Bogus Claim #9: Natural selection MIGHT be able to explain microevolution but it cannot explain the origin of new species or the existence of complex life (higher order).
I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating again: The distinction between micro and macro evolution is arbitrary, since both happen in the same way. In fact, evolutionary biologists don't even use these distinctions anymore. On the rare occasion that they do use it, it is for descriptive purposes only. Rather, the distinction is used by Christians at times to try and make ontological distinctions. In other words, they are trying to distinguish between two fundamentally different processes. Some Christians act at times as if there is some magic line between the two. But as far as science is concerned, no such line exists. "Macroevolution" is simply a result of "microevolution" over a long period of time.
Also, I've mentioned Mayr before, and will appeal to him again here. Ernst Mayr developed a model called allopatry. Allopatry states that if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical location, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. In other words, if placed in a different environment, natural selection may take another course. We've looked at this in the first post under the claim about speciation, but it bears mentioning again here. If these changes become so significant that the isolated group would not or could not breed with the original stock, then this new, isolated group would now become reproductively isolated, and on its way to becoming a new species. In fact, scientists have written extensively about how natural selection has produced new species. If you our not convinced by what I have said, I would encourage you to research it on your own.
Even though natural selection is both the most studied and most convincing force behind evolution, biologists are also open to other possibilities that drive the evolutionary process. They are constantly investigating the potential of unusual genetic mechanism that might cause speciation. In fact, there have been several noted examples that show that some organisms have developed through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, we see that though natural selection is the main driving force, there are other mechanisms involved in evolution. In summary, the same process of natural selection and other genetic mechanism are responsible for not only the changes "microevolution", but also for the development of new species and the higher order life of "macroevolution."
Bogus Claim #10: The theory of evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview and leads to social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is the application of Darwin's theory of evolution to the study of human society. It is a theory in sociology where individuals or groups of individuals achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic superiority. This theory is largely now discredited, and actually wasn't invented by Darwin at all, but by a man named Herbert Spencer. It was advocated by Spencer and others in the late 19th century, and was used to justify racism, among other crazy things. Basically, it was a misapplication of evolutionary theory.
Evolution is science, and only has to do with the mechanisms in nature. Just like science is not equipped to make metaphysical claims about God, it is also not equipped to make sociological claims about societies, and it is even much less equipped to make claims about morality. Yet, this hasn't stopped some people from trying. This is why it is so important that evolution be taught rightly. Evolution is actually amoral, and is meant to describe nature. The only way we can make evolution immoral is to make nature itself immoral. There are many people (Christians and atheist included) who embrace evolution and who also have high morals. To equate evolution to immorality, just because certain fringe thinkers try to conflate the two, is dishonest.
Furthermore, evolution shows us that in order for species to survive long term, there has to be genetic variability. Social Darwinism actually minimizes genetic variation, thus reducing the long term survival of the human race. This, among other reasons, is why this idea is no longer accepted. So, while people have wrongly tried to apply the theory of evolution, this does not mean that the theory itself is bad or leads to immorality. People have often tried to misapply the Bible to do all sorts of evil things. I don't see any Christians trying to argue that we get rid of the Bible. Rather, we try to help people see it correctly. The same with the theory of evolution.
I have only written briefly about all ten of these claims, but I hope you will take the time to investigate them further. I know there are many issues that arise when talking about God and evolution, and it is my goal to address all these in the days to come, whether through podcasts or posts. If you have questions, or would like for me to explain something further, please click on the "Questions" tab at the top of the page and email me your question.