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.

[smith288]

yea, but one constant faith. All other faiths that do not carry the message of God fail or will fail. It happens time and time again.

[Jim Scott]

Science can be wrong for decades ... the Bible is wrong forever.

You're just itching for an argument with that kind of statement, aren't you? Need to reassure yourself?.

That's simply your personal opinion, which carries no more weight than mine and as I believe you are totally wrong, we're back to square one and again, I see no point in debating it.

You've decided that there is no God, evolution is the explanation of all things physical and so on. I believe in God, Christ as savior and in short, the bible. Sniping at my belief while I snipe back at yours proves nothing and no one is convinced of the others' argument, are they? I've debated creationism with atheists many times, mostly on the web. To my knowledge the atheists are still atheists and I can assure you that I'm still a Christian.

As I see it, we collectively stand on opposite sides of a great chasm, shaking our heads calling each other 'fool'.
We each do our missionary work in our own way. The atheist posts creationist screeds on a conservative website to generate the atheist/Christian debate and to get the atheist message out: There is no God (and only foolish people believe there is). The Christian responds that there IS a God and only foolish people believe there isn't. Then we make the mistake of attempting to prove the unprovable to each other and that's when the whole thing falls apart.

Clever wordsmithing can make a point here and there but as Christianity is based on faith in things mostly unseen and evolution is based on sketchy, often conflicting evidence and a lot of theory I find the two both impossible to 'prove'. I believe that the very existence of man and the earth we live on proves a creator by it's very complexity that evolution ascribes to random chance. You think otherwise. To me, the bible, God's Word, explains everything I need to know and is a blueprint for salvation and an abundant life. You think it's a bunch of rubbish. So be it. I cannot debate with that attitude so I leave the atheist to his belief and the fate he chooses for himself. That having been said, what this has to do with political conservatism is beyond my comprehension.

Since Jim Robinson allows this stuff on his website I still think it all belongs on the religion forum as we're discussing religion. As far as I can see, the 'scientific' aspect of the argument is mostly a fig leaf for atheists to use to appear wise and knowledgable as they smugly proclaim: 'There is no God - and Science says so!.
Meanwhile, God patiently continues to supply the air we breath to exist and the very ground we walk upon, but I would bet that He is probably not amused.

[general_re]

As I wait I am pointing out the hypocrisies in some of the posts.

Careful - someone will come along and accuse you of ad hominem argumentation.

[tortoise]

So I take it that your handle is a Spooky reference? :-)

[Dimensio]

In order to believe that evolutionism is the correct way to explain "life", you have to take at face value that the earth was created from all new matter. If this is the case, then how do you explain the law that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

My personal belief is that the matter that created the earth is much older than the earth itself. I also believe that one day in the near future, carbon dating will be deemed inaccurate and irrelevent.

Your assessment of biological evolution and conservation of energy is inaccurate. The full theory is that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted. "Carbon dating" works because of carbon created anew from existing energy, not that new carbon-14 just materialized from nowhere.

[That Subliminal Kid]

And a counter-reflection of YOUR belief. At least I can admit when I'm asserting belief. You continue to tout yours as fact.

[Virginia-American]

And of course ID can be falsified. Just produce a natural mechanism by which non-living matter self-assembles, simultaneously acquires the ability to convert raw energy ... you'll have falsified ID.

No, actually you wouldn't have. You would simply be providing details of abiogenesis and natural selection; it wouldn't mean that ID could not have happened.

Falsification means an observation that would show the theory to be wrong; I don't think ID can be falsified, for who can say what a superior intelligence could do?

[Physicist]

Whether you are an evolutionist or creationist, you have to admit that either theory requires the acceptance based on faith.

I, for one, have no faith at all in evolution. I looked at the evidence and decided evolution was the best fit.

In order to believe that evolutionism is the correct way to explain "life", you have to take at face value that the earth was created from all new matter.

Where did that notion come from?

If this is the case, then how do you explain the law that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

There is no such law. In fact, we create and destroy tiny quantities of matter in the laboratory all the time.

My personal belief is that the matter that created the earth is much older than the earth itself.

It is demonstrably older than the Earth itself. The Bible is the only authority that claims otherwise.

I also believe that one day in the near future, carbon dating will be deemed inaccurate and irrelevent.

Whosoever would believe creationism must cling to that hope.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Why would there be evidence in a physical reality for a being which doesn't exist within that reality? It seems rather foolish to ask for "evidence of God" when the evidence you seek cannot possibly be had due to the nature of God, and the criterion we both would have for said evidence. You think seem to think that this lack of evidence is actually evidence for something else. Your reasoning is truly dizzying!

[That Subliminal Kid]

You betcha :)

[That Subliminal Kid]

Clearly you do not understand what ID proposes. If a natural mechanism could be shown that accounts for what ID specifically claims cannot be done naturally, you would falsify ID. That's a fact.

[AndrewC]

As I wait I am pointing out the hypocrisies in some of the posts.

Careful - someone will come along and accuse you of ad hominem argumentation.

I did not write arguments, I wrote posts. Hypocrisy can be pointed out. I was not in a debate at the time. However that does not alleviate your inability to comprehend

Arguments Ad Hominem B applies.

This fallacy is commonly called "an attack on the person." It is a direct attack against an individual, such as attacking a person's beliefs or assertions by attacking the person himself in one way or another. It appears in one of three forms.

A. Abusive

The abusive form uses epithets or factual but irrelevant data against an opponent in hopes of discrediting any statements an opponent may make. Those committing this fallacy hope to turn attention away from the facts of the argument to the person participating in the argument. It is a personal attack on the individual making the argument, not on the argument itself. This is very common in political debates, where the participants find it easier and advantageous to discuss personalities and engage in mudslinging, rather than discuss the issues in the debate.

