Who Invented the Macro vs Micro Evolution Terms?

Many times when discussing evolution with avid neo Darwinists online, I encounter the claim that “there’s no such thing as micro vs macro, they’re both the same, and it was dishonest creationists who invented the false distinction”. This is so common that I feel obliged to comment on it.

The reality is this:

“Yuri Filipchenko (Russian: Юрий Филипченко; sometimes spelled Philipchenko) (1882 — 1930) was a Russian entomologist who coined the terms microevolution and macroevolution, as well as the mentor of geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky”
– wikipedia

So there you have it. Macroevolution and microevolution are two terms coined by a Darwinian evolutionist.

Filipchenko was a Darwinist. Not a creationist. So this bogus claim by fervent Darwinians is just tragically ironic, hypocritical and based on their own willful ignorance. The worst is that the last time this false claim was handed to me I was the one treated as dishonest and worse for drawing the opponents’ attention to the fact that micro does not equal macro and macro is not extended micro. The real problem is all these deeply ignorant Darwinists running around parroting each other without ever bothering to verify their claims. I see this kind of mindless recitation of the Darwinian fundaementalist balony catechism constantly. They often act like mindless robots. Every time they stumble upon some statement from some equally clueless Darwinist site, they run with ball, going to the wrong end of the field and they inevitably score against themselves when better informed people catch them in their incompetence.

It is a sign of indoctrination, of brainwashing, when people do this automatic, verbatim, and thoughtless repetition of ubiquitous catch phrases and buzzwords. Indeed, as one physics professor confessed,


So he has no problem brainwashing his students?  Seriously? What is wrong with that person? I bet it’s hard to pronounce.

The following depicts how this really works.

Darwinists typically use a bait and switch tactic when attempting to convince people of their pet theory.  While using the word evolution as meaning changes in allele frequencies in a population over time, they will then switch to the major changes above the taxonomic Family level.  The unwary audience thus sees macro in their minds while the actual laboratory evidence that is seen is ever and always only small, trivial variation.  The two different terms exist because there is indeed a distinction, else why bother? What use would such distinctions be if there really were no distinction in reality?

Here I quote the late WllliamProvine,  Cornell University historian of science and evolutionary biologist, stated that

“[e]very assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false”:“1. natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . .
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.
8. definition of “species” was clear[–]the biological species concept of dobzhansky and mayr.
9. speciation was understood in principle.

11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.
13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.”

Notice point 7, which I emphasized with bold, capitalized text. Darwinists would do well to note every point there. No, my Darwinian friends, macro evolution is not a mere extension of microevolution.  Provine is not alone. Today dishonest Darwinists, attempting to perform one of their standard moves – moving the goalposts – have changed the definition of macroevolution so that it is in fact merely microevolution, occurring at the species level. By very definition, macroevolution cannot be mere species level evolution. Macro requires major changes, the creation of new taxonomic familes, not mere variation and adaptation. As Provine noted, the definition species isn’t even clear and speciation is not even fully understood!

“The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.” – Bert Thompson, Ph.D., microbiology.

“Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species. The decisive step in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations” (GOLDSCHMIDT 1940).



“The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution claims to be able to explain this type of evolution in terms of random mutations, Mendelian genetics, and natural selection. But even within the mechanistic framework of thought, it is by no means agreed that this type of small-scale or micro-evolution within a species can account for the origin of species themselves, or genera, families and higher taxonomic divisions. One school of thought holds that all large scale or macro-evolution can be explained in terms of long-continued processes of micro-evolution; the other school denies this, and postulates that major jumps occur suddenly in the course of evolution. But while opinions within mechanistic biology differ as to the relative importance of many small mutations or a few large ones in macroevolution, there is general agreement that these mutations are random, and that evolution can be explained by a combination of random mutation and natural selection. However, this theory can never be more than speculative.
The evidence for evolution, primarily provided by the Fossil Record, will always be open to a variety of interpretations. For example, opponents of the mechanistic theory can argue that evolutionary innovations are not entirely explicable in terms of chance events, but are due to the activity of a creative principle unrecognized by mechanistic science. Moreover, the selection pressures which arise from the behaviour and properties of living organisms themselves can be considered to depend on an inner organizing factor which is essentially non-mechanistic. Thus the problem of evolution cannot be solved conclusively.”
– Sheldrake R., “A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance,” [1981], Park Street Press: Rochester VT, 1995, reprint, p.24

Notice the dates on some of these statements. This is not new. So the question arises, “Why do so many Darwinists still persist in insisting that macro = extended micro?” And the answers to that are of a religious nature and due to gratuitous propaganda – read outright lying – spread by many in the Darwinian camp. Here is the standard taxonomy classification chart example.

