The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I don’t think so. You’re falling into the trap (and so is JC, I think) of treating creation itself as something that happens within creation, or within the observable universe if you prefer a non-theological term. Or, at least, as something meaningfully analogous to this.

I take your point; I was thinking of creation as the universe, but if you think of it as a philosophical concept, then sure, it's not amenable to evidence based testing.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the scientific method fails us when we ask “Where does existence come from? Why does anything at all exist, as opposed to nothing existing (which is on the face of it a perfectly cromulent alternative state of affairs)?” One of the foundational axioms of the scientific method is that the universe does exist (i.e. it is not illusory) and as we all know an investigative method which takes the existence of the universe as a given can’t investigate the existence of the universe - that’s circular, and therefore invalid. So “why does anything at all exist?” is not a scientific question, not capable of scientific investigation, not susceptible of a scientific answer.

Maybe not. It works well enough for determining the specifics or the origin of most everything that exists, it really only fails when it comes to the philosophical notion of existence, which arguably doesn't have to come from anywhere at all, being just a notion at the end of the day.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So when we say “God is the author of creation” we are not saying “God is like an extremely powerful potter, except that he doesn’t require kilns or clay or anything else by way of tools or raw materials or eneryg sources, and he is not confine to producing coffee cups but can produce anything at all”. Our statement is more like “God is the condition, without which existence would not be”. And that doesn’t look like a claim capable of being investigated by the scientific method.

True, it's more of a poetic liberty than a statement like "God created the universe". The former doesn't really assert anything measurable about reality, but the latter, being tied to something physical and measurable, should be demonstrable by what is physical and measurable.

Peregrinus wrote: »

if you want to look in the natural world for a meaningful analogy/metaphor for creation, I don’t think it’s a ceramic craftsperson making a cup; more an author writing a book. Consider the Harry Potter universe; we know, from our perspective outside the, um, Potterverse, that it's an emanation of the imagination of J. K. Rowling. But neither Rowling nor her imagination are part of the Potterverse. A character within it can empirically observe neither Rowling nor any evidence that she is the author. Within the Potterverse, Harry can look at a cup and ask himself "where did this cup come from?". And he can use the scientific method and pursue an answer through kilns and clay and so forth in the Potterverse, but he's never going to arrive at "J. K. Rowling" as an answer.

I think you can be more direct and say that the idea of 'creation' itself exists in the realm of analogy and metaphor, just like the Potterverse, and being purely an idea is not testable by any physical means.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn’t want to push this analogy too far - I am not saying the Christian view is that we are all characters in a story told by God. But I think authorship as an analogy for creation is a good deal closer to the mark than manufacture, and thinking of it in those terms illustrates the futility of looking within creation for empirical evidence of creation.

But only when that 'creation' is a philosophical concept. Once you're considering more concrete subjects, such as the universe for instance, there's no reason to think that the cause of of the universe cannot be determined by studying the effect.

Morbert

Absolam wrote: »

But only when that 'creation' is a philosophical concept. Once you're considering more concrete subjects, such as the universe for instance, there's no reason to think that the cause of of the universe cannot be determined by studying the effect.

Hmm, I'm not sure this is guaranteed.

We can in principle construct rigorous scientific descriptions of the entire universe (Like Hawking's "Wave Function of the Universe" proposal), including its "beginning".

But these descriptions are contingently true, not necessarily true. A philosopher is still free to ask why there is a universe rather than no universe, or why the universe is the way it is, as opposed to some other unrealised way.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

It's hardly surprising that a Christian lobbyist, i.e. Breda O'Brien of the Iona Institute, would take the line of "scientific intolerance" regarding creationism not being accepted without evidence.

... but this was much more than that ... it was an irreligious crusade directed against Prof Sternberg ... who merely published the paper at issue and wasn't even it's author.

... and as I have said and has been agreed, there is a ban on the scientific evaluation of evidence for supernatural causes ... so the evidence presented by Dr Myer in his paper was never scientifically evaluated by the very people condemning it loudest ... as their own rules bans them from doing so.

... so where has Breda O'Brien erred in her analysis of the Prof Sternberg case?

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I don’t think so.

