“If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future”
~ Winston Churchill
Micro-Evolution vs. Macro-Evolution
And the Cretinism or Evilution Debate
No that’s no typo. Cretenists vs. Evilutionists is an amusing yet poignant headlining error turned into an industry by Talk Origins that accurately captures the polarized nature of the debate between these two entrenched camps.
We believe that in the interest of open dialog, free exchange, and tolerance, it is necessary to address a couple of basic concepts dealt with on the site. Namely, creationist vs. evolutionist ideals. Germane to this debate are the concepts of Micro vs. Macro Evolution.
Micro-evolution can be demonstrated in the Laboratory, such as the evolutionary changes in bacteria to resist antibiotics. Micro-evolution demonstrates the ability of organisms to adapt to their environment. Are we correct to extrapolate from micro to macro-evolution? In other words are there limits to how far an organism can change?
We must distinguish between micro-evolution (which is repeatable) and the macro-evolution process that has potentially only occurred once in the known universe (and may not be repeatable). We are dealing with history in the case of both macro-evolution and Creation, and each must explain the origin of the living cells and all subsequent species. While micro-evolution occurs relatively quickly and is observable, macro-evolution occurs over many millions of years, according to its proponents, and is not directly observable but must be inferred from the remaining evidence. Creation occurred in a much shorter time frame according to its proponents, but still must be inferred from the remaining evidence to be scientifically valid. Just as forensic science has to establish a firm link between the crime and the criminal, we should expect that our study of origins should be able to prove that macro-evolution and/or Creation is true. We cannot confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of a creator.
We can conclude therefore, that while micro evolution has been proven to exist, there is no way currently to prove either undirected Macro-Evolution or Creation. And here is the key point: We are not interested in doing so. We present educational material on both of these topics, but make no stand as a publication either way. Individually, our beliefs vary, as does nearly every one of our visitor’s beliefs. Our site exists to educate and research the possibilities for the future, which are arguably not tied to our past due to the imminent application of technologies that will create a living laboratory of human micro-evolution going forward. A living laboratory that may have far reaching and tremendous effects. So while we cannot say for certain that micro-evolution in the past developed through blind stages into macro-evolution and is therefore responsible for the origins of the human species, we can anticipate with some certainty that technological forces will soon have the ability to profoundly and positively impact us in the future.
Can Future Micro and/or Macro-Evolution Be Stopped? Should it?
Activists groups are continually trying to halt the progress of technology and its application in the human arena. This is arguably the worst of all possible actions society or factions thereof can take. Why? As stated elsewhere on this site, the net effect of restrictive legislation in one location (or even a broad coalition of countries) will only drive the scientists, medical professionals, wealthy financiers and others desiring to employ the technologies for personal betterment ‘underground’. In this probable scenario the technology will continue to be developed but as a result of the (ineffective) ban, it will only be made available to the very wealthy and privileged who will be essentially free from any societal oversight or legal safeguards.
In the scenario in which human enhancement technologies are banned in one or even a coalition of countries, the activists responsible for swinging public opinion toward this future may sleep better at night having served their short term consciences, but at the cost of creating an increasingly elitist minority further widening the gulf between the haves and have nots at the genetic level. Sadly for society, these activists will accelerate the very future they are trying to avoid.
The answer, in part, is the active education and participation of everyone in evaluating and applying the technologies toward the shaping of a deliberate, positive future for all. The question is not how do we stop technological progress (an impossibility), rather, how do we make its benefits equally and safely available to all.