Species is at the bottom! So how can these dishonest Darwinists claim that macroevolution occurs AT or above the species level? It’s ludicrous, because under that definition, micro and macro are occurring as exactly the same thing! No distinction. Even the logic is horrible.

As science philosopher, Michael Ruse wrote,


Anyone who has had the displeasure of attempting to reason with staunch evolutionists knows all too well the religious zeal that characterizes the Darwinian fundamentalist today. Thus, giving credence to Ruse’s statement. A very honest and open comment indeed from an atheist evolutionist! The worst is that even in the face of testimony from highly regarded scientists in the evolutionism camp, they still cling tightly to their sacred creeds like the poor befuddled soul that clings to his seat on a falling aircraft, in desperation thinking it will save him.

Back when I was a flight instructor, I was flying an ultralight aicraft, with a student learning to fly.  On that day the lesson was stalls. Basic stalling of a fixed-wing aircraft is usually taught by means of cutting power and then pulling the back on the joy stick, thus raising the plane’s nose.  When the aircraft reaches about a 16 degree angle of attack, the wing is no longer able to create enough lift to keep the plane flying. Then the nose of the plane dips suddenly and radically downward.  It’s kind of like the sensation of falling in one of amusement park rides.  If the stall is done with lots of power on, the results are far more dramatic with a violent nose dive.

Ultralight aircraft – Eipper, MX2

Well, I was leading the student through his first stall, explaninig what I was doing and such until the nose was nicely up and the speed lowered to where the stall occurred and the nose of the plane dropped suddenly earthward.  The student was so frightened by the sudden drop and plunge towards dear mother earth (remember that this is an early ultralight aircraft where you’re basically sitting on a lawn chair, 2000 feet up, with no doors, no floor, right out in midair, strapped to a simple airframe, two wings and a small motor) that he panicked and grabbed onto one of the structural beams of the plane, holding on for dear life, with a face as white as snow.  I couldn’t help but chuckle a bit.  It seems that sometimes flight instructors have a  slight saddistic joy in seeing students turn white as ghosts – just like we did ourselves in the beginning. It kind of “smells like victory” and feels like conquest.

Back on the ground, I explained to the student that it was not a dangerous move and that clinging to structual compenent would never save him in a real fall, since he was hanging on to a part of the falling plane. It was a useless act. One of panic and not of intelligence.

Now this example is very similar to Darwinists who, even in the face of testimony from highly regarded scientists in the evolutionism camp (not creationists), still cling tightly to their doctrine like the poor befuddled student clinging to a falling aircraft, in desperation thinking it will save him.

It won’t. Macro is not an extrapolation of micro. Get over it Darwinists.






Intelligent Religion: it’s not a contradiction


Canadian site: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B073ZKGD73
USA site: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073ZKGD73





• Why the world has been religious since the dawn of time
• The unavoidable relationship between politics and religion
• Why the creation of a completely secular society is impossible
• Logical and scientific evidence of the existence of a supreme being
• Why atheism can never be a substitute for real religion
• Has God really acted in human history?
• And more !

Chapter summary:

Chapter 1
What is religion, exactly?
Let’s be logical
A religion of love
Chapter 2
Religion and atheism
Does a universal morality exist?
Is atheism a religion?
Atheism is a belief
Atheism is concerned with the existence of God
Atheism contradicts itself
Real atheism or religion, you must choose
Chapter 3
If there is a God, Religion makes sense
Typical evidence of the existence of God
The cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
The argument based on information
Information and symbols
Genetics and algorithms
Genetics and arithmetic
Origin of life and evolution
The argument from morality
The error of relativism
Origin of the moral law
Other arguments
Evidence of the non-existence of God
Chapter 4Religion and politics? God forbid!
Wars of religion?
Is a purely secular government possible?
God and the State according to the Bible
Chapter 5
God and Religion in history: Divine interventions?
Joshua and the long day
The prayer of General Patton
Bullet-proof George Washington
The face of the Lamb
Chapter 6
Religion and Education
Secular humanism
The hidden face of school programs
Chapter 7
Religion and Social Missions




No Creationist Scientists with Real Credentials?

I’ve been told that there are no creationist scientists with real credentials so many times I wish I had a buck for every one.

The truth is quite the contrary and atheist TV evangelists preaching, proselytizing and indoctrinating others with this kind of spurious codswallop ought to be severely reprimanded.

The truth about this is presented briefly here. It would take days and a load of space here to list every creationist scientist with earned degrees from reputable universities so this is a small sample.

Creationists developed and established the scientific method – not atheists.  Virtually no atheists were even involved. Historical fact.  Indeed, atheists, under atheist assumptions about the universe, could never have developed the method.  Why? Because they have no reason at all for believing in an ordered and comprehensible universe. Under atheism, the universe should be chaotic and incomprehensible. It is neither.


