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.

[scripter]

When a poster said he found it difficult to understand, I behaved in a manner which is the opposite of arrogance. Indeed, I was entirely benelevent. I told him not to worry about it if it didn't make sense to him.

That poster was me, but I didn't say I found it difficult to understand, that I was incapable of reading it or that it didn't make sense to me. I'll expand on what I did say: I abhor trying to figure out if words used in today's common English language mean the same as in the 17th century. And that the sentence structure can be different from modern English and that may add a twist to the original context.

If you want me to respond to something from that time frame I would have to look at the above and additional cultural manners to have a better idea of what Galileo was really saying. If anybody has picked up on any one thing from my previous posts regarding Scripture it should be that I look at the cultural backgrounds, manners, customs and common language at the time before coming to a conclusion.

Also, I found it a little odd that a self proclaimed materialist and atheist would even bother posting anything regarding Scripture. I don't mean anything by describing you that way, those are just ways in which you've previously described yourself so that's how I filter everything you post. Along these same lines I have to infer how you might think what you've posted benefits your position.

On top of all that what I posted was a little tongue-in-cheek. My comments about figuring out Galileo's original intent by looking at 17th century word definitions was my way of hinting at the need to do just that by anyone who posted his words, including yourself, to verify the word definitions mean what you think they mean.

Besides all this, I was thinking of some of the advances we've had regarding science and Scripture since the 17th century, and pondered whether Galileo would have the same perspective today.

I finished it with asking: "what is it you're trying to say with this post?" as your answer would provide me a better understanding of where you're coming from. I was hoping you would put your thoughts in your own words and the discussion could have continued. I can't talk with Galileo about his thoughts but I can talk with you about yours.

Let me know if something isn't clear here as it's pretty darn late for me to be awake let alone try to communicate my thoughts.

[PatrickHenry]

Also, I found it a little odd that a self proclaimed materialist and atheist would even bother posting anything regarding Scripture. I don't mean anything by describing you that way, those are just ways in which you've previously described yourself so that's how I filter everything you post. Along these same lines I have to infer how you might think what you've posted benefits your position.

I've never described myself that way. I've frequently been accused of being an athiest. There are some creationists here who think that anyone who dares to question the literal words of Genesis is a satanic, athesitic, Christian-basher. You follow their lead at your peril.

As for the Galileo piece, I think it's clear. I also think that if he were here today, with all we've learned in science -- thanks largely to his efforts -- his views wouldn't change one bit. It helps to know the context, of course. I suggest you read up on Galileo's clash with the Church, and his coerced "heresy" confession, the banning of his book, and his imprisonment for the remainder of his life -- all because he demonstrated the existence of the solar system.

Putting Galileo's ideas into my own words is easy. I've been mentioning Galileo in the context of "science vs. scripture" for almost 3 years here in these threads. His ideas, as expressed in the posted letter, have been the framework for my understanding of the issue. I've posted the same ideas many times before, this one from February of this year:

If scripture is properly understood -- not an easy task -- it doesn't contradict science at all. The trick is knowing when scripture is to be understood literally, and when it's speaking in metaphor.

No one, not even the most strident fundamentalist, takes the numerous passages about "the four corners of the earth" and the "pillars of the earth" as being literally true. Why? Because we know the shape of the earth. Similarly, since Galileo's unfortunate encounter with the Inquisition over the solar system, probably even the most stubborn fundamentalist will agree with Galileo that the solar system is real, and those passages in scripture which seem to say that the earth is the unmoveable center of the universe are mere poetry. Why? Again, it's because we know enough now to realize that the solar system -- although "only a theory" -- is a very good description of reality.

The point here is that our growing understanding -- through science -- of the true nature of the universe is actually an aid to understanding scripture. The scientist, quite without realizing it, and sometimes in spite of his lack of religious conviction, is providing a kind of "reader's guide" to help us have a better understanding of scripture. Actually, the universe itself is the "reader's guide" but it's the scientist who discovers the nature of the universe. Thus, when understood in the light of science, scripture can be properly read, old misunderstandings can be corrected, and there is no conflict. Without science, we have no way of knowing if our reading of scripture is correct.

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...Christianity---secular-govt.-humanism...private religion!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values GROWTH!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY/govt. RELIGION---bigotry/intolerance---HYPOCRISY...

Age of the taliban/pharisees---EVO zealots...

Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling all the residuals---technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--crusade/WAR--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY...against God--man--society!!

[f.Christian]

You make the moonies---mormons look like cradle roll!

