I don't believe any of us do not believe in micro-evolution, that is a verifiable fact, that we all have witnessed.
It is the macro-evolution theory that we have a difficult time with.
It is not a complete theory, not all wrapped up nice and tidy like a Birthday present.
Besides being no verifiable proof that one distinct species can become another entirely new species, (all viewable evolution is within species),
There are gaps and differing scientific views on mechanisms - with the scientific belief that these gaps and views will be smoothed over and proven given enough research.
Essentialy science has FAITH that this will take place. Creationism also take a degree of faith, too.
So if we are talking degrees of faith...
And the sentence on careers was just to illustrate that we are not all rejects from the set of "Deliverence" - we are not mental defectives or morons, despite what we read on FreeRepublic about ourselves.
Psalm, I think that to even label "natural selection" or "genetic variability" as "micro-evolution" can be detrimental to the debate. I formerly used that word but soon found that using it wasn't beneficial simply because people have been spoon-fed to believe that little changes over time add up to big changes over time. It also tends to play into the tactics of those who use the old "bait-and-switch" tactic of changing the meaning of words.
A snip of an article I read puts it much better than I:
Another misused term is 'microevolution', used to describe the observable variations seen within basic types of organisms (for example, the famed industrial melanism of the peppered moth, variation in finch beaks in the Galápagos, antibiotic resistance, etc.). ReMine rightly argues that creationists should not use the term 'microevolution' as this plays into the hands of the illusion encouraged by evolutionists: that given enough time, microevolution adds up to macroevolution. The sort of observable variation evolutionists like to dub as 'microevolution' is due to re-arrangement of existing alleles, or degenerative changes, whereas evolution ('macroevolution') requires the formation of new, complex, information-laden genes to produce feathers on reptiles, for example.
And the sentence on careers was just to illustrate that we are not all rejects from the set of "Deliverence" - we are not mental defectives or morons, despite what we read on FreeRepublic about ourselves
You are absolutely correct! A biology professor at one of our local private universities is hailed as one of the best professors of evolutionary theory in the education system today, even having his work featured on the "Discovery Channel". However, if you didn't come with the same credentials as he, from the same universities, etc., then obviously you had a "bad" education and were dumb in spite of yourself.
Interestingly, I was a roommate with a fellow who graduated from the exact same PhD program as this professor, and were together in all the same classes. The professor's presuppositions of the world were the motivating factor for him staunchly holding on to evolutionary theory as his framework, while my roommate saw problems with evolution. Eventually my roommate subscribed to creation as the better model for explaining biological data (when he became a Christian during his last year of the PhD program).
As an interesting aside, the professor is an avowed atheist (and yes I understand and agree that not all evolutionists are atheists, and vice-versa) who uses his biology classes as an opportunity to try to disprove the Bible (even using the article from TIME quoted in a previous post). He was unable to criticize my roommate's educational credentials because it would be to his own detriment as well, and thus he embarked on a quest to find a way to undercut the creationists' arguments...if you can disprove the Bible then why would one want to believe what it has to say about origins? Or about Jesus?
I found it interesting that he was unable to debate Creationist theory with the evidence of biology and had to switch to an attempt at disproving the Bible using TIME Magazine articles.
The job is already done. Faith isn't involved at all. We are in the process of acquiring DNA sequences at a phenomenal rate. The history of each species is written in the genome. Computer mapping of the genomes describes with absolute certainty the relationships between disparate species. Most of the genome is junk. Sequencing the junk proves conclusively that life is related. We are no longer forced to rely (although this is evidence enough for a logical conclusion of relationship between homologous species) on anatomical similarities. Time since two different species had the same common ancestor can be demonstrated based on mutation rates and the relative number of changes in shared sequences. The junk, because it serves only a structural function can change continuously and randomly in a population without penalty (it is already junk). As the map is filled in with more and more species it will become increasingly clear to even the most committed Creationist that all life on the planet is related and that the genomes of each species have changed continuously through time.
New species arise because of the separation and isolation of breeding groups within an ancestral population. There is no disputing this. This was understood before DNA sequencing occurred and was based on the geographical distribution of related living species. The DNA similarities were predicted and have now proven the contention with absolute certainty. Do you consider the Camel and the Llama to be an example of evolution from a common ancestor? The populations were separated about 30 million years ago and it is still possible to interbreed the two.