Limits to evolutionary thinking are clearly seen when secular scientists posit questions, but not the question, as they conduct investigations related to macroevolution.

S.B. Carroll, writing in Nature magazine (v. 409) states, “Traditionally, evolutionary geneticists have asserted that macroevolution is the product of microevolution writ large, whereas some paleontologists have advocated the view that processes operating above the level of microevolution also shape evolutionary trends. Is one of these views wrong, or could they both be right?” Good scientific inquiry would ask an additional conspicuous question, the question never considered by a naturalist, and that is: could both of these views be wrong? 

Such a heretical question must never be proposed, for to do that is to question the very foundation of the secular worldview.

Evolutionist Trisha Gura wrote a fascinating article in Nature magazine (v. 406) regarding “a debate that is raging within systematics [biological diversity in an evolutionary context].” The war is between those who study biological molecules (DNA and protein) vs. paleontology that is based on morphology (the study of structure and form). The conflict is described succinctly, “Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.” But the title of the article reveals the self-imposed limit of secular investigation, “Bones, molecules . . . or both?” Sound scientific inquiry would tack a tag on the end of the article title, “or neither?”

After reading Gura’s article, one can see how each of the above camps demolishes the other—all the more reason to ask if they both might be wrong. But macroevolutionists simply refuse to submit the glaring—unasked—question.