[RightWingNilla]

I refuted your evidence

That was a very lame response G3K. Those duplicated genes only appeared after the administration of the insecticide. The studies are observed instances of bona-fide gene duplcation (and they are functional). Try again - come up with a better explanation to fit the data or admit you are wrong. There is no weaseling out of this.

[RightWingNilla]

Seems like an evolutionist cabal trying to assassinate my character.

Gore stop crying, you sound like a whining liberal. You have dished out your fair share of insults as well.

RWN finally tried to post after some 100 posts some evidence refuting my statements

I have provided truckloads of evidence for every bogus assertion of yours. You fool no one G3K, not even the creationists on this board. Stop creating smoke screens and address the gene duplcation studies. Your reputation is on the line.

[whattajoke]

All the known evidence is readily available to you through innumerable sources; I know you know this, I know you won't bother reading them, so I won't waste our time. You are correct in that these two organisms are indeed evolutionary anomalies, but so what? They fit their niche (for this particular epoch, anyway). I think a better question would be, "why would god create this goofy (goofy, that is, from a purely human point of view)animal in the first place? A joke?"

In summation, your "explanation," such as it is, is, "Boy oh boy, the platypus sure is weird (as though the entire fauna of Australia isn't a bit odd thereby helping to prove island biospeciation and scores of other evolutionary tenets) so god created it...poof...just like that! No further study needed."

Life must be easy in your world. Your curiosity will certainly never get you in trouble.

[VadeRetro]

Thank you. "Inaccuracy" is your polite term for a lie.

Typical dishonesty on your own part to claim to understand motivation and intent from the circumstance of a description not being accurate. Especially since I already showed that a completely accurate statement would have been more favorable to Rennie's point. You have no basis for calling anyone a liar here. That you freely do so shows again that the Lord seems to have given some special dispensations to his Holy Jackass Warriors.

"Didn't desk check" is another euphemism you use to hide the utter lack of substance in your argument. It means "I didn't read and understand".

Following the squirrely GOTOs of a poorly written BASIC program to determine how a computer executing said code will behave is a tedious exercise not to be expected of the casual reader of a thread. And of course, the charge is itself another distraction. Had I never read it, the emptiness of your "discrediting" of same would not have been revealed. But I let you make a fool of yourself for a few hundred posts before checking out your claims. How does that help you?

Find the case on this thread where I have called anyone a liar. I have pointed out a lie, a falsehood, an inaccuracy or whatever euphemism you like for the lie.

How stupid are you willing to pretend to be? How about these?

The Sciam reference still contains a lie.

Thank you. "Inaccuracy" is your polite term for a lie.

Your initial answer to my question to patrick"the suddenly mute"henry began with a characterization of my post as smoke-and-mirrors, that itself was smoke-and-mirrors and a weak attempt at a distraction from the lie contained in the Scientific American article. It is still a lie.

Well, THAT was easy!

[VadeRetro]

(To gore) Your reputation is on the line.

Not with me, it isn't. There's such a thing as a lost cause.

[gore3000]

All the known evidence is readily available to you through innumerable sources;

Another lame excuse from an evolutionist. He cannot refute my statement that the platypus is indeed a refutation of evolution so he tells me I should refute my own statement! What a joke! The rest of his post is just the usual evolutionist confucionist verbiage which does not address the point and is therefore not worth discussing.

Let me add one more thing to my statement in post#2312. The platypus was discovered in the 1820's. Long before Darwin published the Origins in 1859. It made a tremendous sensation in Europe. While he tried to talk away many evidences against his theory such as the bat (but he ignored the most important part - the sonar system), and the Cambrian explosion, he did not even dare touch the platypus.

[gore3000]

Gore stop crying,

I am not crying, I am laughing. You think people do not see what you guys are trying to do with your insults?

I have provided truckloads of evidence for every bogus assertion of yours.

The only evidence I have seen from you is the posting on the Nobel Prize winners on Post# 2168, Post#2169 and Post#2170 which were thoroughly refuted on Post#2185, Post#2184, and Post#2187, and the post on duplicate genes on Post#2270 which was thoroughly refuted in Post#2313 and Post# 2319.

[gore3000]

That was a very lame response G3K.

Calling my response lame does not refute it. From post#2313:
'" It is generally assumed, but never verified, that esterase activity, and therefore resistance, is monotonically related to gene amplification. ". Did you see the not verified? ' Oh and how come he did not win the Nobel Prize if his research proves evolution? One would think that research that would finally prove what evos have been trying to prove for 150 years would have won a Nobel Prize, don't ya think?

