Evolutionism is the story that all varieties of living organisms arose from a single, common ancestor (cell), which spontaneously generated in a primordial soup eons ago. It is the story that is told in schools and universities across the country and in the world. It is the predominant naturalistic story of how living organisms came to their present state.

The first problem with the story is that it is based upon the extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution. Microevolution refers to the observed reality that there are variations within kinds. One generation of parents passes genes on to the descendants, and these genes contain codes that allow for variety. This is what we see in the various breeds of dogs. This is what we see in the racial differences among people. This is what is observed when insects develop resistance to pesticides. With these observed phenomena, there is no dispute. But note: the changes occur within the kinds, within the already existing gene pool. There is no evidence of one kind becoming another kind (and "kind" here does not equal "species," which is an isolated breeding group within a kind). (And incidentally, this does not conflict with the Bible. God’s creation of kinds in Genesis shows that they reproduced after their own kind. Cyclical variation within the kind is a part of this.)

Macroevolution refers to the grand changes that result in the formation of new complex organisms. This is the "simple cell to man" part of evolutionism. Vast changes are said to have occurred, driven by natural selection and chance mutations. Macroevolution is the story we are all used to hearing.

Generally, evolutionists will object to the distinction made between micro and macro. Why? Because once this distinction is recognized, the story will start to crumble. The whole story is based upon the extrapolation from micro to macro. That is, they point to microevolution as their proof, then argue that, therefore, macroevolution has occurred. However, they put it all under the umbrella of "evolution," thereby equivocating and even deceiving those who haven’t learned that there is a difference. They might say something like this: "evolution has been observed," and from this they tell the story of "evolution." But a subtle shift has occurred. The "evolution" that has been observed is micro, not macro. Evolution (micro) has been observed, but evolution (macro) has never been observed. And therein lies the deception.

The fact is that microevolution does occur; and you might notice that every time an evolutionist cites and example of observed "evolution," it is always an example of micro (from finch beaks to moths, it is all micro). They cannot give any examples of observed macroevolution, however. Therefore, to separate the two can prove fatal to the theory. They must be the "same," or else they lose the force of the whole story.

Contrary to the typical explanation, there is no mechanism for extrapolating from micro to macro. Microevolution involves an existing gene pool. Macroevolution must involve the creation of new genetic information. It must be capable of creating new complex organs. Yet, there is no scientific proof anywhere that natural selection and chance mutation create new information; this has not been observed in the lab or the field. And that is exactly what must be proved in order to justify this extrapolation. What this means is that the "macro" part of evolutionism is a story based more upon materialistic philosophy than upon scientific data. It is pure speculation. It is taking minimal evidence involving only cyclical variations within a stabilized kind and generalizing from this a mechanism capable of creating completely new, complex plants and animals. Both scientifically and logical, it doesn’t work.