You’re falling into the trap (and so is JC, I think) of treating creation itself as something that happens within creation. (Or "within the observable universe" if you prefer a non-theological term.)

I can reasonably ask where the coffee-cup in front of me came from, and the scientific method can be applied to establish answers to that question. But the answers will always point to other empirically observable things - clay, kilns, designers, ceramic artists, whatever - of which we could then ask the same “where did it come from?” question again. And so on, through a chain of objects/entities that exist or existed in space and time.

But the scientific method fails us when we ask “Where does existence come from?

I agree that the scientific method is incapable of answering such a philosophical question.
However, when it comes to the creation v spontaneous generation and evolution of life ... the question of which method was the one by which life arose ... is accessible to scientific investigation.
We can make scientifically testable predictions for boths possible methods along the lines of if creation was the method, we would expect to see the following ... and if it was spontaneously generated and evolved we would expect to see the following.

marienbad

J C wrote: »

I agree that the scientific method is incapable of answering such a philosophical question.
However, when it comes to the creation v spontaneous generation and evolution of life ... the question of which method was the one by which life arose ... is accessible to scientific investigation.
We can make scientifically testable predictions for boths possible methods along the lines of if creation was the method, we would expect to see the following ... and if it was spontaneously generated and evolved we would expect to see the following.

so why are creation scientists not doing that then ?

J C

marienbad wrote: »

so why are creation scientists not doing that then ?

Creation Scientists are doing this and much more.
... but they risk being sacked from their conventional science day jobs, if they are discovered to be doing this in their spare time ... and they can never have their research peer reviewed or published in conventional science publications.

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists are doing this and much more.
... but they risk being sacked from their conventional science day jobs, if they are discovered to be doing this in their spare time ... and they can never have their research peer reviewed or published in conventional science publications.

Can you define 'Creation Scientist'? In what way are creational scientists ignoring convention? Which hypotheses have they proved?

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

I take your point; I was thinking of creation as the universe, but if you think of it as a philosophical concept, then sure, it's not amenable to evidence based testing.

It’s important to think clearly here. I suggest we use the word “creation” in two senses. There’s “creation”; the totality of all the things that are or ever were or will be; the universe. And there’s “creation”; the act or process or event or whatever you will of bringing into existence that universe.

Obviously, to call the universe “creation” invokes the former sense. But it also implies that the totality of existing thing was created; that it hasn’t always existed, or that it didn’t pop into existence in some process or event that we wouldn’t term “creation” in the second sense. And since that’s the very thing we’re supposed to be investigating, we should probably avoid question-begging language like that. So let’s use “universe” for the totality of all things that are, and “creation” for the intentional bringing into existence of that universe and, let’s say, “popping up” for the spontaneous or random coming into existence of that universe.

Right. Does the universe exist? As already pointed out, the existence of the universe is axiomatic in the scientific method (it is presumed not to be illusory), so the scientific method can’t , in fact, be called up on to establish that the universe exists. Why does the universe exist? Science can’t help there either; once you postulate anything as a given, your etymology can’t investigate why it exists, since you have already stipulated that its existence is absolutely necessary; it is impossible that it should not exist. Why does it exist? The only coherent answer in this etymology is “because it must”.

Given that that the universe exists, how did it come to exist? Was it created or did it pop up? (Let’s assume, for the sake of simplicity, that these are the only two alternatives.) To my mind, science can’t answer this question.

It can, though, investigate how the universe arrived at its present condition, and this is where I think some confusion arises. As I understand it, big bang theory offers an account, entirely non-theistic, of how the universe we observe came into being about 13.8 billion years ago in an event which marks the inception of space, time, the laws of physics, etc. We can’t look further back than this, since this is the start of time (there is no “before”) and since the rules by which we observe the universe to be bound would not have applied to the antecedent state of affairs which gave rise to the big bang. Therefore we cannot, as it were, construct a model of the conditions which gave rise to the big bang by observing current conditions and extrapolating backwards.

