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.

[Physicist]

To see someone argue against a scientific theory is one thing, but to see someone proactively denounce all possible scientific theories really is something new.

[jlogajan]

I notice that religionist depend a lot on made up stories. Why is that?

[Physicist]

The chosen scientist, a Harvard biologist, approached God and told Him of their decision, and that He is “no longer necessary.”

Apollo replied, "Well, Prometheus created you, but I think you really want to talk to Zeus. Wait here and I'll get him."

[AndrewC]

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.

Thanks for the misplaced concern. It does show humanity, but does nothing for your argument. I too have pity. It pains me to know that you are referred by "A mind is a terrible thing to waste". Someday you will crack that book on logic and actually learn something.

This---

. they were worthless because they were hypocritical.

will not be found in your logic book. You also "subtled" yourself into delusion.

[general_re]

This---

they were worthless because they were hypocritical.

will not be found in your logic book. You also "subtled" yourself into delusion.

You have my condolences. Look up the fallacy of special pleading sometime.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

There are no ID experiments. How could such an experiment be constructed? This is precisely why ID isn't a scientific concept.

Name me one - just one experiment in evolution that is not directed by an outside intelligence.

Every experiment thus far conducted has been designed and carried out by some human entity - thus showing that ID was (and is) very necessary to the implementation and conclusions of said experiments.

Personally, I don't know whether evolution is valid or not.  But I do know that there are those on both sides of the debate (but more especially, it seems, on the evolutionist side) who desire to set rules for the other side to follow that they, themselves, are not willing to do.

Firstly, it seems that the evolutionary cultists (not all evolutionists are cultists, BTW) are amazingly ignorant of ID theory.  In its most basic form, ID theory neither confirms nor denies the existance of G-D.  Rather, it says that random chance was not a signifcant factor in the creation of the universe.  A creation agent was responsible for laying down the rules by which this universe is governed.

To those who would argue that this thesis is not science because it is not falsifiable, I would offer two counter-arguments:

1). There are many things which are pure speculation in science which are not falsifiable today.  Much information that we currently have is way beyond our current scope to come up with the merest hypotheses to account for said info (The info from CGRO is an example).  This doesn't make it any less science.  It merely means that we don't have enough knowledge now.

2). It appears that many cultists are saying that it "isn't science" so as to shut down research into this interesting area of research.  If it isn't science, then it is also obvious that science doesn't have province over all truth.  And truth is what we need to be concerned with.

While I haven't taken the time to read all of the above articles (because I don't have the time), I have done so on other threads before.  I have read articles submitted before as "definitive" answers to creationists, and have been bitterly disappointed in the scholarship and analytical reasoning of the authors.  Heck, many of the articles made first-grade mistakes.  Most of them made assumptions which were little more than great leaps of faith.  But what was especially disappointing was a seeming wilfull misunderstanding of ID.  All of the authors that I have read had not the slightest clue and furthermore, didn't want to have the slightest clue either.

[smith288]

Prove to me they are made up. I believe Gods word, anonymous poster of a website....ill need some proof.

[ThinkPlease]

And now to add some levity to a thread that has become much too serious. Here's something I got from the Journal of Irrepreducible Results (a magazine of science humor published near MIT).

Ahhhh science humor.

[Smittie]

Because the theory of evolution actually says that only failures evolve. Why would a successful fish crawl up onto land? Why would a successful monkey leave the trees that make up his home? The failures are driven out of their eco-systems and forced to adapt to new ones. We are thus the product of millions of years of failure--not success.

So we're actually devolving. Monkees should still be realizing the benefits of walking straight on two legs and punching the time clock instead of swinging around and stuffing themselves with bananas. I can appreciate the survival of the fitist but changing species is quite another proposition.

[PatrickHenry]

Name me one - just one experiment in evolution that is not directed by an outside intelligence. Every experiment thus far conducted has been designed and carried out by some human entity - thus showing that ID was (and is) very necessary to the implementation and conclusions of said experiments.

If I understand your argument, it goes like this:

1. People use intelligence to conduct experiments.
2. Therefore, life on earth is the result of the Intelligent Designer.

Have I left out any steps?

[Junior]

Prometheus, on the other hand, might've retorted: "Your FIRED!"
:-)

Actually Prometheus, being a titan and presumably somewhat literate would have said, "You're fired!"

[Right_Wing_Mole_In_Seattle]

I don't buy into the "God wanted another angel with Him" B.S. that I often hear when I loved one dies.

Me neither.

Ecclesiastes 9:12
For man also does not know his time:

Luke 13:1-9
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

" 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' "

Romans 7:4
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

Romans 10:4
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

[Dementon]

Extra dimensions: these are experimentally testable. Most of my research in physics over the last two years has been to design a machine that can perform these tests.