So the greatest scientists in past history, all creationists of some sort, did not believe the materialist definition of science.  How then can the atheists claim, as they ubiquitously do, that creationism or even mere intelligent design (which leaves the question of God and holy books out of the issues) will lead to the ruin of science when in fact all the great scientists that led us to where we are today were themselves creationists? Utterly ridiculous and in fact a downright evil lie.

Modern science was born and raised in theistic world views and would have never been born in atheism.  Modern science was cradled in Christianity and it is the environment of Christianity and theism that fueled and nurtured its birth and maturing. Not atheism. http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749

Atheism has never brought any good to humanity whatsoever. In fact, quite the contrary with more than 170 million murders perpetrated by atheists under officially atheist governments in the 20th century alone.

“The founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view. I’m thinking of men like Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology); Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer); Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode); James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics); William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics); Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics); Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation); Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics); Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory).” … Gregor Mendel (genetics), Sir William Herschel (galactic astronomy), John Woodward (paleantology), Sir Humphrey Davy (thermokinetics), Lord John Rayleigh (dimensional analysis)….

The great christian (ex-atheist) philosopher and author C.S. Lewis said,

“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.” – C. S. Lewis on Mere Science  1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.

Atheism would never have given birth to modern science at all. It is perfectly at home with all kinds of  idiocy, superstition and irrational nonsense like “a universe from nothing”.

All the people in the above list were creationists and all scientists and responsible for virtually every convenience and health benefit you enjoy today including internet, cell phones, television, radio, flight, space flight, calculus, and on and on it goes.

And yet atheist fanatics are all running around slandering and whining against them and their followers and successors.

How about if we denied them access to everything that was invented or founded upon creationist science and inventions? No cell phones, no airplanes, no television, no radio, no computers, no penicillin, no flights to the moon, no lasers, masers or anything built on laser technology – and on and on the list goes.

The ironic thing is that all these irrational ignorant atheists these days, that think they’re so smart and highly educated, are virtually all educated in schools, colleges and universities founded by creationists : Yale, Princeton, Oberlin College, Harvard, Dartmouth, McGill, Laval, Oxford, Cambridge, McMaster, Cornell, and almost all the great universities of Europe and the West. Not to mention hundreds in Africa, South America and Indonesia where it is Christian missionaries that started the school systems there as well as the hospitals!

“According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005) a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prize).  Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics[8] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.




Christians make up over 33.2% of the worlds population and have earned 65.4% of Nobel prizes.”

“The Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine 1904 Ivan Pavlov”. Nobelmedia. Retrieved 2 February 2012.
“Gov’t Rejects Newspaper Story”. The News 2014-05-07. Accessed 2014-05-09.
Martin 2008, p. 30
“Nobel Prize” (2007), in Encyclopædia Britannica, accessed 14 November 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online:
“All Nobel Laureates”. Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2010-03-01.
“Alfred Nobel, hans far och hans bröder”. March 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013. “(swe: Genom dop och konfirmation var Alfred Nobel lutheran -en: Alfred Nobel was through baptism and confirmation a Lutheran)”
33.2% of 6.7 billion world population (under the section ‘People’) “World”. CIA world facts.
“The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions”. foreignpolicy.com. March 2007. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
“Major Religions Ranked by Size”. Adherents.com. Retrieved 2009-05-05.
ANALYSIS (2011-12-19). “Global Christianity”. Pewforum.org. Retrieved 2012-08-17.

Take Dr. AE Wilder Smith for example – a young earth creationist – with 3 earned PhDs :

AEWilder-Smith# Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)


# D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)

# F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 “Golden Apple” awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.

# Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company

# Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford

# Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages

# NATO three-star general

How’s that for real credentials?

The list of theist and creationist scientists with real earned degrees is extremely long. The atheists, once again, are lying to you, and to themselves. All because of their own fanatical religious beliefs that impede them from acknowledging the facts.

 “Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.” – Larry Hatfield, “Educators Against Darwin”. Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96

And what of Copernicus, Galileo, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Godel, Marconi, Pupin, von Braun, … these were all men of strong religious beliefs. They were all theists and mostly full fledged creationists.

Next time you here an ignorant atheist tell you that there are no creationist scientists, or that religion makes people dumb or that Christianity is anti-science, point them to the historical FACTS, the schools, hospitals, charities, inventions, and the scientific method itself and tell them to get informed and get a proper education in the history of science.

The atheists have done nothing but cripple the scientific method with their groundless, a priori insistence that only the natural can explain the natural. And how exactly, do they know this? They don’t. That claim is a metaphysical, materialist presumption, and total bollocks. For if you cannot see beyond the material world how in the world can you predicate, with embarrassing certitude as atheists do, that there is nothing outside the material world?

