About a year ago I wrote a piece called, “Sorry Christians, Macro-Evolutions Does Exist”. That article was discovered recently by Ryan, who wrote a letter to the editor about it. Here is what Ryan wrote:

Letter to the Editor: I was just given your article titled: “Sorry, Christians: Macro-Evolution Does Exist”While I was very pleased to see you handling the concept of clearly defining terms, I am afraid you have bought into the Evolutionist’s ploy and equivocation scheme to avoid defending classical Macro evolution. Doing research on this topic it did seem to me that many people were sourcing Berkley. I can see the confusion as there is a section claiming that Macro flow from Micro, but this is just the point, they are still not the same thing, and refer to greatly different concepts. You will see in that article that both Micro and Macro are accurately defined, and they are not the same. What Scientists are saying is this, Micro changes (which happen inside species) eventually add up to Macro changes (which happen outside of species). That is, at some point along the micro changes, there suddenly exists, after that last crucial micro change, a whole new species. Of course they want to simply claim it is all evolution, but this is begging the question: “does evolution happen past the species barrier?”But this is the whole debate, whether or not, things can change species, even gradually over time. Please do not buy into the current neo-evolutionists equivocation games, where they are trying to get out from having to defend Macro evolution (that is the changing of one species into another, regardless of how).Christians have been, and are still correct: Macro evolution is an unproven assumption, and has never been witnessed, nor have any transitional forms been observed. That is, Macro evolution properly (and historically defined) as the change above the Species level. The neo-evolutionists want to abandon the terms Micro and Macro because it benefits them and by doing so they simply, and wrongly, shift the burden of proof and make understanding what they mean by Evolution even more complicated. The terms were created wise to help distinguish what is meant, the neo-evolutionists are doing exactly what you don’t want them to do in this article: they are actually making the debate more occluded, by not clearly defining nor using adequate terms.

Ryan’s letter was compelling and had some really great points. He got me thinking, should Christians really take a stand against macro-evolution? In my original article, I said ‘yes’, but with a grain of acceptance. I was willing to give up ground, swallow the pill, and accept the evolutionist’s terms because I wanted to meet them where they were to take them where they needed to go. That is, I was willing to allow the term to exist while still challenging the process. At the time, I thought it was a fair tactic.

The more I thought about it, however, the more I recognized a similarity in some familiar Bible stories. In the very beginning of the Bible, God clearly and firmly commanded, “Do not eat of the tree of knowledge.” It was the serpent who retorted, “Did God really say…?”. And so we have our first issue of clarity, a ‘define the terms’ moment.

Did God really say?

Genesis 1 recounts the creation where God creates the large sea-creatures and every living creature that moves and swarms in the water as well as every winged bird, land creature, and humans. The foundation of the serpent’s question may still linger in the creation account: “Did God really say he created them? Or, did God say they were part of creation?”

It’s a subtle difference. But that’s really the point that I think Ryan is addressing. It’s a subtle difference with a significant impact. Something as simple as changing the term from its original origin allows the term to mean anything you want. For example, in the military, the first thing we were taught was the famous “Hooah!” Hooah, by the Army’s own definition, means “anything but ‘no’”. And it really does mean anything except no.

“Private! Guard this piece of grass.”
“You’re a jerk, Sarge”, or “Hooah!”, same-same.

We see the same thing with other terms. No matter how many times one appeals to a dictionary, atheism is still redefined by some as “a lack of a belief”. It takes a special kind of ignorance to believe in a lack of belief, but that’s kind of the point to be said here. If micro and macro evolution are indeed the same things, then why even classify them as something different in the first place? How is it possible to believe in small changes and not believe in millions/billions of small changes? It’s not. Much like it isn’t possible to only believe in micro evolution and not believe in macro evolution.

And with that, we have the problem Ryan identifies; giving up ground on an impossibility (or at very least, a well-documented failing theory) is a bad idea. Like mixing oil and water, trying to mix secular needs with religious undertones will ultimately undermine the perfection of the Bible.

So, with all this said, I agree, Ryan. I don’t think Christians ought to jump on the evolution bandwagon. I think we would do well to hold on to things like design and creation. I think macro-evolution fails every scientific study. I think evolution, especially macro-evolution, is rapidly failing even the best secular tests. We, as Christians, would be wise to hold to our beliefs and not fall for the serpent’s tongue, “Did God really…?”

But, in fairness, my article really wasn’t about accepting evolution. Rather, it was as I stated at the beginning of this post. My intent was to meet the evolutionist where he was to lead him where he ought to go. The same tactic employed by Paul in Athens; “I see you worship an unknown God. Let me tell you who that is…” (Acts 17). As if to say, “Dear macro-evolutionists, I see that you have rooted your theory in a less powerful process. I see that you want to accept large-scale, speciation based on changes within the species. Well, let me tell you about the limits of your assumption. Let me show you where micro-evolution is forced to stop and thereby point you to the Creator.”

Ryan, thank you for reminding us all that we have a hope and a future found only in Jesus Christ. Thank you for the conviction to stand our ground and not let those who want to define their own terms take hostage the views of Christianity (we still have the only consistent world-view that makes the most sense of the most data). But, we still have an obligation to make disciples of all nations, to walk among the sinners, not to judge, but to lead into a relationship with Jesus. I don’t believe that happens if we aren’t willing to see things from a different perspective—even if just to bring highlight the errors.

What say you? Leave a comment below with your take on this idea.

Roger Browning is a husband, father of four, Army veteran and has been part of the Clear Lens team since 2016. Roger brings wit, experience and an audacious style to the apologetics genre. Currently, Roger is enrolled in the C. S. Lewis Institute Fellows program and enjoys encouraging others to take their faith seriously.


  1. Okay Roger-well done! Terms are the biggest issue in most debates I have ‘proof’ ‘evidence’ ‘potatoe’ ‘potato’ it can be very daunting.

  2. I understand the importance of this issue to some Christians but for myself cannot see it as big deal. If macro evolution is a fact then I struggle to see how this would make a jot of difference to anyone except those who read the scriptures as journalism. It’s not as if a scientific fact could ever falsify a correct interpretation of a true scripture. Why worry?

    • Hi Randy. Do you have a point of contention with the post? It seems fair to point out that truth (even scientific truth) isn’t based on the finder buy the truthfulness of the claim. For example, Fleischmann & Pons recently (1989) used their education and experience to formulate the value of cold fusion. Newer science has since refuted their claim. Likewise, an extensive array of PhD’s and university research staff only validates the tools available to draw the conclusion. Even the brilliant mind of Einstein believed (based on all the science available at the time) that the universe was static, but we have significant evidence that’s not the case. So, as much as I love a good ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. It seems easier to simply present the evidence and let you decide. What are your thoughts? I’d love to hear them.

Comments are closed.