Just because definitive empirical evidence for macroevolution (evolution from one species to another) has not been found does not mean that such evidence does not exist nor that it will not be found. It does not mean that macroevolution is untrue and impossible. Just because you’ve never seen gold does not mean that it does not exist. There are theoretically possible elements (speaking chemistry now) we have yet to physically discover, but that does not mean they do not exist, only that they must be rare if they do exist.
Al of this does mean that those who claim macroevolution is empirically verified are not being honest and reasonable. We have yet to actually see it happen or to have undeniably discovered it in the fossil record. It may be the going theory, but it has not be verified and so our eyes should be open for other possibilities.
Likewise, those who claim that macroevolution cannot be a scientific possibility are speaking without empirically-based reason to back them, because there is evidence to show that it COULD be true. In either of these cases you risk sounding idiotic to those who have thought these issues through and haven’t been drinking the kool-aid offered by the most vocal proponents of the two most often quoted sides of the debate, both of which are frequently willing to say anything in order to win converts.
(Kool-aid in American discourse? Oh yes, lots of it. Health care next, anyone? )
It is much more reasonable to consider the material origins of the world an ongoing and open question. Notice, I said material origin, not the immaterial origin or first cause in which, or rather Whom, Christians profess to believe.
If you hold to a literal 6-day creation it becomes logical to say that macroevolution is untrue and impossible, but your logic is based on faith and your interpretation of scripture, not on empirical evidence as concerns science.
This should cause you pause before you go debating macroevolutionary science in empirical terms. There should be a little disclaimer dangling from your forum posts and a little charity extended to those whose faith allows for the possibility. You also have some hard empirical evidence to hurdle, as you probably do not believe microevolution can occur, and there is simply no way to get around its existence (the natural selection of dark-colored moths during Pittsburgh’s heaviest steel-producing days is evidence enough) and the subsequent realization that macroevulotion could be physically possible.
You should also remember that all things are possible with God. If you believe God is the source of the universe and all life in it, and if it happens to be true that all species did evolve from one single cell, then is it not possible that the God you believe in was responsible for setting in motion a habitat for that one cell and is also responsible for the biological mechanisms necessary for its evolution to take place?
Would this make God somehow less powerful in your mind? I think it should not. It would mark God as very patient and overwhelmingly, even intimately concerned with the physical needs of his creation, hands-off and yet empowering, as many of us wish our parents had been. There is no challenge to faith here, only to your particular faith, which is based on a particular reading of scripture. Even the scientist has faith in his theories, after all.
Such a God would not be human, perhaps, which is why it could very well be the divine truth of the matter. We humans like the idea of snapping our fingers and things just happen. That, to us, speaks of omnipotent power, and it is a good thing that none of us possess it. But perhaps true power is shown in restraint and overwhelming patience and also in concern for that which is lower and less able to care for itself.
Scientists tell us that the requirements for life to exist according to their evolutionary models demand coincidence upon coincidence to the point of being miraculous (I’ve even heard scientists use that term).
Maybe we should stop fighting the idea tooth and nail and agree with them — it IS miraculous, however it happened, and the piece of the puzzle they keep failing to turn up is peculiarly God-shaped, whether macroevolution turns out to be the material method or not.
(For the article that prompted this tirade, click this link to The Blackbird Press)