15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]

Scientific American ^ | 17 June 2002 | John Rennie

[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.]

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.

The Author(s):

John Rennie is editor in chief of Scientific American.

[JediGirl]

God said it, I believe it, That settles it!

Mohammad said it, I believe it, That settles it!

[scripter]

Seriously, if those distinct layers equal millions of years, then why have fossil tree trunks been found standing upright with distinct layers every several feet of the trunk? If they really were distinct layers of severl million years wouldn't the trunk have decomposed long, long before the top of the tree was buried?

I've read the entire thread and haven't yet seen a response to this, although I could have missed it. Where is what you say above documented?

[newcats]

survival of the fittest' is the only moral law
<BR I have never heard anyone saying that survial of the fittest is a moral code. Morality is a human mental/emotional trait, and has nothing to do with physical evolution....but nice try.

[Phaedrus]

My God is infinitely greater (and exquisitely more subtle) than the one described in the Bible. My God created a universe perfect from the instant of creation for His inscrutable purposes, with no need for seams or thumbprints or incessant interference to keep it on the correct path. The God described in the Bible was unable to do that. Why?

Now there you go again, posting something interesting. Where, Physicist, is your God? "Out there", disinterested, watching? Is it possible for your God not to be a part of His Creation and, if so, how so; i.e. what did your God have to work with? Can such thinking be classified as anything more than a fundamental assumption, always acknowledging that such assumptions are indeed important?

[smith288]

I have never judged you. Find the post at which I did as opposed to God judging you. And I also never denied evolution as a possible scientific possibility to where we are. If you are uncomfortable with a God who will judge you, why? You do not believe in such tripe. Why feel so bothered by me telling you of your upcoming doom if you wont/cant believe it?

Those who discredit God but make it a point to fight with him shows alot about the discreditors motives (and it isnt scientific).

[Junior]

Seriously, if those distinct layers equal millions of years, then why have fossil tree trunks been found standing upright with distinct layers every several feet of the trunk? If they really were distinct layers of severl million years wouldn't the trunk have decomposed long, long before the top of the tree was buried?

From the TalkOrigins site:

Some creationist presentations include claims about "polystrate fossils". From the description, this term is used for fossils which intersect several beds (layers), usually in sedimentary rocks. Although often used in creationist literature, I have been unable to determine the origin of the term -- it is not a standard geological term. This makes it difficult for the uninitiated to find conventional literature about these fossils. This presentation attempts to explain what "polystrate fossils" are, and offers a critique of claims made about them. If you have any questions, feel free to contact the author via e-mail. I have seen plenty of examples of "polystrate" fossils in the field.

Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?

Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.

The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.

An upright tree preserved in the cliffs at Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Figure 35 of Dawson [1].

Stratigraphy in association with an upright tree stump, Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Figure 41 of Dawson [1]
Original Caption:
"1.=Shale. 2.=Shaly coal, 1 foot. 3. Underclay with rootlets, 1 foot 2 inches. 4. Gray sandstone passing downwards into shale, 3 feet. Erect tree with Stigmaria roots (e) on the coal. 5. Coal, 1 inch. 6. Underclay with roots, 10 inches. 7. Gray sandstone, 1 foot 5 inches. Stigmaria rootlet continued from the bed above; erect Calamites. 8. Gray shale, with pyrites. Flattened plants."

The following is a more detailed post on polystrate fossil trees I presented previously in talk.origins:

In article <1994May22.133828.562@alc-ohio.alc.com> malone@alc-ohio.alc.com (Bruce Malone) writes:

 

"[...]

"Fossil trees trunks, which extend upward through multiple layers of limestone, have been found in many areas of the world including Kingston, Ontario [there are no such trees in Kingston, Ontario -AM] and Joggins, Nova Scotia [emphasis added].

"This suggests that these very thick deposits were deposited very rapidly. Similar polystata trees have been found extending upright through successive seams of coal. Some of these trees have supposedly stood upright while successive cycles of oceans and peat swamp have pasted through an area. You be the judge as to the most logical interpretation... slow accumulation over thousands of years or... rapid burial during a massive world wide flood."

One of the best, and longest-known "fossil forest" occurrences is a locality known as Joggins, in Nova Scotia. It is Carboniferous in age, and was first described in detail in the late 1800s. Here is a quote from Dawson 1868 (pp. 179-180) on the nature of the trees at this locality, in a beautiful cliff section over 1km thick:

 

