Reply to comment
Evolutionists are saying there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. That makes us wonder if creationists should be using different terms to distinguish between what we believe and what we definitely do not believe.
Why does it matter? Because the two terms suggest that there's really only a matter of degree between the kind of evolution we accept and the kind we reject. When we say we agree with one kind of evolution, we are waving the white flag of surrender … at least in the eyes of evolutionists.
That's why we think that creationists should stop using these two terms and come up with something better. In the search for better terminology, we asked members of our Facebook group to share their thoughts. Here's a sampling of the feedback we received:
"I use 'adaptation' and 'general common descent evolution'."
"What they call microevolution is simply God's Adaptive Provision (I call it GAP) God gave His creatures certain abilities to adapt to a given environment, and this ability was 'built in' and did not come out of 'mutations' that somehow added new information or function. Microevolution is a faulty term, since evolution isn't part of the process. Macroevolution is even more of a silly term, since it involves no known process at all."
"I'd rather drop most terms and use the terms that the Bible uses, which is 'min' for 'kind,' and 'bara' for 'created'. Therefore, I'd use 'baramin' or 'created kind' when we're talking about this."
"I suggest these two terms: (1) 'Microbes-to-man evolution' to replace 'macroevolution' and (2) 'Fruit flies-to-fruit flies evolution' to replace 'microevolution'. The second term really emphasizes, I think, that the creature you start with is the creature you end with."
Though there are some good ideas here, we're not sure we've hit on the right terminology yet. Got any suggestions of your own?