Qms:The Great Creation Vs Evolution Debate

From Reconciling understandings of Scripture and Science
Jump to navigationJump to search

"The Great Creation Vs Evolution Debate" was a series of talks (not a debate) held in Coventry, UK, in May 2015. They have been published on Youtube.

Critique by Kenneth Gilmore

Bro Kenneth Gilmore has published a detailed critique of these talks in his blog, indexed here.


In this extract from the first talk beginning here, brother Stephen Palmer offers an idiosyncratic concept of the distinction between Microevolution and Macroevolution, admitting the reality of one but not the other. He also blames evolution for not explaining abiogenesis. — BP

Transcript from 10:47

I went on to train in epidemiology and infectious diseases and became expert in zoonoses. ... (That's these infections transmitted from animals to humans.) So people say to me, "well then you must accept evolution." Well I do, in as much as it's observably true.

See, there's a very naughty habit that the evolutionists have, of presenting one thing under the guise of another. Yeah I see, and quite accept, that the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and viruses is a result of mutation and natural selection. It's a selective advantage in an environment, say a hospital where antibiotics are too liberally used, then there's a selection pressure for those not quite fit organisms[1] which have antibiotic resistant genes to come through and cause disease.

This is the National Academy of Sciences in the United States who have published some so-called authoritative texts against creationism, for evolution, and in their book they say "here's an example of evolution in action today, evolution in medicine." Well I don't disagree with that.

It's microevolution. And you could tell me as long as you want about black and white moths. I quite understand that if a black moth on a white background is visible a bird will eat it, and if a white moth on a black ground is visible, a bird will eat it, and so the propagation of black and white will vary depending on the color of the background. Does that tell me where life originated?[2] Does that tell me how species originated? Did that tell me where the rationality of the human mind came from, to be able to work it out? No, it does not.


The US National Academy of Sciences, an august body indeed, are confusing us by telling us that evolution is observed today. It's ducking the issue because they don't have an explanation for the origin of species. They haven't told us how complexity emerged even though the rhetoric that goes with it insists that they have.


Every so often a scientist will come up and say something that the evolutionists scold them for, because it's politically incorrect to say anything like this, but it helps me when, you know, I'm told so often that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, you know, that only the insane, or the dull, would go against it, right, and that's partly because macroevolution and microevolution are treated as the same thing. In fact if you talk to evolutionists they don't want you to make a distinction between macro and microevolution.

They just want you said "no no we can see it working today" and you say "well, so those small changes, and that example tells me where giraffes came from? and where the eye came from? and all the incredible complexity of life?" And they say "well no you've just got to have faith, brother, you've just got to let us do the research because one day we'll show you how it could happen." Now I don't dispute there's a scientific consensus that macro evolution is the only explanation . . .

  1. re "not quite fit organisms", see Natural Selection and follow the link to "Natural Selection as a Creative Process". For a biologist's explanation of the correct meaning of fitness in Biology follow the link from here. — BP
  2. See Abiogenesis and Qms:Misunderstandings about EvolutionBP