Skip to comments.15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]
Posted on 06/17/2002 3:10:50 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)
Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.
Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.
John Rennie is editor in chief of Scientific American.
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution.
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing Is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 18].
foolevolutionist has said in his heart, there is no GodCreator."
After reading the paragraph above in the original article, I didn't need to read any more. The fossil record is one of evolution's biggest problems, and the idiot who wrote this "final debunking article uses it to say why it is a law and not a theory.
No need to waste time going any further...
People who refuse to be answerable to God, simply choose to believe He is not their Creator.
Phillipians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Science is a way of observing things, then codifying a theory that explains the observations. However, the same thing can be observed in several ways: such as electrons as both waves and particles.
Scientism, however, insists that only science can define what is true, and that everything outside of science is untrue. However, holding this supposition as absolutely true in itself is an unprovable supposition.
Until you guys get to the underlying RELIGIONS behind creation, you won't be able to discuss the pros and cons of the theory of evolution.
But how does discussion of Athena and Thor tell us anything useful about evolution?
Hey, evolutionists and atheists: We'll just concede that you're smarter than everybody else. We can't touch you intellectually. Okay? Any chance you'll stop posting the man-descended-from-monkeys crap?
I doubt it.
Actually the intellectual death of conservatism will be when the fundies win and drive out everyone who believes in the validity of science as a means to understand reality.
LOL -- How many "answers" do evolutionists need? Wait -- let's summon the Almighty right now to consult with the "scientific" community and have them validate "Intelligent Design".
In the meantime, I'll stoop over a microscope and rest assured that somehow an ameoba is my evolutionary cousin.
Suffice to say the only thing that is evolving is the arguements employed by evolutionists. NBaack when I was a kid Evolution was still being taught from those wonderful wall charts -- the ones beginning with the spindly monkey and working all the way through modern man and the horses who could forget the horses eohipis and all the rest -- yes those charts looked good but that's all they were unrelated animals (horses) 7 ribs 8 , 9, 7, 9, 11, ribs don't just appear and disappear but in the horses they did.
And the primates once again it was all looks several as it turned out were completely man made java man piltdown man . . . there were all searching for the missing link austrolipithicenes and then one day dr. Richard Leaky son of the Dr. Leaky who found the primate remains on the odelvi gorge in africa found austrolipithicenes and man did he a giant knuck walking ape alive in communist china
well those were dark days for our open minded evolutionist friends a few years later they reinvented themselves much like Al Gore reinvented himself and government,
I'm leaving out decades of crap that's blown over the wall from the highly scientific evolutionists.
My kids went to school and I was reeducated about evolution in the early 90's
the new yarn then (excuse me highly scientific trial balloon) was that there were these 2 single cells freshly created (what did they eat who knows) in thise amino acid soup brought to life like frankenstein and one cell gets this idea ( a Single cell mind you -- maybe it was a brain cell) I need a mouth and through the universal conciousness (This is definitely deep science now) from generation to generation millenia to millenia this cell had one though I need a mouth and low and behold said the evolutionist bango after 1 million or so years (What's a million or so years when you have all eternity to play with here) the thing grows a mouth -- so it could eat the other cells -- wel the other cells got to thinking and said if only I had a find I could escape the mouth and then went into think mode for a few million years and pow wouldn't you know it through the power of the unconcious conciousness of whater it is (NOT GOD!!!) the second fish sprouts this fin.
anyway this is now old had as evolution has reinvented itself time and again since that why anyone enlightened would go for something like that. sheddig their skin more times than a snake. And just as beguiling as the fiest serpent in the garden.
We've got bones we've got fossils but these are only tiny glimpses of what once was and from these dust fragments these new age anti god pholosphers have constructed entire worlds of fantasy to suit themselves.
In Texas is a part where Human foot prints and dinosaur foot prints cross each other since its discover the find was ignored later it was said that they were made (sort of like the way they man primates from the tooth of an extinct pig or a little piece of jaw bone . . . in the 1990's the US park service and geopogists and archeaologists converged on the site and pried up some layers of stone to the level on these foot prints and guess what damn if they didn't uncover more human and dinosaur prints together -- yet this still we are told can not be.
Yet every month mpw spomething else new is discovered these same people life coaches in a foot ball teach delclare its time to move the chains and rewrite the books again.
Do I detect a double standard? Do I detect hipocrisy?
I'm not sure I have enough faith to believe what color of life evolutionists will be preaching in the coming weeks.
If I were a corporation and I had an economist or reseach team all over the board like these guys are -- I'd have to fire them -- given time the only thing that would go extict would be my company under their thinly veiled science
Nuff said I'm going to bed
A lot of the arguments here are based on an unsupported first theory, i.e. that only science is true, and that science is TRUTH. Therefore, all other belief systems are FALSE and therefore all other belief systems should be rooted out and destroyed.
This is Religion, not science.
On another thread the press was repeatedly criticized for characterizing Islamic religious hard-liners as right-wing so "religion" is clearly not a sufficient qualification. It must be a particular religion.
Liberal science on the FR...are you nuts!
We need to devolve govt---not evolve it more and more!
The "reality" of the mind is that it is separate from the material brain, and thus cannot be quantified by science and never will. A human spirit or soul if you will, is NOT subject to being bottled up in a jar -- unless you think it possible?
It is only human arrogance that demands everything be "proven" scientifically in a lab or else it is invalid.
Actually, the only people here asserting such things are religionist creationists imputing it as strawman arguments.
I'm an atheist and therefore don't believe in any god, yet I've never asserted that science proves or disproves the existance of god. On the other hand creationists routinely claim that Darwin is inconsistent with there being a god. So it is a creationist claim, not an evolutionist claim.
The trouble with religious belief is that it is not testable. You believe or you don't.
Science, on the other hand, is a method or system of applying rationality to real world observations. If you "believe" in science, it just means you believe in the evidence of your senses and your ability to think logically. If you don't "believe" in science, it means you think either that your senses are lying to you, that logic is meaningless, or that god is playing tricks on us all by sprinkling the world with false evidence, such as the fossil record. A twisted sense of humor, I guess.
I believe in God, and don't see evolution as incompatible with that belief.
The mind is a process that is carried out by a material brain. Science can come to understand processes, at least in general terms. We understand weather, for instance, but actual weather systems are complex beyond absolute knowledge of all details. Therefore weather forecasting depends upon simplified models.
The brain is likewise very complex and concepts like understanding "self-awareness" are not yet in hand -- if ever. But just because things are complex, like the weather, doesn't mean we have to assert a weather god.
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progess---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality...the nature of man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...stable scientific reality/society---industrial progress!
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin...Atheist secular materialists through evolution removed the foundations...made the absolutes relative and calling all technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC!
Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives--guardians too!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.