15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]

CONCLUSION
"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

Why would the Cambrian explosion give us fits? You don't make any sense. As for your contention that no new Phyla have come into being in 580 million years, I'm not sure how accurate that is, but I do know that multitudes of species and genuses have come and gone in that time. Are you pushing "macro" evolution back to the phylum level?

... any person who asserts that something does not exist because science cannot prove that it does would in fact be deceiving themselves.

No one says that. The fellow's alleged "5th dimension spiritual world of God" may indeed exist, but there is no scientific evidence for it. Scientifically, nothing else can be said. Yet the poster claimed: And please pardon some of us if we can "see" that HIS "proof" of 'Intelligent Design' is clearly and overwhelmingly evident... His claim makes no sense to me. Does it to you?

I'm not a Creationist so I frankly don't care if Creationism stands or falls. I think it falls, personally. I just think current evolutionary theory is weak, extremely weak, and I do so tire of watching people pretend that it's incontrovertible fact and then use this specious claim to beat Religious people over the head with. Someone earlier claimed that ID was unfalsifiable and therefore not science. I pointed out the fairly obvious fact that evolution is an unfalsifiable fact, and is quasi-scientific- I wouldn't go so far as to call it un-scientific. That lead us up to the post you replied to.

Sure it makes sense. When I look at living things, when I consider the human mind, when I look at DNA, or ponder the amazing complexity of the universe, I see the work of an intelligent agent. Other people may see the same things I do and conclude that it 'just happened'. I think that's what he meant. I'll readily admit that I can't prove God scientifically, but then again, I can't scientifically prove that I love my dog.

"Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable."

It doesn't stop the SCIENCE "community" from insisting and advocating it be taught in SCIENCE classes as a viable theory of life's genesis, or referred to as a SCIENTIFIC theory despite it's fairy-tale odds of it being true, or in the context of "SCIENTISTS BELIEVE"...

You're right -- "Evolution IS unscientific"....

saying things like "science is made up" and other non-sense...

I said evolution is made up...I am 100% satisfied with science/creation----

000% evolution

Tell me more...'half wit'!

Talking about yourself---mutations!

Good, Billions. Do the Math. Why Complicate things, Take a compression rate of 50%, 60% across the board......

You have given a theory not fact. Most Evolution scientist do not even use sedimentary evidence or fossil evidence, it has be proven unreliable. So you found a guy who want to hold on to the old theories. Good for you, I suggest you get with the current trends in you camp. Let us just keep with the opening line of your "proof" "The truth is that no one knows for sure though there are some pretty good guesses."

It's a widely accepted fact that no new phyla have emerged in approximately 580 million years. If you do a quick search you'll probably find this information as it's published in most college texts.

If you don't know why the Cambrian Explosion gives evolutionists fits, then you must not be aware of the bruhaha caused by Steve Gould after he put forward his punctuated equillibrium variation of evolution, and following this the evolutionary scientists basically split into two sub-groups, one with Gould, and one with Dawkins. To this day they fight like cats over the mechanisms and the rates of evolution. Steve once said "neo-Darwinism is effectively dead" and months later recanted his assertion after experiencing the full fury of the scientific establishment. These are all well documented facts. I'm surprised they're not in your "Ultimate" list.

The oldest fossil footprint yet found was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. He was accompanied by his wife and two daughters, and by Mr. and Mrs. Francis Shape and their two daughters. The party had already discovered several fossils of trilobites

A trilobite crushed within a human sandal print Found on June 1, 1968 near Antelope Spring, Utah.

when Meister split open a two-inch-thick slab of rock with his hammer and discovered the print. The rock fell open "like a book." revealing on one side the footprint of a human with trilobites right in the footprint itself. The other half of the rock slab showed an almost perfect mold of the footprint and fossils. Amazingly the human was wearing a sandal! The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human

detail

Cordially,

I'm not going to waste my time debating "scientific facts" with another. Why? Because I choose to believe in what I read in the Bible. Period.

The Post-Modernist-Deconstructionists strike again. What one "chooses to believe" trumps evidence, experience, thought, what others may "choose to believe"; this is the ultimate in solipsism. When feelings are put above thought, it becomes difficult to decide between people's positions. Why is one person's feelings better than another's?

The fossil record is fairly consistent in the deposition of fossil remains -- everywhere in the world. I'm sorry, but that's pretty strong evidence that various organisms came and went at various times and not all at once. If you can't see the forest for the trees, that's your problem, but the fossil record is what it is and you cannot dismiss it (actually, you can, but then you'd simply be playing ostrich). Either you have some way of explaining it or you don't. Evolution does a pretty good job of explaining the fossil record as it stands, without any special intervention.

There is nothing in the fossil record itself that tells how old the fossils are. Fossils do not have date stamps.

The rocks the fossils are in can be dated accurately without reference to the fossils themselves.

I just think current evolutionary theory is weak, extremely weak,

What difference does it make if it's weak? Or extremely week? Or dead wrong? Like all scientific theories, it will last until a better scientific theory comes along. If you have one, propose it and win a Nobel prize. If you have nothing better, just move along and quit wasting our time.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.