No one disputes the existence of micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is commonly observed.
Dogs are an example of micro-evolution. When dogs with different characteristics breed, an entirely different dog may result. A red dog with long legs breeding with a white dog with short legs may produce a dog with medium size legs and red spots. If the red spots help the dog survive better than solid red dogs or solid white dogs, the dogs with the red spots will propagate more often than the red or white dogs. No one disputes this.
The difference between creationists and evolutionists does not lie in micro-evolution. The dispute lies in the fact that creationists believe that continued breeding of dogs will always produce dogs. Evolutionists argue that continued breeding of dogs will produce something else, for instance, a horse. Evolutionists believe that the continual breeding of whales produced the cow. Creationists do not believe this.
Evolutionists argue that micro-evolution is evidence for Darwinian evolution - that it produces a separate species (for instance, the whale breedings produces a cow). They use the example of finches to support their theory. Finches possess the genes necessary to have offspring with thick beaks or thin beaks. So, when a finch produces a thick beaked offspring, that offspring survives better and produces other thick beaked finches. This is micro-evolution. But finches are always finches. There is no evidence that the finch breeding ever produced a dove, for instance.
Arguments that breeding finches prove Darwinian evolution are grossly misleading, and even Darwinists admit that a finch with a different beak "is not a new species of finch"1 Darwinists are certain, however, that a new species "would only take a few such episodes"2 and there would be a new species.
Similarly they argue that the bones in fins are similar to the bones in legs. But given that, it is still a long long way from a whale to a cow.
It is now 150 years after Darwin and we are still waiting for that new species. Some creationists believe that the Darwinists should give up on the finches and concentrate of the whales. Perhaps the whales will give us a cow that breathes out of its back. It will take only a few more "episodes" . . .
Do you really believe the nonsense that whale breeding and chance mutations created a cow, or that finch breeding will produce a entirely different kind of bird? Or do you accept it because you simply cannot accept the alternative?
Or do you accept it because if you question it you will lose your job, or because they won't permit you to graduate? These Darwinists, they are so kind and devoted to academic freedom, are they not? You are free to think whatever they tell you to think.
1. National Geographic, February 2009, p. 64