15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]

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.]

CONCLUSION
"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.

I'm following the discussion; you obviously aren't. The article cites computer studies simulating very long term histories of mutations. Neutral mutations do have a tendency to disappear over time (but new ones occur, so that at any given time you do have a bunch of neutral mutations floating around in a population).

That does not solve the problem because a neutral mutation has to acquire more mutations to become helpful. Now if it can only spread itself to a few individuals before it dissappears, it has very little chance of acquiring even one helpful mutation, let alone the several it would need to become useful. It would also make it well nigh impossible to create something as fantastic as new organs, wings, feathers, flippers, etc. So as I have been saying, good ol mendelian genetics completely destroys the theory of evolution by itself - and I am not even talking about the other scientific discoveries I talk about in post#1605 which have gone unrefuted and largely unchallenged.

This sentence tells me you do not understand evolutionary theory. There is no long term "future" plan. The rest of your post is the same old tired creationist Irreducible Complexity argument which I am sure has been debated ad nauseum here.

In fact we are debating it now. Essentially the discussion we have been having, and particularly point#6 in post#1605 is that a gene is itself an irreducibly complex entity. It cannot be of any use, it cannot work in fact without its being completely integrated with the rest of the organism.

I'm sorry for the tone that made you so defensive. I was hoping you'd gently mention to your co-creationist that his argument was bad. We evos have all known his arguments were generally bad for some time now, and our respect for you would probably have gone up a notch if you'd come out and point out gore3000's blatant & painfully obvious error and the embarrassing way he doggedly tries to defend it. You do disagree with his "50%" argument, don't you?

Even your friends disagree with you Jenny, that is why Vade and RWNilla are already heading for the hills and starting to say that even duplicate genes are immediately helpful. Because they see that you are wrong and that Mendelian genetics is a great problem for evolution. Heck, even look at Andrew's post#1641 from your favorite place, the evo home, Talk Origins. It too is contradicting with what you are saying and agreeing with me. Let me explain this one more time in a different way, perhaps you will understand it better.

1. It is well established that every individual has two sets of chromosomes, not identical, but very similar, and which function pretty much the same.
2. It is well established that on reproduction only one half of those pairs of chromosomes is passed on by the father and another half by the mother, the progeny thus receiving two sets but only one from each parent.
3. It is obvious that a newly mutated gene will appear on only one of the two sets of chromosomes.
4. Since only one of the paired genes gets passed by each parent and there is only one copy in the individual with the mutation, the chances of his passing it on are one in 2.

Now here's why it cannot spread even through a small population. Let's say it is a small species with only 1000 individuals in it. In those 1000 individuals there are 2,000 copies of the gene which mutated. There are 1999 copies of the gene without the mutation and only one with the mutation. On the first generation, 1000 of those 2000 genes will dissappear. Each one of them has half a chance to survive (see 2). Now on the first reproduction the chances are that the you will get either 1000 non mutated genes or 999 non mutated and 1 mutated gene. So what we have here is essentially a coin flip. However, the mutated gene, in order to win and become fixed needs to keep winning coin flips. The chances of that are infinitesimal. Not impossible but infinitesimal.

In short, it is a problem of population genetics. As I said, Mendel turned natural selection on its head. He showed that organisms are very resistant to change and that the odds against it are humongous any way you look at it.

Note how complicated it is. Note that these scientists call it a program. Note that small changes or mistakes lead to disastrous results.

Your view of biology is entirely too rigid and overly simplistic. I could give you hundreds of examples from the knockout literature which prove your assumption false.

Yet what I find interesting is you write later on in another post......

Most genes are not vital, they are not killers. You can play with those genes and not destroy an organism.

So which do you really believe Gore? Are you finally leaving open the possibility that the genome can adapt to change?

Before the promoter DNA was discovered evolutionists were calling all that other stuff 'junk DNA' and swore up and down that it was totally useless and in fact it was the remains of genes discarded by evolution. Now this junk DNA turns out is so essential that they add it to the fairy tale that not just the gene, but the promoter region gets copied.

**Groan** Promoters were never, EVER included under the heading of junk DNA. And yes when you have a duplication of a signficant stretch of the chromosome you will copy EVERYTHING nucleotide for nucleotide and that gene should be expressed - the same transcription factors which bind to the parental gene will bind to the duplicate's upstream promoter. Can you tell me why on Earth you would assume otherwise? Sheesh!

So as I said, this would be a useless gene.

No you actually suggested earlier that it would spell "disaster" for the whole organism. And truth be told, you dont have the **faintest** idea what it would do to the to organism. Some of the best geneticists in the world can't predict......I am supposed to believe you?

From: Cell Interations in Development

Notice nowhere in the outline you posted does it say that the system is not able to tolerate change. This solely is your own (incorrect) overly simplistic interpretation. Development is a complex phenomena. So what? Thanks for pointing this out to us, I would never have guessed it.

In the gradient model, a signaling molecule induces different fates at different threshold concentrations.

This sentence should clue you in to the flexibility that has thus far eluded you.

we examine the conserved pathway leading to cell death

P.S. here they are refering to evolution .

I have a simple idea, Gore. Why dont you write to the authors and see if they agree with your assertion that small changes would necessarily lead to disasterous results. I predict they will respond with an unequivocal NO, that they tinker with drosophila all the time with varied results. But dont take my word for it. Go ask them. And while you are at it, ask them if they believe in evolution.

