc.—isn’t within evolution’s scope.

“Creationism actually doesn't deny the laws of physics, it offers an explanation outside of natural law.”

>>Positing mechanisms which are outside of natural law is to deny that the laws of physics hold in our universe.

“The God of creationism is 'supernatural' and therefore natural laws that would clearly apply to evolutionary theory, a Creator would stand 'outside of.' It at the least offers a better possibility than the 'something from nothing' theories that much of the scientific realm brings forth.”

>>How does positing a god in the absence of any evidence to support one’s existence a better possibility than theories of cosmology that derive from a large body of evidence (red-shifting of galaxies indicating an expanding universe, cosmic background radiation, etc.)?

“But it does require a willingness to believe that man and nature aren't the 'center of the universe'.”

>>Evolution, big bang cosmology, abiogenetic models, etc., don’t predict that man or nature are uniquely privileged (i.e., the center of the universe.) Creationist theories, in fact support that perspective, given that they all indicate presume nature and man arose in a goal oriented manner—that we represent a preferred outcome.

“Most evolutionary theory that is taught both in our schools and at any Natural History Museum not only teaches that man evolved from a common ancestor, the ape, but demands that we all accept that as the only viable option.”

>>Well, at present evolution is the only real explanation on the table. “God did it”, after all, explains nothing (it simply avoids the necessity to derive an explanation by writing everything off to magic) and is indistinguishable from “Pixies did it”, “Leprechauns did it”, etc., on any basis other than personal taste.

“Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale, such as the development of a new species. Your example of a new 'species' of mouse would only apply if that new 'species' was unable to interbreed with any other breed of mouse.”

>>Which is what has been directly observed: new species which are reproductively isolated from all other species arising by descent with modification. With respect to mice, there’s the interesting example of multiple speciations in populations of mus musculus domesticus, occurring as the result of Robertsonian fusions altering karyotype numbes reported in "Chromosomes and speciation in Mus musculus domesticus", E. Capanna, R. Castigli, Cytogenetic and Genome Research 2004;105:375-384 . Five different new species arose by descent from a common ancestral population, all reproductively isolated from one another.

“Most often what you're referring to is actually a new breed, not a new species.”

>>Maybe when others refer to new species arising by descent they’re mistakenly referring to breeds. I’ve been employed as a research biologist/molecular biologist/immunologist for more than 25 years, and am very careful to use the correct terms and get the facts right.

“Typically a species is an entirely different variety of life, with possible similarities to another species, but genetically unable to interbreed with other species, such as humans and apes.”

>>Humans, gorillas and chimpanzees phylogenies actually diverge at a taxonomic level higher than that of species—humans are genus Homo, Gorillas genus Gorilla, and chimpanzee’s genus Pan. And there exist different species of mice which cannot interbreed, multiple different species of fish, which cannot interbreed, etc.