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.

"Apparently, you believe that science should accomodate you if you want to disagree with it about anything: Archimedes's Law of the Lever, perhaps."

Now you're being silly. An experiment can be constructed to test Archimedes's Law of the Lever. The results are predictable and repeatable, reguardless who performs the experiment, or when they perform it. In a word, it's scientific.

In answer 10, which you cited, the main subject is a mutant fruitfly. No one denies that this mutation happens. However, the mutation is not from the single-cell to the multi-cellular representing taxonomic change from one kind to one different from the original. What the mutation does is confuse a preexisting complex organism. The mutation is, in fact, harmful to the fly, as it will not be able to survive without it's antenna. Mutations are destructive to the organism. Most, if not all mutant organisms are not capable of reproduction. Of course, this does depend upon the degree of mutation being addressed.

This statement: "Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years", is a conclusion arrived at because of the assumption of evolution, not because of any demonstrated facts. Because, the author states, it required millions of years, it cannot be disproven. Unlike Archimedes's Law of the Lever, this isn't a scientific conclusion, It requires the assumption of evolution, and some degree of belief.

The "poll" I am refering to is the one included in the article, illustrated by the graphic on page 3. It was a poll or survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in, I believe 1989 (the image a little fuzzy towards the bottom). I cited this as propaganda because the author does not address it, yet the image (along with several others) is included. These are distractions designed to reenforce the evolutionists' position.

"Conservatives supposedly abhor the cultural relativism of liberals, but in creationists such as yourself we see a curious variant. Call it factual relativism. Any facts that prove you wrong are just a matter of opinion."

What I have a problem with is "facts" constructed with a build-in bias, presented as truth. Personally, I don't believe it's possible to cite any really objective facts (truths) in this area (this is not to be construed as a general rule for there are many objective facts that all agree upon). You have your biases, as do I. Apparently, Rennie sees Antennapedia as an evidence of the mysterious process of evolution, otherwise, he would not have included it. I don't deny the existance of Antennapedia. I see it as a destructive mutation; a part of the Curse G-d placed upon all creation as a consequence of original sin. Now, if it could be shown how this mutation changed the fly from an insect into some other kind of creature, such as a crustacean for instance, or somehow made the fly a superfly [grin], then I would have to rethink my position. Of course, some might consider the mutant to be a superfly in the making.

Consider this "answer" from #8: "As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

Hardison would not have achieved those results had he simply removed all the designed software and firmware from his computer and just let it run randomly. No, he had to write a program. Having spent over 10-years in the past as a professional programmer, I know that programs do not come about via naturalistic processes and for the author to cite this particular example is specious at best. Who wrote evolution's program?

I cannot speak for other creationists on any of these issues. My desire is for the scientific community to acknowledge that theories are not truth. Facts can, and do, contain biases, depending upon the framework from which they were derived. Truth comes from how one interprets the facts. In public education, it does not do violence to science to say that "Scientists theorize ...", as opposed to "Science has proven ...".

"You seem to think everything is some kind of a political movement with a set of propaganda points and the right to lie, cheat, and steal to win."

Not quite, actually. I believe that everything can be resolved down to a conspiracy. This is a theological viewpoint. The battle of good ~vs~ evil. G-d ~vs~ Satan. As I believe Satan desires above all else to overthrow G-d and be worshipped in his stead, I do tend to look at all things through that lens. Only time and death will reveal the validity of this position so I won't bore or insult you by becoming overly theologically-specific. Nevertheless, That is one reason I view Punctuated Equilibrium with suspicion.

From your link: "In 1972, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould revived this idea, under the name Punctuated Equilibrium. They agreed that transitional fossils are plentiful, and that smooth transitional sequences are sometimes found. However, they argued that these are not as common as theory predicted. Instead, we often see a species go on unchanged for a long time. And then the species is replaced, without any transition, by a new species that looks like a variation of the old one."