"In the [stratigraphic] section in the preceding chapter, the reader will observe the words 'Underclay, Stigmaria [a type of fossil tree trunk]' frequently recurring; and over nearly every underclay is a seam of coal. An underclay is technically the bed of clay which underlies a coal-seam; but it has now become a general term for a fossil soil [Dawson's emphasis], or a bed which once formed a terrestrial surface, and supported trees and other plants; because we generally find these coal underclays, like the subsoils of many modern peat-bogs, to contain roots and trunks of trees which aided in the accumulation of the vegetable matter of the coal. The underclays in question are accordingly penetrated by innumerable long rootlets, now in a coaly state, but retaining enough of their form to enable us to recognize them as belonging to a peculiar root, the Stigmaria, of very frequent occurrence in the coal measures, and at one time supposed to have been a swamp plant of anomalous form, but now known to have belonged to an equally singular tree, the Sigillaria, found in the same deposits (Fig. 30). The Stigmaria has derived its name from the regularly arranged pits or spots left by its rootlets, which proceeded from it on all sides. The Sigillaria has been named from the rows of leaf-scars which extend up its trunk, which in some species is curiously ribbed or fluted. One of the most remarkable peculiarities of the stigmaria-rooted trees was the very regular arrangement of their roots, which are four at their departure from the trunk, and divide at equal distances successively into eight, sixteen, and thirty-two branches, each giving off, on all sides, an immense number of rootlets, stretching into the beds around, in a manner which shows that these must have been soft sand and mud at the time these roots and rootlets spread through them.

"It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position."

There is very little, with the exception of terminology, that would be different in a "modern" interpretation of these features, and Dawson has much more detail on the other sedimentological features found at Joggins that support his interpretation. Dawson records well over a dozen horizons with large upright trees, and smaller ones are even more common. The section at Joggins can still be visited today, and is particularly well-known for the small reptile fossils found there (they often occur inside the upright tree stumps, apparently they fell in the hollow stump). There are usually a few upright trees exposed on the shore, although the rapid erosion of the 10m+ high cliffs means the exposed examples change every year.

Given that an "in place" occurrence was convincingly determined by observations made in the 19th century for this and many other "fossil forest" localities, it is surprising that these conclusions have not been recognized by modern "young Earth global flood" [YEGF] creationists as clear evidence of non-global-flood deposition for much of the geologic record. They often hinge their current arguments on the occurrence of upright trees in Yellowstone National Park, point to their volcanic setting, and then point to floating upright trees floating in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens [2], and say, "See? They could be transported during the flood.". This argument is completely fallacious, because most "fossil forests" do not occur in volcanic deposits, and do have the fragile roots of the stumps tightly penetrating into the surrounding sediment, often into a paleosol (fossil soil) [besides Joggins, see also 3]. One occurrence is even associated with dinosaur footprints on the same surface, on top of a coal seam [4, 5, 6]. The "transported floating upright stumps" model [2] is a complete red herring that does not apply to the vast majority of "fossil forest" occurrences.

As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not.

One of the most compelling features of Dawson's comments, from a YEGF creationist's perspective, may be the closing remarks of his book, in the conclusion section on p.671. Statements expressing similar sentiments can be found in most geological books of the period (e.g., Murchison's "Siluria", where the Silurian and other Paleozoic systems are first defined):

 

"Patient observation and thought may enable us in time better to comprehend these mysteries; and I think we may be much aided in this by cultivating an acquaintance with the Maker and Ruler of the machine as well as with His work."

Dawson has no theological problems with the conclusions he drew, which are basically similar to the ones drawn by geologists now. Many other geologists of the period were devoutly religious, and clearly expressed the fact in their publications.

Apparently, many 19th century geologists share a common philosophical framework with modern creationists, but, strangely enough, modern creationists come to completely different conclusions from both the 19th century geologists and current geologists. The common appeal by modern creationists to an "atheistic" or "humanistic" philosophical framework that "taints" the interpretations of science is quite ridiculous in light of the strong beliefs of many historical scientists, particularly in geology. Why should creationists still have a problem with their conclusions, more than 100 years later?

Malone, along with many "young Earth global flood creationists", have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the "polystrate fossil trees" part of their presentation. "Polystrate fossil trees" are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop using it.

Related Material

Here is some information on the occurrence of fossil trees in Yellowstone National Park.

The occurrence of a "fossil whale standing on its tail" from Lompoc, California is a classic. This is an article by Darby South.

See the following information on the formation of coal.

References

[1] Dawson, J.W., 1868. Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition. MacMillan and Co.: London, 694pp.

[2] Coffin, H.G., 1983. Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington. Geology, v.11, p.298-299.

[3] Cristie, R.L., and McMillan, N.J. (eds.), 1991. Tertiary fossil forests of the Geodetic Hills, Axel Heiberg Island, Arctic Archipelago, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 403, 227pp.

[4] Parker, L.R. and Balsley, J.K., 1989. Coal mines as localities for studying dinosaur trace fossils. IN: Gilette, D.D. and Lockley, M.G. (eds.), Dinosaur Tracks and Traces. Cambridge University Press:Cambridge, p.354-359.

[5] Parker, L.R. and Rowley, R.L., Jr., 1989. Dinosaur footprints from a coal mine in east-central Utah. IN: Gilette, D.D. and Lockley, M.G. (eds.), Dinosaur Tracks and Traces. Cambridge University Press:Cambridge, p.361-366.

