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.

A little incredulity would go a long way:

The "Meister Print"
Copyright © 1998 by Glen J. Kuban
[This article is being mirrored from http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/meister.htm.]

According to Dr. Melvin Cook (1970), a local rockhound named William J. Meister was hunting for trilobites along a hillside near Antelope Springs, Utah in 1986 when he broke open a slab and discovered something curious: an oblong shape that he took for a human sandal print. This was quite surprising, since the rock at this locality is identified as the middle Cambrian Wheeler Formation--over 500 million years old.

The supposed sandal print measured approximately 10 1/2 inches by 3 1/2 inches, and occurred on both sides of the slab (with opposite relief). The specimen included what Meister took as a heel demarcation, as well as several small trilobites.

The "Meister Print". Arrow points to one of the trilobites in the specimen

Shortly after Cook's report, other creationists (Kofahl and Segraves, 1975; Baker, 1976; Wysong, 1976; Huse, 1983; Petersen, 1987) cited the Meister find as evidence against evolution and the standard geologic timetable. However, the putative print does not stand up to close scrutiny.

The specimen does contain several real trilobites, but the "print" itself is questionable on several accounts. Upon closer inspection the overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor evidence that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation nor foot movement at its margin. The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs across the entire slab, beyond the boundary of the supposed print. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986).

Similar spall patterns are abundant in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970), but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen (Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).

Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay that his fellow creationists had not explained that such superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and were products of geological phenomena and not real prints (Booth, 1982).

Some creationists have noted that the find was "confirmed" by "Dr. Cook." However, Dr. Cook was a metallurgist with little paleontological experience or knowledge. In his own report on the find Cook states, "...I am by no means an authority on fossils and footprints." He adds that the print seems to "speak for itself". However, upon close inspection, what the evidence says does not support Cook's conclusions.

In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself is dubious. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), most creationists quietly and wisely ceased promoting this specimen. However, a few individuals continue to advocate it as an out-of-order fossil.

References cited

Booth, Ernest S. 1982 (Dec. 30). Personal correspondence to Glen Kuban.

Cook, Melvin A. 1970. "William J. Meister Discovery of Human Footprints with Trilobites in a Cambrian Formation of Western Utah." In Why Not Creation? ed. by Walter E. Lammerts. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. pp. 186-193.

Baker, Sylvia. 1976. Bone of Contention. Grand Rapids, MI: Evangelical Press. pp. 8-9.

Conrad, Ernest C. 1981. "Tripping Over a Trilobite," Creation/Evolution Issue VI, pp. 30-33.

Huse, Scott M. 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. p. 17.

Kofahl, Robert E. and Kelly L. Segraves. 1975. The Creation Explanation. Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers. p. 54.

Petersen, Dennis R. 1987. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation El Cajon, Ca.: Master Books. p. 93.

Stokes, William Lee. 1986. "Alleged Human Footprint from the Middle Cambrian Strata, Millard County, Utah." Journal of Geologic Education Vol. 34, pp. 187-90.

Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. Science and Earth History Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. pp. 459-461.

Voss, Jr. Charles H. 1993. Did God Direct Evolution? Baton Rouge, LA: Radio Bible Course.

Very Respectfully.

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.