The author’s use of the phrase “informed creationist” really made me laugh.
> The author’s use of the phrase “informed creationist” really made me laugh.
Why is that? The [Judo/Christian/Islamic] creation-myth {in that it is an explanatory story, not in that it is untrue} doesn’t suffer from the three things that evolution fails to adequately explain. (And, so far, nobody has replicated.)
1: That life should arise from non-life. Yes, there are structured inorganic compounds, but these are at least several orders of magnitude simpler than what is required for even the simplest of life.
2: The arising of multi-celled organisms. There is no [intuitive] reason why life should need more than one cell. In fact, organs are particularly difficult to find any good explanation for.
3: This is a more specialized sub-problem of the second case, but sexual reproduction itself is something of a challenge. Think about it, if you have an organism which can satisfy the reproduction singularly, why would you want to add the extra complexity of sex? Not only that, but “half evolved” sexual organs are worthless, it’s really an all-or-nothing approach. (Yes, there are some hermaphroditic spices, but that’s an exception not the rule among sexual reproduction.) And, as an added inconvenience from the continuation-of-the-species goal of life, by going with a sexual reproduction you do not only limit yourself to two organisms, but two organisms of the differing sexes!
(IE, it’s the question of reaching into a pot of red and white marbles and pulling out one of each color rather than two of one color.)