[6] Carpenter, K., 1992. Behaviour of hadrosaurs as interpreted from footprints in the "Mesaverde" Group (Campanian) of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, v.29, no.2, p.81-96. [This one has a map of the dinosaur footprints and stumps -- fig. 1]

Also see Andrew MacRae's talk.origins Page

Evidently, it is quite possible to explain such fossil trees without resort to a global flood.  You still haven't answered my question regarding why the fossils aren't all jumbled up.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Okay, good point. That person is notorious for that ;)

[PatrickHenry]

Amused placemarker. Very amused.

[Junior]

OK. Point out to me a modern, beneficial mutation that is not a normal part of the original.

This is a strawman. All new features are simply modifications of old features. For instance, legs are simply modified fins, jaws are modified gill arches, earbones are modified jawbones, etc.

[Poohbah]

SO, you want to believe a little of both (God created evolution). You trust there is a GOD, but not enough to believe he gave us the Bible (without error).

The Bible is God's revelation of Himself to us. It is not a science textbook.

If you believe the Bible is perfectly without error, then please state the value of pi to 5 decimal places.

[mconder]

If there is no God and evolution is a fact, doesn't that make Hitler right on the mark in his undertakings to build the perfect race? If there's no God, I guess it makes him niether right nor wrong. If we suppose evolution is fact and God does not exsist, the only thing that really made what Hitler did wrong would be the people that took exception to it because it threatened their continued exsistance.

Personally, the things that Hitler did are wrong on so many more levels other than my self interest in survival, but I guess that's because I still have a CONSCIENCE!!! I'm sorry you don't.

[Gumlegs]

Would that placemarker be randomly amused or naturally selected for amusement?

[AndrewC]

Tell me which day you're going to stand before ALLAH and shake your fist at him. I want to see that!

Tell me which day you're going to be reincarnated as a lowly roach and then shake your fist at BUDDHA! I want to see that!

B, I, R, and 1

[Physicist]

Because there is more to life than math and physics.

To me that's saying, there is more to life than the Truth, and its manifestation. I'm not sure I agree that there is more. Certainly there are lies and errors, but I consider these as the spaces between truths.

God was not unable, He was unwilling.

I don't know His will, and I view any claims to such knowledge as requiring extraordinary substantiation.

[Junior]

VadeRetro is a perfect example of what I was speaking about. Here is someone whose IQ probably doesn't top 110, but who wishes so desperately to be regarded as an intellectual that he clings to the pant leg of those he regards as 'free thinkers'.

Gee, Vade's a published author. What have you done that's so special?

[glory]

, but I will certainly be cast into hell for having violated mine

Doubt that since God could care less what YOUR principles are if they are not shared by Him. God would grant access to such as you that would humble yourself like a child before Him. He would certainly not grant access to the arrogant in reason types if they remained unrepentant. So, you go ahead and stick by your principles and see where they get you. It's a trite saying, but as has been said before, you are the one with everything to loose, not those of faith. We will just rot in the ground with no comprehension if we are wrong. There will be no consequences to our lives except the good people we will no doubt leave behind. I wonder if the same can be said if Mr. Physicist is wrong?(no, this isn't to scare you, but it is the reality of what's to come)

I actually believe hope is what drives faith. Faith driven by fear is objectionable to God anyway. He doesn't want you to love Him to hedge your bets so in that regard you probably are right, but I don't think you are right that your lack of faith will get you anywhere. I'm not surprised many scientists can't humble themselves before Christ, they are generally some of the most arrogant human beings on the face of the earth, full of thier own sense of importance and understanding. I don't pretend to know all the answers, but I know that something has moved me all my life towards a Creator. It's a force so strong that no amount of "rational" explanation can overpower it. I will pray though this force will someday come into your life and others who doubt. There is nothing more glorious than LIFE, true LIFE!

[Dimensio]

If there is no God and evolution is a fact, doesn't that make Hitler right on the mark in his undertakings to build the perfect race?

While you clarified your position on this issue, I should point out that such an argument has actually been presented by some Creationists as though it has any merit. Of course, in addition to being inaccurate (it would make Hitler neither right nor wrong) it appeals to the logical fallacy of arguing the consequences rather than the merits.

[jlogajan]

If we suppose evolution is fact and God does not exsist, the only thing that really made what Hitler did wrong would be the people that took exception to it because it threatened their continued exsistance.

In fact the existance or lack of God did not prevent Hitler. So the only question we have to answer is by what right we resisted Hitler. Since self-preservation is inherent in existance, we knew everything we needed to know about Hitler without refering to scripture.

Scripture was redundant to our natural impulses at self-defense. Scripture didn't prevent Hitler and it didn't give us answers about how to deal with him that we couldn't arrive at independently.

So what was your point?