Jim had a great comment which deserves a full post for a reply. He wrote:
Hey.
Just a disclaimer – I am a Christian, and am not slamming typical Christian views.
First of all, re: your distinction between macro and micro evolution, could you define the word “species”? There are plenty of animals that cannot interbreed that would countermand your argument.
Second, why do you insist on interpreting the Book of Genesis literally? The Bible doesn’t tell you how to field strip a garand – it tells you how to live your life. I don’t think anybody thinks that the Bible is an authoritative view on how you should clean and service your 1911.
How does evolution affect your life, and how does it change the way you minister to the poor and homeless?
Jim, good post. Thanks. You wrote: “There are plenty of animals that cannot interbreed that would countermand your argument.” I assume you meant “can.” I don’t know of plenty. A few may be more correct. And of those few, I don’t know of any that can continue breading as this new species. Maybe if we give it a few million years 
Most common is the mule (the product of a horse and donkey). Mules are sterile; as are male tions and ligers. And all hybrids are man induced. I know of no natural hybrids.
Interspecies hybrids are rare and in most cases impossible (primarily) because of the chromosome numbers have to match (ex: chimps have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46). Let’s follow that thinking for a min… evolution teaches that this mutation occurred naturally. But keep thinking. One day, Bob (make him whatever species you want) is born from his normal chromosome matching parents. While very good looking and healthier than his friends at school, alas, Bob can’t mate because he has an extra chromosome. Eventually his successful modeling career ends and he dies. One magical day, this happens again. Again randomly to a set of normal chromosome matching whatsits. This one is named Sue. She is “lucky enough” to be born down the street from Bob (oh but he’s dead). Not so lucky. She dies.
My point is this. The likelihood of genetic mutation happening and successfully creating a healthier more advanced species is much harder to believe than a guy (albeit, with the oversight of an all all powerful all knowing God) survived a worldwide flood.
Where the Bible is written allegorical, I take it as such. Where it is clear it’s literal, I take it as such. What is your basis for deeming it allegory? Are you suggesting we should take Darwin’s tale as allegorical? Sorry. Of course you are not. I just get a little sarcastic before my second cup of coffee.
Evolution does not affect how I minister to the poor and homeless. If I believed in evolution it might. Because evolutionary thought typically leads to a “survival of the fittest” mentality. In other words, “I deserve to have a better life, they don’t. Why help them?”
To the contrary, as one who believes the Bible is the word of God, I am commanded to help those who are sick, naked and imprisoned (Matt 25:31-46). I also want to help, having been personally shown much grace and mercy from God. As a believer, I am sure you understand that.
Furthermore, it’s why I blog in the first place. Nearly all discussions eventually lead to the Gospel. It is my constant prayer that the Holy Spirit will use some of my feeble words to cause someone to consider their own “goodness” and ask themselves “yeah, why would God let me in Heaven?”
Again, thanks for stopping by and posting.
Popularity: 2% [?]
My reactions. First, Romney looked presidential (or what I think the American people think a president should look like – why does that even matter). It was a great call to return to the framework the founding fathers had intended. There was/is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. But there is something even conservative and Christian commentators are missing.