Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution
In following the Darwinism/ID debate one will quickly hear from
the Darwinist side that Darwinism has been well proven. From
the other side one will hear there is no proof whatsoever that
Darwinism explains the origin of the species. As contradictory
as these statements seem, there is actually an explanation that
reveals a truth to both.
The reconciliation comes from noting the difference between
micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution studies
how sub-species and variations arise. For example, the lengths
of beaks of a certain bird have been show to change due to
climatic changes. The percent of moths with certain
colorations has seemingly changed in response to the changing
needs of local camouflage. Micro-evolution has been shown to be
correct in some instances. There are not as many such proofs
as we might infer from the apologists for Darwinism and in some
cases issues remain, but as a whole a reasonable person should
certainly grant the principles of Darwinism have, in some
cases, explained micro-evolution.
Macro-evolution refers to the origin of the species (not
sub-species). This is what is at controversy.
The Darwinist making the above claims fails to mention
something. He fails to mention that macro-evolution has not
been proven. He may well shut his own eyes and believe that
if micro-evolution has been proven then macro-evolution also
has been proven. But it just isn't so.
For example: "Large evolutionary innovations are not well
understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea
whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record
of any." (Wesson R. Beyond Natural Selection. Cambridge (USA):
MIT Press, 1991)
Theosophy definitely grants to Darwinism the power to explain
some micro-evolution. But after that concession, it describes
Darwinism as only a "minor" law. If you read on and appreciate
the scope of occultism's view, you will see that Darwinism is
described correctly as indeed only a minor law.
Blavatsky's summary view of Darwinism:
The fact is, that only the partial truth of many of the
secondary "laws" of Darwinism is beyond question" (SDii662)
Since Darwinism has been shown to be inadequate after a
century and a half to explain macro-evolution, her assertions
of 1888 have been vindicated.
"No Religion Higher Than Truth"
Support this site by visiting our donation page.
Site copyright © 1996-2014 by Estela Carson-Priede