It is more than complex, it is completely interrelated. You cannot shotgun your way with random mutations to create such a way of doing things. The authors call this whole developmental process a "program". As I think I said before, go around changing bits and bytes at random in any computer program, see if it works better.

In the gradient model, a signaling molecule induces different fates at different threshold concentrations.

Flexibility is always the result of design, not the result of deterministic forces. The program is making choices, natural forces do not make choices.

Essentially the discussion we have been having, and particularly point#6 in post#1605 is that a gene is itself an irreducibly complex entity. It cannot be of any use, it cannot work in fact without its being completely integrated with the rest of the organism. -me-

So what do you think of those xylose metabolising bacteria we were talking about before Gore?

It sounds like you are trying to divert attention from the point I made above instead of refuting it. However, if I am wrong, kindly show how it refers in any way to my statement.

So which do you really believe Gore? Are you finally leaving open the possibility that the genome can adapt to change?

That is not what I said. You surmised that because it did not kill that the change was okay. I said the effects may not be obvious, but that does not mean they were not detrimental. I said you would not play around that way with the genes of a family member or indeed those of any human. Also, you gave very little details as to the experiment - where it was done in the genome, what were the expected results, what procedures were taken to insure it would work, etc., etc. I already listed some of what scientists know about how to insert changes in a genome. It is not the same as how random mutations would act.

I was merely pointing out that you did not state jennyp's argument correctly. You still fail to do so. I made no comment about the correctness of jennyp's argument (it is correct, however.) I was only commenting on your misrepresentation.

I didn't represent it exactly. That is obvious. I gave my interpretation of what I saw as an implication and that was to Vade. Now where would I get the impression that if a neutral gene was not eliminated it would have to be fixed? Could it be that I read a link that Vade posted that made the following statements?

Drift is thus like a genetic fly paper. The walls are loss and fixation, and sooner or later (depending on the population size), the fly (allele frequency) will hit a wall and be "stuck". These properties of genetic drift have been demonstrated empirically many times but they also are easy to see in computer simulations. .

Now given the choices as outlined in Vade's link, if extinction(loss) is rejected, what remains?

P.S. The link is in post 1642.

**Groan** Promoters were never, EVER included under the heading of junk DNA.

You can groan all you like, when the first news came out about the genome, the evos started screaming junk DNA, junk DNA. They don't know beans and never did. What is worse, they knew there was purpose to that junk but they lied trying to buy themselves a little more time to make up a story. That's the story right there - in your answer. Like the Communists, evos never said what they said. The truth changes daily but it never changed. Sell that one to someone else. Further, as I have already shown by ample citations, it is not just the nearby DNA that is involved in what makes an organism work, so you are just trying to save as much of the junk DNA nonsense as you can. I also must note that you have not backed up a single assertion you have made with any citation or reference. I have done so, tons of time. It's time for you to start backing up your assertions.

So as I said, this would be a useless gene. -me-

No you actually suggested earlier that it would spell "disaster" for the whole organism.

You are getting desperate so you are taking my statements out of context and trying to put words in my mouth, quote and refer to the statement you claim I made that contradicts the above.

Check the date in this review article. Eukaryotic promoters have been studied for over thirty years. The lac operon in bacteria was discovered over forty years ago! Long before any genome was sequenced Gore. No one ever classified cis-acting promoter elements with junk DNA.

Like the Communists, evos never said what they said. The truth changes daily but it never changed.

How am I supposed to take you seriously when you spout stuff like this?

I also must note that you have not backed up a single assertion you have made with any citation or reference. I have done so, tons of time. It's time for you to start backing up your assertions.

I have several times and you simply never commented. Remember last week when I gave you examples of gene familes? What about the nice and simple xylose story? The discussion on processed pseudogenes and genetic "mistakes"?

BTW you reference things without realizing they contain ideas which are wholly inconsistent with your arguments. Here is a link you provided with regards to junk DNA last week. Note in the middle of this report:

Haig H. Kazazian, Jr., chairman of genetics at the University of Pennysylvania has recently found reasons to suspect they (junk DNA) may be a key force for the development of new species during evolution . He thinks this DNA may be essential for increasing the plasticity of the hereditary substance. .

Haven't you been arguing vehemently against these notions this all along?

That is not what I said. You surmised that because it did not kill that the change was okay. I said the effects may not be obvious

Gore, you in fact did say that "small changes" would have "disasterous effects" at the bottom of #1754. How else am I supposed to interpret that?

Yet I think we finally may be getting somewhere since you seem to be relaxing your restrictions on genome flexiblilty. So lets make sure we are finally on the same page here before proceeding. Simply answer yes or no - do you believe that the genome can handle small changes without "disasterous effects" and perhaps even the allow the animal to (*gasp*) reach maturity?

Even your friends disagree with you Jenny, that is why Vade and RWNilla are already heading for the hills and starting to say that even duplicate genes are immediately helpful. Because they see that you are wrong and that Mendelian genetics is a great problem for evolution.

No Gore. Wrong again. What I wrote had nothing to do with Jenny. You were just being very obtuse ruling out any potential effect of a duplicated gene. Vade and I suggested several instances where duplicated genes can have an immediate beneficial effect. The xylose example is very easy to grasp. I also pointed out earlier how even neutral duplicates could persist being next to "good" genes.

Mendel was very lucky in that the genes which encoded for the phenotypic traits he was tracking showed independent assortment. However when genes are so close together on the same chromosome, they get passed on as if they were "one" gene. Imagine now the duplicate sitting right next to your "dominant" gene in your little pundit square.

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.