Which is why I think you’re wrong to say that “there's no reason to think that the cause of of the universe cannot be determined by studying the effect”. Here we have to look again at the notion of “universe”. If the universe is “everything observable” then it does not include the conditions which gave rise to the big bang, or the state of affairs within which the big bang occurred. And I think this is pretty much how cosmic physicists speak; they talk about the big bang as the origin of the universe. But if “universe” is a synonym for “creation” in the first sense outlined above, then it means “everything that is, that exists, that prevails, or that ever has or ever will” and obviously that does include the conditions which gave rise to the big bang. in that sense of “universe”, there are aspects of the universe not susceptible of scientific examination - namely, the conditions antecedent to the big bang.

Were those antecedent conditions created or did they pop up? Science necessarily can have nothing to say about this. Science can’t even say that, if we could observe the antecedent conditions, they would yield evidence as to whether they were created or has popped up.

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

Given that that the universe exists, how did it come to exist? Was it created or did it pop up? (Let’s assume, for the sake of simplicity, that these are the only two alternatives.) To my mind, science can’t answer this question.

Fair enough (in accordance with your axioms) ... but then ... science shouldn't be attempting to answer questions on the origins of the universe, if you are correct ... but here's the thing science is doing precisely that (attempting to explain the origins of the universe and life itself)
... but then you say (out of the other side of your mouth) ...

Peregrinus wrote: »

It can, though, investigate how the universe arrived at its present condition, and this is where I think some confusion arises. As I understand it, big bang theory offers an account, entirely non-theistic, of how the universe we observe came into being about 13.8 billion years ago in an event which marks the inception of space, time, the laws of physics, etc.

... and science could just as easily (if it were of a mind to do so) evaluate the evidence for the Direct creation of life ... as opposed to the alternative theory of its spontaneous generation and evolution.

Leroy42

You do realise that 'science' isn't like a company, it isn't run by one set of people. Throughout history scientists have pushed against the perceived 'wisdom' of the time. Earth not being flat, earth not being centre of the universe, evolution. All of these would be close to heresy at the time. Yet somehow the scientists, in a time when religion ruled not only the spiritual but in many cases were deeply involved in every aspect of society from government to education, availability of funds etc, somehow they pushed through.

Yet you're argument is that today there are no scientists who are willing to work on anything other than the perceived 'wisdom'. Not one scientist, despite the massive amounts of money that are available through religious orders and areas like the creation movement, that not one scientist has been willing to research and then publish the evidence

Is that really you're position?

JC, you have posted a number of times that god/unicorn is a fatally wounded meme.

Can you explain how you have decided that one supernatural being can exist but then place such a limit on the supernatural that the other doesn't.

How has nonconventional science proved the non existence of any other type of supernatural force?

marienbad

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists are doing this and much more.
... but they risk being sacked from their conventional science day jobs, if they are discovered to be doing this in their spare time ... and they can never have their research peer reviewed or published in conventional science publications.

but they can publish in other publications then ?

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

You do realise that 'science' isn't like a company, it isn't run by one set of people. Throughout history scientists have pushed against the perceived 'wisdom' of the time. Earth not being flat, earth not being centre of the universe, evolution. All of these would be close to heresy at the time. Yet somehow the scientists, in a time when religion ruled not only the spiritual but in many cases were deeply involved in every aspect of society from government to education, availability of funds etc, somehow they pushed through.

Yet you're argument is that today there are no scientists who are willing to work on anything other than the perceived 'wisdom'. Not one scientist, despite the massive amounts of money that are available through religious orders and areas like the creation movement, that not one scientist has been willing to research and then publish the evidence

Is that really you're position?

Creation Scientists publish their research in their own Research Journals.
Here is a link to one:-

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/v9/

Leroy42 wrote: »

JC, you have posted a number of times that god/unicorn is a fatally wounded meme.

Can you explain how you have decided that one supernatural being can exist but then place such a limit on the supernatural that the other doesn't.

How has nonconventional science proved the non existence of any other type of supernatural force?

Nobody is placing any limits ... but conventional science bans research into all supernatural causes.
This means that if God did create the Universe and all life, science cannot investigate the evidence for this ... due to its self-imposed rule banning such investigations.

