Home » Academics » Lecture Hall

Accounting for Life's Complexities: Macroevolution and Microevolution

Accounting for Life

Over the years, evolution and creationism camps have sparred over the origins of life; evolution has become more ensconced in our culture and biblical literalists have fortified their defenses in response. These battles for worldview supremacy are fought through debates between academics, among school boards and in the courts. All the while, the media falsely depicts this battle as hardened rationalists versus overly worried parents. In the midst of all this hype, evolutionary theory is superficially cast as either the great liberator or the gross corruptor.

The debate arises from the problem faced by anyone interested in the origins of life: how does one account for both the diversity and commonality among living things?

Evolutionary theorists answer this question by speculating that natural mechanisms caused life to adapt into increasingly complex species over long periods of time. This process was aided by natural selection, which eliminated the weakest and ensured "survival of the fittest."

Traditional creationists, on the other hand, have held to a strict interpretation of the Genesis account, stating that the origins of all living things can be traced back to the creation week. Small genetic changes responsible for variation among related organisms are present today because God embedded certain variability within His creation at the point of creation. Creationism categorically rejects any notion of more significant changes in organisms, such as the kind that would be needed for a primitive primate to become a human. In other words, any diversity or commonalities that do exist among living things is not due to natural processes, but divine intention.

As muddled as this debate can seem at times, the real point of contention between these two groups can be summed up in one word: macroevolution.

The Difference a Prefix Makes

According to evolutionary theory, changes that impacted (and continue to impact) generations of organisms can be conceptually separated into micro- and macroevolution. Microevolution encapsulates those changes that do not cause significant alterations in the form and function of subsequent generations of organisms, which is commonly referred to as variation.

Conversely, macroevolution describes those changes that do significantly impact organisms. Another way of saying this is that macroevolution describes changes that occur at the level of the species and above. Hence, macroevolution is credited with the diversity seen among all living things, not just within a species.

Microevolution generally describes the kind of changes that are acceptable to both creationists and evolutionists because ultimately, this term is referring strictly to the diversity amongst organisms that demonstrate incredibly high degrees of commonality. Consider the different sizes, shapes and breeds of dog, for instance, and clearly one can appreciate the vast amount of diversity possible within a species. Yet, the biological characteristics that define a "dog" remain the same, evidenced by the fact that any two dog breeds can reproduce with one another.

For this reason, microevolution is often used interchangeably with variation. Even the common mechanisms by which microevolution is believed by evolutionists to occur within a species — such as genetic diversity, adaptation and even natural selection — don't really counter the belief that life was created and orchestrated by God. In fact, creationists can even argue that God intentionally created organisms with the potential for variability, in an effort to make the species more adaptable to various environmental conditions.

Macroevolution isn't as easy a pill to swallow for creationists.

Evolutionists hypothesize that the same mechanisms responsible for the diversity within a species are also responsible for generating the diversity we see between species. In other words, given enough time, variation within a species can produce organisms that are so different from their ancestors that they become fundamentally different. That is, an entirely new species emerges. This process is known as speciation. The most apparent evidence of a "fundamental difference" for a new species is the inability to reproduce with a member of its parent species.

Bringing Complexity into the Equation

However, evolutionary theory doesn't just attempt to use macroevolution to explain the origin of new species alone; if that were the case, creationists might not be so averse to macroevolution because even new species would be originating by mechanisms set in place by the Creator. After all, God created species during the creation week with the genetic capacity to adapt to changes in a world He also created, even if that means changing so extremely that a species can no longer breed with its predecessors.

So, what's the real problem with macroevolution? It is the fact that evolutionary theory postulates that macroevolution has been the means by which life has become increasingly complex. This idea allows evolutionists to stitch together all living things — from E. coli to Homo sapiens — into one single ancestral line (which they call the "Tree of Life") that extends from simple species to the highly complex. Hence, evolutionists hypothesize that all life originated from a simple, single-celled organism, and, through both micro- and macroevolutionary processes, developed into the multitude of species we see today.

Creationists reject this idea because it goes against the Genesis account where it says, "God made X according to their kinds …" (replace X with vegetation, aquatic life, birds or wild animals). Scripture distinguishes these groups or kinds of living things as being made distinct, not as steps or genetic plateaus in some larger process that is a gradation of life.

What really becomes offensive to creationists, though, is the suggestion that humans originated through evolutionary processes from less complex primates. Genesis 1:26–27 says that man was made in the image of God. Genesis 2:7 further elaborates on this idea by stating that Adam was made from dust and God breathed into him. Thus, creationists hold that the origin of man is distinct from the rest of Creation.

From a biblical point of view, evolutionary theory fails because there is no simple way to reconcile the Genesis account of life with the idea that the complexity of life is a result of macroevolution and boatloads of time.

The Struggle Continues

As Christians wrestling to understand and explain the diversity of life, there is great difficulty in integrating science and faith when macroevolution is in the mix. Ultimately, to reconcile evolutionary theory's "Tree of Life" with the Genesis account of creation, one must significantly reconfigure either science or faith — or both. In fact, a number of Christians attempt to do just that by hybridizing evolution and theology into a belief that God used evolutionary processes to create living things. Unfortunately, reinterpreting Genesis 1 in this way means reinterpreting what "days," "kinds" and "made" mean. Though they begin with honest attempts to find a happy marriage between science and faith, these reinterpretations can lead to significant theological shifts away from orthodox Christianity.

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

What are your thoughts on the micro- and macroevolution, as they relate to the Christian faith?

Join the discussion!

In the end, the Christian community must continue to strive for an explanation of biodiversity that is both a biblically and scientifically robust, one that maintains the integrity of scriptural truths and the coherence of contemporary biological understanding. Without such an explanation, evolutionary theory will continue to gain traction in a culture increasingly dependent upon scientific revelations and not religious ones.