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.

Yes. Obviously anyone who suspects that non-living matter may not be able to self-assemble and simultaneously acquire the ability to convert raw energy into a usable form, subsequently increasing in informational complexity to the point that it becomes self aware, hasn't been "thinking". For clearly anyone who really "thinks" will agree with you, because you are genuine, and other people who don't think like you can't be! It's obvious! Right? LOL!

I suggest you re-read the rebuttal. I have not come against Microevolution. Macroevolution does not meet the scientific method. That is a Fact. They can use whatever testing method they want, it still has yet to meet the Scientific method.

It is a theory, an ever changing quagmire of a theory.

Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt

Do you really think for a minute that science would suddenly jettison evolution if genetic experiments didn't line up?

Of course. That's one of the reasons for doing the experiments. Your question seems to indicate that you believe that the experiments are consistent with evolutionary theory; you are entitled to experiment and publish contrary results if you get them.

As I pointed out earlier, a theory of evolution will always exist. It is axiomatic as per science itself. I have no problem with this, I only find it a bit odd that people point out that scientific evidence leads one to conclude that living things evolved. Of course it does! That's the essence of science. Assume that everything is natural and events take place over time. Evolution is the only possible conclusion. I don't fault science or scientists for this. I just wish more people recognized the inherant limitations to this way of thinking, especially when some use it as the foundation for their entire life's philosophy.

I'll readily admit that I can't prove God scientifically, but then again, I can't scientifically prove that I love my dog.

Maybe not, but at least you could present evidence (which clearly distinguishes your example from that guy's "5th dimension spiritual world of God"). You exist, and your dog exists, and one could observe the two of you long enough to accept your claim. That's not proof as in geometry, but it's sufficient verifiable evidence to accept your claim -- at least provisionally. You could be faking it, and maybe you'll kill your dog because you don't love it at all, but that too will be observable and verifiable, and it will contradict your earlier claim that you love the dog. Observation. Verifiable facts. The basis of all science. That guy's that guy's "5th dimension spiritual world of God" is utterly beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, yet he claims: "And please pardon some of us if we can "see" that HIS "proof" of 'Intelligent Design' is clearly and overwhelmingly evident..." Why do we have to beat this thing to death? His post was pure mumbo-jumbo, and I'm confident that you understand this.

Well, I think you're wrong :) I think that science as it is defined will *always* conclude that life evolved. It cannot make any other conclusion. Please go back and read some of my earlier posts so I don't have to explain this very obvious fact again.

Most Evolution scientist do not even use sedimentary evidence or fossil evidence, it has be [sic] proven unreliable.

You keep making these statements ex cathedra. Show us what you mean. Post something, anything, to back up this statement.

Cretigo: J

I don't think it was mumbo-jumbo, although he should have qualified his remarks as I have done for him. Science is great, you're great, I'm great, everyone is great. I don't see what the big fuss is about. I'm a theist and have no problem with much of what evolutionary biology says.

Aren't flowereing plants a phylum?

Why, yes - yes they are. The phylum of angiosperms (two classes of flowering plants - monocots and dicots) are thought to have evolved during the Cretaceous, which would certainly put them much closer than 580 million years ago.

You obviously haven't really understood Punctuated Equilibrium. Also, most biologists, paleontologists, et al (evolutionists) figure a combination of Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism account for the plethora of life around us. There is no "brouhaha" over this.

To f.Christian: I have to say that I am embarrased and ashamed to have someone like you speaking on the side of those who find problems with current Darwinian theory. Please stop posting on these threads.

This does not jive with the gleeful prankster personna you just tried to adopt on another thread. Who do you think you are, Roscoe? Kevin Curry?

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Wrong! This passage is part of the Levitical laws, which were written by man, not by God.

Leviticus also promulgates and promotes slavery, wife-beating, and other things that would be considered not only politically incorrect and against the law, but against the teachings of most churches today. Does that mean that we have to take each of those laws literally as well?

The laws and rules set down in Leviticus are literally the laws of the land of Israel set down on paper at that time.

This is addressed in the rebuttal to point 11 of the lead article. I invite your attention to that rebuttal.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

You obviously haven't really understood Punctuated Equilibrium

Not another pathetic attempt to undermine my credibility. Punctuated Equilibrum says essentially that during periods of rapid geological/environmental change, species could evolve, disperse, adapt more rapidly to survive, and this effect is how Gould intended to account for the observations found in the Cambrian Explosion. Please, don't insult me. I haven't insulted you.

That was the Law given to the nation of Israel and yes GOD said it. The new covenant that JESUS spoke of does away with the Law.

God did not say it, he inspired it. But yes, Christ did away with the law as set down in Leviticus.

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.