Creation Scientists and ID proponents have stepped into this yawning gap within science ... and have begun using the scientific method to assess the physical evidence for the action of intelligence in the origins of life, for example.
The anti-God bias within science even extends into banning research into Noah's Flood ... which could have been a natural catastrophe ... but because of its Biblical linkages, it is deemed to be 'beyond the pale' for conventional science.

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists publish their research in their own Research Journals.
Here is a link to one:-

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/v9/

Nobody is placing any limits ... but conventional science bans research into all supernatural causes.
This means that if God did create the Universe and all life, science cannot investigate the evidence for this ... due to its self-imposed rule banning such investigations.

Creation Scientists and ID proponents have stepped into this yawning gap within science ... and have begun using the scientific method to assess the physical evidence for the action of intelligence in the origins of life, for example.
The anti-God bias within science even extends into banning research into Noah's Flood ... which could have been a natural catastrophe ... but because of its Biblical linkages, it is deemed to be 'beyond the pale' for conventional science.

In particular, which of these papers makes the most pertinent points? What is your opinion of those pertinent points?

oscarBravo

I'm also curious: has Creation Science ever demonstrated anything in the Bible to be untrue?

Morbert

J C wrote: »

Fair enough (in accordance with your axioms) ... but then ... science shouldn't be attempting to answer questions on the origins of the universe, if you are correct

You're conflating two different investigations.

One investigation pertains to understanding the ontological status and priority of the universe (E.g. Is the universe a necessary object? Does it rest contingently on some prior ontological grounds like God? Is it a brute fact?).

Another investigation pertains to the understanding history and physical character of the universe, including its beginning.

Scientists investigate the latter, not the former.

Peregrinus

J C wrote: »

Fair enough (in accordance with your axioms) ... but then ... science shouldn't be attempting to answer questions on the origins of the universe, if you are correct . . .

What Morbert said. Science can perfectly validly investigate how we arrived at the the present state of affairs - is this a 6,000-year story or a 13.8 billion year story? - but not so much the question of why there should be any state of affairs at all. I think the error in your thinking is highlighted when you say:

J C wrote: »

. . . . but conventional science bans research into all supernatural causes.

Science doesn't ban research into supernatural causes; it's just unable to research supernatural causes. The scientific method proceeds by empirical observation; it can only investigate things that can be empirically observed; everything that can be empirically observed is, by definition, part of nature. Nature may contain elements that we cannot understand; that we cannot explain; that appear to us to be inexplicable or to contradict our scientific understanding. But those things are not supernatural; they are just aspects of nature that are poorly observed or poorly understood.

By definition, the supernatural is not part of the natural. And, by definition, the natural sciences - there's a bit of clue in the name - are not an apt tool for investigating the supernatural. They can tell us nothing about the reality or significance of the supernatural, one way or the other.

.........

J C wrote: »

... but conventional science bans research into all supernatural causes.

This is such balderdash and shows you unfortunately, and ironically, like many atheists, understand neither Science, nor or the supernatural. Or the the difference between the physical / non physical. You might as well complain conventional Mathematics 'bans' research into the Irish language, or that a tablespoon is useful as a motor car if only people didn't 'ban' putting wheels on spoons. It's idiotic blather about articles and subjects of an entirely different substance, nature, and realm. It's as ignorant of natures as an atheist claiming that science has / can / will one day prove spirituality doesn't exist. Scripture primary concern is spiritual well being and its effects on eternal life, not the finite physical.

marienbad

......... wrote: »

This is such balderdash and shows you unfortunately, and ironically, like many atheists, understand neither Science, nor or the supernatural. Or the the difference between the physical / non physical. You might as well complain conventional Mathematics 'bans' research into the Irish language, or that a tablespoon is useful as a motor car if only people didn't 'ban' putting wheels on spoons. It's idiotic blather about articles and subjects of an entirely different substance, nature, and realm. It's as ignorant of natures as an atheist claiming that science has / can / will one day prove spirituality doesn't exist. Scripture primary concern is spiritual well being and its effects on eternal life, not the finite physical.

this should be amusing !

.........

marienbad wrote: »

this should be amusing !

not as amusing as the failed stereotyping.

J C

......... wrote: »

not as amusing as the failed stereotyping.