[PatrickHenry]

Blue-skipping placemarker.
Wildly eliptical placemarker.
1^720 placemarker.
Nobel Prize for biology placemarker.
All discoveries disprove evolution placemarker.
DNA disproves evolution placemarker.
The fossil record disproves evolution placemarker.
Nobel Prize for creationism placemarker.
Genetic variation has nothing to do with evolution.

[Note to moderator: there are no personal attacks in this post.]

[VadeRetro]

I have pointed out a lie, a falsehood, an inaccuracy or whatever euphemism you like for the lie.

I'm drawn back to this fascinating and curious statement. Is a lie an inaccuracy? Is it a matter of convenience for the speaker whether to say, "Excuse me, but what you said is inaccurate" or "Excuse me, but what you said is a lie?" Yes, if you're a Mud-wrestler for the Lord.

Where have you shown foreknowledge, malice, intent, or any ill-gotten gain from the lack of accuracy in Rennie's description of Hardison's program? I do not know the source of the error, but it looks a lot more like poor scholarship on Rennie's part than it does dishonesty. I'd guess he's citing second- or third-hand rather than directly.

[AndrewC]

Typical dishonesty on your own part to claim to understand motivation and intent from the circumstance of a description not being accurate.

What a hypocrite. You have no qualms about attacking and demeaning someone instead of addressing the argument. Brazen, lawyer, smoke-and-mirrors fairly constantly drip from your "lips". It not merely inaccurate, that would be saying random instead of pseudorandom, the statement is blatantly false. That makes it a falsehood. Whether intended or not that is a lie. Your feeble attempt to recover some semblance of sanity to the program does not in any way correct the statement remaining on the webpage. By stating what you did, you entirely change the concept. A phrase generated in the fashion you describe would have 100% mutations minus those found correct. That is even more synthetic than the problem it is trying to fix. Tell me, what gene in life has 100% mutation per generation. What a nutcase program!

I also see by your name calling that you hope that the thread is deleted. First of all, another blatant falsehood from you. I have not called anyone a liar. I have pointed out a lie. There is a difference, you know. You are associated with those calling people liars without substantiation. You find the place on this thread where I called anyone a liar.

Your charges of distraction are laughable. At every point when your evidence is pointed out as flawed, you pretend that it does not matter. What a hyprocrite!(reprise) Why present flawed evidence?

Your inability to immediately see the flaws in that BASIC program speaks to your lack of mental acumen. Despite its use of GOTO it is rather clear. The little kludge enabling the reuse of "TOBE" might be confusing to one such as yourself, but anyone worth his salt will not have trouble with a 70 line program having 9 remark statements and numerous print statements. Finally in your attempt again to synthesize a charge from nothing, you succeed in pointing out what I stated. I did not call anyone a liar. I pointed out a lie. Your citations support that. Thanks, you hypocrite. For your edification.

lie²   Pronunciation Key  (l)
n.

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

false·hood   Pronunciation Key  (fôlshd)
n.

1. An untrue statement; a lie.
2. The practice of lying.
3. Lack of conformity to truth or fact; inaccuracy.

[VadeRetro]

The little kludge enabling the reuse of "TOBE" might be confusing to one such as yourself, but anyone worth his salt will not have trouble with a 70 line program having 9 remark statements and numerous print statements.

I had to point out to you that Rennie's algorithm would produce a much faster convergence than Hardison's. You derided Hardison's version, then upheld it as correct against the algorithm Rennie described. You can have it either way, but you either can't read code or misrepresented what you read. Up to you.

[AndrewC]

"Excuse me, but what you said is inaccurate" or "Excuse me, but what you said is a lie?" Yes, if you're a Mud-wrestler for the Lord.

I did that, hypocrite. "Or what", remember.

Should I take this literally and call it a lie, or what?

I still find it hypocritical from coming from you. You miss no chance to use "lawyer", "smoke-and-mirrors", "Holy Warrior" etc. at every opportunity. Your answer to the point I made began with smoke-and-mirrors. Hypocrite.

[AndrewC]

I had to point out to you that Rennie's algorithm would produce a much faster convergence than Hardison's.

You made a statement. Rennie had no algorithm, he was describing Hardison. You made up the algorithm. I read the code and described it or are you boxing ghosts?

[VadeRetro]

By the way, your definition of lie only underscores the irresponsibility of your claim. Please prove that Rennie's misstatement was a deliberate act or apologize for the slander. We both know that as the true Christian you are you do not have it in you to apologize to The Heathen no matter what your misdeeds so I guess now you'll just have to prove your claim.

[AndrewC]

You get 5 banana system points for that. A lie is a lie.