Micro-evolution is not the controversial issue - even the strictist of Creationists accept this type of evolution. No one is arguing that there is never any “change” in the universe. Rather, it is the macro-evolution that is the controversy - that naturalistic evolution occurs between kinds (inorganic to organic, plant to fish, fish to mammal, etc.). Naturalistic evolutionists always assumes that because mirco-evolution occurs (which no one disputes) that this automatically proves that macro-evolution also occurs.
Actually many creationists "believe" in macro-evolution.
Here is an example:
John Woodmorappe, in his article The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’--on evolutionists’ terms agrees that a variety of fossil species, including:
This is a species-level change (macro-evolution). But for it to happen as Woodmorappe suggests, the change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all (what they call macro-evolution).Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
But now we see a creationist has not only proposed macro-evolution, but sees it occurring several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!
Another example?
You mention "kinds" in your post. (By the way, "kinds" is a religious, not a scientific term.) Stultis did a good post on this yesterday:
By definition "macroevolution" means evolution above the species level; "microevolution" then being evolution below the species level. Therefore any evolution that breaks the species barrier -- i.e. that results in a new species emerging somehow -- is macroevolution by definition.The problem here is that virtually ALL modern antievolutionary creationists reject the 19th Century position of "fixed" species. They concede, even eagerly, that in all probability whole Families often represent a single "created kind," within which species diversified by some essentially natural processes. The paradigmatic example is the "horse" kind. By this they mean to include the entire Family of Equidae. That's horses, asses, burros, zebras, the whole kit and kaboodle. That's dozens of species, most with some major genetic distinctions, e.g. differing chromosome numbers and arrangements in most cases.
IOW creationists say they don't accept "macroevolution," but in fact they do. Their rejection of fixed species entails that they do.
So, it looks like many creationists not only "believe" in macro-evolution, but have it going at a much faster rate than scientists posit. And in one case, in the opposite direction!
I thought there was NO 'direction'!?
“So, it looks like many creationists not only “believe” in macro-evolution, but have it going at a much faster rate than scientists posit.”
First, I must admit that I was not familiar with the macroevolution definition you gave: “evolutionary changes at the level of species and above”. Further, you would be correct in saying that we have observed speciation occurring and speciation is macroevolution according to your definition. It is also true that most Creationists would accept that part of the definition.
However, there is a second part of the definition of macroevolution that claims “major structural changes in species”. This is the part of the definition that most Creationists would object to.
I think it is a bit of a scam for some naturalist evolutionists to imply that since we have observed minor species differentiation in the present that this type of speciation accounts for “major structual changes” required for inorganic to organic, lizard to bird, etc.
It seems illegitimate, at least to me, for evolutionists to point to the speciation of fruit flies or mosquitoes as macroevolution as though it accounts for the major evolutionary changes that would have to occur for inorganic matter to become a living cell, or for a lizard to become a bird.
So, while I do agree that on the one level “macroevolution” would be acceptable to creationist, it would not follow that this type of macroevolution accounts for producing the huge structural changes that would be required to fulfill the claims of naturalistic evolution. This type of macroevolution has not been observed.
LOL - looks like 'ol Coyoteman is doing a little quote-mining!