• Example: "Although Mr. Smith, the defendant's chief witness, claims that he did not see the defendant selling heroin to Mr. Jones, there is no reason to accept Mr. Smith's statement. After all, we know that Mr. Smith is a pot-smoking communist-mongering hippie." (Mr. Smith's character in this situation has nothing to do with his testimony as such.)
• Example: "Senator Doe proposes to introduce a plan to permit Bible reading in the public schools. We all know, however that he is simply a bigoted, religious fanatic who is trying to destroy our public schools." (The fact that Senator Doe may be a religious fanatic has nothing to do with the debate over permitting Bible reading in the public schools. This proposed policy has to rise or fall on other concerns and evidence.)

B. Circumstantial

The circumstantial form cites the opponent's personal circumstances as sufficient reason for dismissing a statement the opponent has made. Or it may point out a contrast between the opponent's lifestyle and his expressed opinions, thereby suggesting that the opponent's conclusions can be dismissed because the opponent is himself hypocritical.

• Example: "Of course, the workers at the factory favor unionization. They are the ones who will get a pay raise without having to pay for it." (What does this have to do with anything?)
• Example: "Mr. Jones, how can you favor gun legislation when you own a pistol?" (Does this mean you can't vote to preserve the sanctity of marriage if you've been divorced?)
• Example: "You should not listen to his arguments against legislation prohibiting the sale of cigarettes. He owns stock in two cigarette companies." (So what? The two circumstances are unrelated to one another.)

C. Arguments Tu Quoque

The tu quoque fallacy occurs when a person attempts to escape criticism of his position by attacking the position of his opponent, rather than by directly answering the charges against him.

• Example: Reporter -- "The CIA under your direction engaged in illegal domestic surveillance, a clear-cut violation of the CIA's charter." CIA Official -- "The CIA under the past three administrations has been required to pursue such action. To believe that such activity is not necessary and has not taken place before is naive. It is people like you who would like to see our country infiltrated with foreign spies." (The charges here are not answered by the CIA official. He attempts a diversion by attacking the reporter's position.)
• Example: "Far too much fuss has been made over our Central Intelligence Agency's espionage abroad. Other countries are just as deeply engaged in spying as we are." (So what? Do two wrongs make a right? Again this is a diversionary tactic.

 

[That Subliminal Kid]

You're right. That was an insult. I'll try to refrain from those if possible.. but if the shoe fits.. it's hard not to put it on him.

[That Subliminal Kid]

You're right. That was an insult. I'll try to refrain from those if possible.. but if the shoe fits.. it's hard not to put it on him.

[That Subliminal Kid]

What difference would it make? One theory of evolution or another, science as it is will always have a theory of evolution, so the point is moot. Let us assume for a moment we observed something that destroyed the current specific variation of evolutionary theory. What then? A new theory of evolution. That's what. And round and round we go.

[Gumlegs]

So, the answer to the second question,['Why are there still bacteria?'] in fact, is more complex and the question not ridiculous.

I agree that the answer is more complex. However, I'm looking at the question as another way of saying, "If evolution is true, why is there anything other than humans?" -- assuming humans are as good as it gets here, which I doubt. It's a strawman.

[general_re]

Poor Andrew - someday, if you ponder it really hard, you'll understand the distinction in post 383. It's subtle, I admit, but it's real.

In any case, I see no particular reason to carry that argument over to this thread. Take the last word.

[ThinkPlease]

I understand. How frustrating it must be to have people who dare to question your pseudo-scientific orthodoxy. Now, let's do as your nick suggests, and think please.

Ahh, life's so much more easier when it is us against them, isn't it? Perhaps you would learn more if you released the blinders over your eyes, don't you think? So far, your comments this day have shown you to be the one following the orthodoxy.

I have been following these threads on this website for over two years. I have never once seen jlogajan do anything other than troll, making pointless fact-free ad hom. attacks in order to satisfy some bizzare need he has. Psycho-masturbatory is precisely what his behavior displays.

Pot calling the kettle black.

And, I think I'm a pretty honest guy about these sorts of things. Some people, like RadioAstronomer, Physicist, and one or two others whose nicks don't come to mind right now, are honestly attempting to debate the subject. You are not one, and neither is jlogajan. I could be wrong, and if so please respond with some links to thread posts to show me otherwise. I'm always willing to believe when actual empirical facts are presented.

Perhaps you should look closer, then. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be an efficient mechanism to look through older threads, otherwise I could help you look. But alas, your assertion will have to go undefended.

[whattajoke]

you have worded your question very well. But truth be told, scientists would love for the fossil record to be simple, perfect, and concise. Unfortunately, fossils are rare indeed as the particulars in forming them do not readily occur. Of course, if we had A-Z fossils from, say, early primate to man (simplifying for clarity here) and presented them to "creationist science peer review" (as if that existed) the scientists would be scoffed at and asked to come up with A1, A2, A3 and so forth ad infinitum. Its an impossible task...well, except in easily verifiable examples such as isolated populations or viruses...but thats apparently not good enough. cheers!

[PatrickHenry]

Whether you are an evolutionist or creationist, you have to admit that either theory requires the acceptance based on faith. Otherwise, this age old argument would not be an argument.

Others have responded to much of your post, but I'll deal with the first sentence. You said "either theory." Sorry, but creationism isn't a scientific theory, and therefore it does require faith. Evolution, being science, requires no faith at all, just observation of data and the application of reason.