... or a clearly failed definition of science that Atheists (and apparently many Christians bizzarely} cling to.

Happy St Patricks Day to everyone.

... and let us not forget, in the melee of leprechaun hats and razzle dazzle ... that today marks the arrival of the Christian Faith in Ireland.

J C

Some interesting developments in the evaluation of Darwinian Evolution as scientifically bankrupt. The following is an account of a meeting of Evolutionist Scientists in 2008 in Altenberg, Austria

Quote:-
"The Altenberg 16

Recently, evolutionist Suzan Mazur published a book entitled, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry. The Altenberg 16 is a group of top university academics who met together at a symposium held at Altenberg in Austria in 2008. According to Mazur, these leading evolutionary scientists ‘recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence.’ Some of the delegates would clearly go further. According to molecular biologist, Professor Antonio Lima-de-Faria, not only is the Darwinian paradigm wrong, but it ‘actually hinders discovery of the mechanism of evolution.’ Professor Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini spoke for a number in stating simply that natural selection ‘is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated.’ Professor Jerry Fodor confessed, ‘I don’t think anybody knows how evolution works.’

The centre piece of the Altenberg symposium was a paper produced by Stuart Newman, Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy at New York Medical College. In this he proposed that complex life is the result of ‘self-organization’. But what is the evidence that such a process exists? Entering into the evolutionists’ mindset this is not difficult to answer:

(1) evolution is a fact

(2) undirected processes cannot explain the complexity of life

(3) evolution must, therefore, be the result of a directed, ‘self-organizing’ process.

It is, however, untenable that a natural process, capable of building something as complex as the human brain, is apparently unobservable.

The Altenberg 16 are clearly not the only scientists who recognize the bankruptcy of Darwin’s theory.
Indeed, there can be little doubt that many top academics know this and, moreover, they know that there is simply no tenable alternative theory."

Where is the supposedly un-biased media reporting this? ... and where are the Evolutionists who tell us that they are 'going where the evidence is leading' ... discussing this openly?

... and Christians are accused of letting their faith rule their minds !!!:eek:

oscarBravo

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Altenberg_16_controversy

The so-called “Woodstock of evolution” (not my term, and a pretty bad one for sure) will see a group of scientists, by now known as “the Altenberg 16” (because there are sixteen of us, and we’ll meet at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for theoretical biology in Altenberg, near Vienna) has been featured on blogs by a variety of nutcases, as well as the quintessential ID “think” tank, the Discovery Institute of Seattle. They have presented the workshop that I am organizing in collaboration with my colleague Gerd Müller, and the proceedings of which will be published next year by MIT Press, as an almost conspiratorial, quasi-secret cabala, brought to the light of day by the brave work of independent journalists and “scholars” bent on getting the truth out about evolution. Of course, nothing could be further from the (actual) truth.

J C

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7761665-the-altenberg-16

wrote:

... the book is a front row seat to the thinking of the great evolutionary science minds of our time about the need to reformulate the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. We hear from world renowned scientists such as Richard Lewontin, Lynn Margulis, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, the "evo-devo" revolutionaries, NASA astrobiologists, and others.

The book grew out of a story Mazur broke online in March 2008—titled "Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?"—about the now famous meeting at Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria in July 2008, where 16 scientists discussed expanding evolutionary thinking beyond outdated hypotheses. (MIT will publish the proceedings in April 2010.) Science magazine noted that Mazur’s reporting "reverberated throughout the evolutionary biology community."

Mazur says she was punished for getting out in front of the story and banned from the symposium but realized the story was bigger than Altenberg (which covered events beginning 500 million years ago) and spoke to scientists who were not invited, including those investigating pre-biotic evolution.

She came to the conclusion that evolutionary science suffers because many in the scientific establishment refuse to acknowledge that the old science has served its purpose and there is disagreement about what the new evolution paradigm is. She thinks the dam is now breaking because the public (who funds science) has become a party to the discourse via the Internet and seeks answers to fundamental questions about evolution that scientists so far can’t definitively answer.

robdonn

J C wrote: »

Some interesting developments in the evaluation of Darwinian Evolution as scientifically bankrupt. The following is an alleged account of a meeting of Evolutionist Scientists in 2008 in Altenberg, Austria

Just thought I'd add a minor correction to that opening sentence.

