creationist leaders share Darwin’s belief that species routinely change (and even originate) through mutation and natural selection.Weird, right? But wonderful, that they believe in evolution after all. Or not?
Indeed, according to Answers In Genesis’ (AiG) current web feature “Top 10 Myths About Creation,” it’s a straw-man to suppose creationists think otherwise:A popular caricature of creationists is that we teach the fixity of species (i.e., species don’t change). And since species obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in the first place.
Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know that species do change—but only within the original kinds God created roughly 6,000 years ago.Oh, what scientists call evolution they do not. But they do allow (again, I think that's the right word) changes within families - which would then allow for speciation. But not change at taxonomic levels higher than that.
Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not evolution—they remind us that God put enough information in the genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed world.
My reply to John Heininger in the comments of skepticblog:
John, at what hierarchical level of taxonomy do you require observed bifurcation before you will accept macroevolution? Bacteria are a domain, amphibians (tadpoles) are a class, finches are a family, pigeons are a family, monkeys are two pavorders, humans are a species, fruit flies are two families, and viruses are completely off the charts.
The point is that what you are asking for as the only evidence you'll accept for macroevolution is something that we know takes many times the life-span of humans. Speciation, which has arguably been directly observed (e.g. in E. coli, Podarcis lizards, certain plants, finches), is macroevolution by everyone else's definition, and yet the examples you apparently crave have raised the bar intolerably.
Same species, really?
Suppose you were an alien visitor to Earth, and you have to classify species by the same criteria that biologists today use. Surely you would say that ruby throated tigers and lions are different species, right? Sure, they can actually interbreed, and yet it is common sense that they are different, based on their morphology, behavior, etc. Next look at dogs. If at first you only see a great dane and a chihuahua, SURELY you would say they are at least as different from each other as lion and tiger are from each other. My point is that the two dogs, though both characterized as dogs (which is normally considered a species), are different enough to be labeled as two different species (in fact, I challenge the common notion that they can interbreed, which if true would rule them different species), and we know that those two dogs share a common ancestor.