Dude... You have a cool job!

[gore3000]

There are species, however, which have remained largely unchanged for billions of years. And why is that? The simple answer is success of the species in many different niches. Bacteria, however, are not genetically isolated and extensive lateral transfer of DNA, speaks against genetic insulation required for an unchanging species.

You answer the question of why bacteria can adapt. The question which the above does not answer is why if these, the first organisms, were able to adapt, were able to fit themselves into just about every ecological niche there was any reason for them to 'evolve' into something else by transforming themselves into different more complex creatures. Also let's note that because these simplest life forms were so adaptable (and indeed are more adaptable than any other creature after it) don't we have a case here of creatures becoming less fit? Don't we have here a case of deevolution instead of evolution?

[Diamond]

If, for instance, we saw a species zap into existence ex nihilo (which is what creationists believe), that would be a falsification.

Creation is finished, and we were not there at the time to see it, so how could we see such a thing? A falsification criteria that depends on the ability to actually SEE historical events is absurd. But if evolution is a fact, and it is still occurring, then we should be able to see it occurring. By your criteria we should be able to actually see a species evolve into existence, and we should be able to use the laws of evolution to predict what biological evolution will occur. The usual answers are that it happens so slowly that we can't see it, or it happened so fast that we missed it, a link to TalkOrigins, or a computer algorithm designed and programmed by an intelligent evolutionist.

Cordially,

[Washington_minuteman]

"Such usage may be undiplomatic, but it isn't false."

This is a statment of opinion, based upon what your believe to be facts, nothing more, just as medved's statements are opinion, based upon what he believes to be facts.

"indefensible lunacies", "his junk", "psychic parrots", "his crap", "he's a nutcase", " critical faculties of a bivalve mollusc", "long spew"

Am I to believe that the above represents how the learned and educated view dissent? If not, then you do your fellows a severe injustice with your lack of restraint.

"What tactics? If you mean the word "final, ..."

"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense", is the title of the article. Equating nonsense and Creationist is simply a propaganda technique designed to marginalize, in the mind of the reader, anyone who disagrees with the author and his thesis. So also is the graph which seeks to demonstrate the lack of education of those who believe in a recently created Mankind. All this graph indicates is the power of evolutionary thought in the education establishment. As it has been said, if one wallows with pigs, one should expect to get dirty. If one spends years being told that evolution is true and that the earth is billions of years old, it is bound to have an effect on how that person believes. It is, no doubt, discomforting to see that almost 30% of the postgraduates/professionals surveyed, believe G-d has something to do with us, and quite recently.

"The article cites facts. It's not the results of an opinion poll."

So, it would seem that there was a poll of sorts involved.

"In all your long spew, you have not answered a single point raised by Rennie in his article."

My spew wasn't all that long, and it was not intended to answer specific points but to, rather, point out that there is a concerted effort in the evolutionist community to silence anyone who does not tow the line.

Rennie's article, which I read in it's entirity, doesn't say anything other than creationists misunderstand physical laws and their relationship to evolution, and cites specific cases of this misunderstanding. Creationists will do likewise, and cite in a similar manner. Thermodynamics, is a prime example where both sides accuse the other of misunderstanding the law. Evolutionists tend to say the creationists twist the law. It basically boils down to to a "I'm right and you're wrong" argument.

His closing statement is, yet again, a fine example of propaganda: "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." He might as well have written: "Disagree with evolution, and mark yourself as ignorant.

The problem with evolutionist-science is that it presupposes that evolution is true. All inquiries performed and results derived are done so assuming that evolution is a fact. Few, if any evolutionists will look outside that framework. For example, answer 13 states in part: "A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus." Is it beyond the realm of possibility that tiny Eohippus is just an extinct small horse? Why must it be an ancestor of the modern horse? The answer is simple. The assumption of evolution must be enforced, even though it is not called for.

For what it is worth, I find the Intelligent Design movement somewhat disingenous, but no more so than the Punctuated Equilibrium adherants, each in their respective attempts to overcome obsticles encountered. The first, a legal obsticle represented by the so-called seperation of church and state, while the second, a technical obsticle, represented by the failure to produce either transitional fossil forms (Rennie's case for Eohippus and Archaeopteryx, not withstanding), or a world-wide unconformity in the geologic column.

I am a Creationist and I believe in Fiat Creation. I also believe that the evidence of my own eyes supports that belief. I will not camouflage my belief behind the initials "ID". G-d created, Mankind corrupted. Science could do much towards overcoming a great deal of that corruption, making our lives and the world around us better for the effort, were it not so obsessed with relegating G-d into nonexistance through it's sophistry.