Excluding ANY possibility from science is idiocy. Excluding metaphysical existences from science is nothing but a religious prejudice. We should always seek material explanations, but not where no such explanations suffice and design is the only “Occam’s Razor” answer possible. The beginning of the universe is precisely one such case.

Creationists number among the greatest scientific minds in all history. And today’s creationist scientists are very well educated in their scientific domains in major universities.  Don’t swallow the atheist propaganda, its pure bull.

The Religion of Atheism



Continue reading

Neo Darwinism is “GONE”

How many times have you heard that,

         “Evolution has been proven as much as gravity











Here I will quote one of atheist Darwinists’ major players. Or ex-Darwinist I suppose he should be called now, though he was still an evolutionist.


6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.
7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution.
9. Speciation was understood in principle.
11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.
13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.
14. Molecular biology has stolen from paleontology all ability to construct phylogenies. —   William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.


It gets better, or worse if you’re a Darwinist:
A  paper in the journal Biological Theory in 2011 stated,


The authors try to bolster the Darwinian theory – I suspect to keep their jobs! – in the article and it shows that they’re covering their butts by giving Darwin the obligatory hit tip.  Still, that claim is true. And even better still:


Koonin stated,


Koonin is,  Senior Investigator National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Koonin, in the article, slaughters the modern synthesis, yet indicates that some new theory of evolution needs to be proposed, thus revealing his sticking with evolution overall while throwing out neo Darwinism. Wishful thinking.



Either some are being deviously dishonest or they are self-deceived. I’ll opt for deviously dishonest since the hypocrisy is easy enough to see everywhere. I’m not going to give you proof of his hypocrisy here, but the facts speak for themselves concerning the Darwinist record of telling the truth.





How to explain this? Under neo Darwinian terms, you don’t.  You must explain it away; something Darwinists have always been professionals at.






All that means that neo Darwinism is utterly wrong. Nature knows nothing of ZEROs or Decimal places – they do not exist in nature. There goes the ballgame for Darwinian evolution. Curiously, what shCherbak discovered is exactly what both IDists and creationists have been saying all along.

Intelligence underlies and permeates the whole genome and genetic code. 


Atheists and Darwinists have been denying (there it is again denial) this fact of life for decades.  Yet now they are backed into a corner and the whole foolish fairy tale of neo Darwinian evolution is finished, or “gone” as Koonin aptly put it..

It will take many years to undo both its deeply ensconced, religiously held and legally protected “authority” and popularity and the damage it has done to science by retarding its advance.

More recently a second genetic code has been discovered embedded in the first. Do you have any idea what that implies?




My guess is many years; painful, conflicted and possible violent years as the Darwinian propaganda and brainwashing juggernaut slowly grinds to a rebellious halt and dies. Darwinism is currently being upheld by artificial means. Like Bernie, in the movie Weeken at Bernies, the subject is dead, by being held up, propped up and moved around as though still alive.


This is closer to what it should look like; without the professional Hollywood makeup:


What is Natural Selection Really?

Natural selection is the Darwinists main magic wand for the passing of life from some purely hypothetical first common ancestor, to man. By this “mechanism”, the Darwinian elite claim that all life on earth has come to be. Survival of the fittest, they used to call this.  They have attributed to natural selection all the power of a deity.


Continue reading

Which Infers a Stable Universe, Atheism or Theism?






Lewotin makes a perfectly foolish unthinking statement at the end when he says that appealing to an omnipotent deity allows that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured.  Really? Lewontin fails to see that this is perfectly true for atheism, not theism!

Under atheism there are no absolutes, there is no absolute truth, so one cannot even know anything for sure -including no scientists, such as Lewontin. The irony is striking. Now if there are no absolutes then it would be true that we allow that the regularities of nature may change any & every moment. The laws may dissolve, mathematics is no longer certain, nothing remains.  Science itself becomes relative, volatile and unreliable. Nothing is certain under atheism’s obligatory relativism. Nothing can be known as objectively true in atheism, including atheism itself. This is standard atheist dogma and if atheism were true, then they would be right in claiming this.


Moreover, even if he did, would mankind ever know it? Highly unlikely, well at least not for more than a few seconds. We would almost certainly disappear in some sort of total cosmic implosion if only 1 of the “fine tuning” constants were to be altered by the deity. And who would be left to give a damn for humanity?



Now to prove how asinine some atheists can get on this specific point, lets read the “expert” atheist version; one that, if true, literally turns Lewontin’s inane statement upside down:



Thank God it isn’t!



Einstein was not an atheist by any means.

Thank God for that too.