Safehands

J C wrote: »

Some interesting developments in the evaluation of Darwinian Evolution as scientifically bankrupt.

OK, so you say that this is scientifically bankrupt.
So give us an evaluation of your scientifically sound theory then.

J C

Safehands wrote: »

OK, so you say that this is scientifically bankrupt.
So give us an evaluation of your scientifically sound theory then.

Darwinian Evolution is defunct as an explantion for the supposed spontaneous development of pondkind to mankind over aeons of time ... but it is a very useful scientifically valid theory for explaining the natural/sexual selection processes applied to existing genetic diversity, that lead to important phenomena ranging from antibiotic resistance to inter and intra species competition and survival.

robdonn

J C wrote: »

Safehands wrote: »

OK, so you say that this is scientifically bankrupt.
So give us an evaluation of your scientifically sound theory then.

Darwinian Evolution is defunct as an explantion for the supposed spontaneous development of pondkind to mankind over aeons of time ... but it is a very useful scientifically valid theory for explaining the natural/sexual selection processes applied to existing genetic diversity, that lead to important phenomena ranging from antibiotic resistance to inter and intra species competition and survival.

So evolution by natural selection is real and can cause changes over time, but those changes cannot accumulate over longer periods of time?

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

Darwinian Evolution is defunct as an explantion for the supposed spontaneous development of pondkind to mankind over aeons of time ... but it is a very useful scientifically valid theory for explaining the natural/sexual selection processes applied to existing genetic diversity, that lead to important phenomena ranging from antibiotic resistance to inter and intra species competition and survival.

Just a few questions. Did dinosaurs exist? If so, when? When did the existence of human beings begin?

Safehands

J C wrote: »

Darwinian Evolution is defunct as an explantion for the supposed spontaneous development of pondkind to mankind over aeons of time ... but it is a very useful scientifically valid theory for explaining the natural/sexual selection processes applied to existing genetic diversity, that lead to important phenomena ranging from antibiotic resistance to inter and intra species competition and survival.

So, scientifically what is your theory. I know what you think of Darwin, so stop saying the same thing in dozens of ways.
What is your scientific theory for how it all began?

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

Darwinian Evolution is defunct as an explantion for the supposed spontaneous development of pondkind to mankind over aeons of time ... but it is a very useful scientifically valid theory for explaining the natural/sexual selection processes applied to existing genetic diversity, that lead to important phenomena ranging from antibiotic resistance to inter and intra species competition and survival.

Since it is accepted science, peer reviewed and studied over years, you will need to provide some evidence that it is now defunct.

You can't use your lazy argument about a vast scientific conspiracy, as you earlier post highlighted 16 scientists which somehow managed to break away from this worldwide stranglehold to hold a meeting to discuss their views, views one can only assume came about after they had considered the evidence which they had collected using science.

What evolution does do is to completely debunk your books 'version' of events yet you will still cling to the first first few sentences to hang your hat on. So we have little or no evidence for most of what in in your book and any part that is possible to check, ie how life evolved, despite all the evidence you prefer to go with the theory that everything was created at roughly the same time, that Man was created last, that man lived in a perfect world until he started to ask questions and since then he has been cast out of the perfect world until such time as he dies and then God might let him back in, (persumably until he starts to ask questions again). At which point I assume, since you don't believe in reincarnation, you must believe that they would be sent to hell.

Of course, that begs the question, or at least it should in any thinking person, of why did he not cast Adam and Eve to hell? And if he choose to infer Adam and Eve's sin onto the rest of us, do we all get cast to hell if one of us asks questions in heaven? And since Satan, one of his own angels who therefore had actual proof of God's existence was cast out by God, why not everyone else?

And if one of his angels, which again had direct actual knowledge of god, can ask questions, why would god hold as sinful anyone, without such knowledge, of asking questions.

You also need to explain why 'micro' evolution, as you are wont to call it, would need to exist at all given that you god created everything perfectly (one assumes given his perfection, well apart from man that is). Is your god so imperfect that he entire creation needs to continually evolve to make changes from the original plan?