Just because Darwin implied it and then Eldredge and Gould elaborated upon it, does not make it true. They amassed a great deal of facts and interpreted them, with the assumption of evolution, to arrive at their conclusion, as testified by this statement: "They agreed that transitional fossils are plentiful, and that smooth transitional sequences are sometimes found". This is an assumption, based upon facts and evidence interpreted with the belief that evolution is true. As a creationist, I look at the same facts and interpret them as representating direct creation. I do not believe that what they consider to be transitional forms are any such thing at all. They are simply members of a different kind; similar, but different. Again, for me, this similarity reveals design, not randomness. A truely transitional fossil should, for example, display mutating limbs, legs on their way to becoming flippers, or three legs and a psudo-flipper. I am aware of no such fossils having ever been unearthed, neither can I imagine how such a poor misshapened creature could survive long enough to mate with another of it's genetically-compatible kind, in the world that evolution postulates these creatures evolved in.

What it all boils down to is how we each interpret the facts. And this is also why the issue will never be resolved to the satsfication of everyone. Unfortunately, the fighting and arguing will continue because most involved, on both sides of the fence, fail to recognise that it is not so much the facts which are in dispute, but the interpretation thereof.

I'm reading your comment reference thermodynamics, and again, I'm led back to how we interpret and apply the Law.

"His statement reflects badly on creationism, yes."

One of the larger problems with creationist thought in general is there is a lack of consensus as how to address the specific details. There is a lot of pride involved too. I am thinking of the creationists who offer thousands of dollars to anyone who can prove them wrong (they reminds me of that anti-tax guy; I'm sure you know who I'm talking about. His name excapes me at the moment). These people also reflect badly on the whole position, and with such shennagians going on, is it any wonder the evolutionist community would say: "Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort."

Creationism is also saddled with dealing with several incompatable, dogmatic views, which evolutionists appariently do not suffer from the way we do. It is an immature area that needs to come together, dogma aside, before, I believe, anyone outside of the religious community will take it very seriously.

The main reason I post in these subjects is to encourage everyone to respect the views of others, just as they desire respect be shown theirs. Additionally, I enjoy an intelligent dialouge and once in awhile it happens.

Anyhow, we've been at this, on and off, for most of the day, and I've got some other things to attend to (as you might also), so we can break this off now or continue later. I'll leave that up to you. So, if I don't respond right away to any subsequent posts, I'm just busy. Thanks. It's been enjoyable.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

well, at least he gets the meaning of macro-evolution correctly and acknowledges that there is a difference between the two.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

While anti-evolutionists have always acknowledged that species can adapt to the enviroment, to call such adaptations micro-evolution is not supported by evidence. The field experiments in fact all disprove evolution - evolution is too slow to be the source of the adaptation of species to the environment. New research keeps showing how not only species but individuals themselves adapt to the environment without the need for the genetic change which evolution requires in order to be true. See: The Nature of Nurture

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation.

Well, to cut to the chase, the closest ancestor to man that is known is Neanderthal. Three separate studies have proven through DNA evidence that man did not descend from Neanderthal and that in fact they could not have reproduced with each other. So the line of descent to man is empty. We have already mentioned the problem of the Cambrian explosion. We also need to point out that there are missing links in all the important points of evolution - from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to mammals as well as the links between the diferent genera within these broader groups. So no, the historical evidence is not there and much of it has been totally fabricated: the famous Lucy's face is more plaster than bone, the first primate is two kneebones and a jaw bone found a thousand miles away, the first mammal is just a jawbone and some pieces of bone plastered together. Just as important, the only major grouping of animals known to have entirely dissappeared are the dinosaurs. We know almost nothing about this large number of animals. We do not know if they had mammary glands, we do not know if they were warm blooded, we do not know if they had fur, scales, feather or whatever on their skin. We do not know these very important things which are needed to give a historical record of macro-evolution for one simple reason: bones don't tell us beans.

The last paragraph is too ridiculous to even bother to quote. It says abiogenesis is impossible - well how about that, if it is then God exists and he could have/ would have meddled in life as he says in the Bible making evolution totally false. The other argument is that no one has seen aliens germinating earth with life - something which Christians deny, so it is total desperation time for the evolutionists.By printing such utter nonsense as this last paragraph, 'Scientific American' has totally discredited itself. It has shown better than any anti-evolutionist could have, that the first part of its name is totally untrue.

To avoid the appearance of plagiarism, you should consider just linking your source instead of pasting it in-line with nothing to differentiate it from your own words. It's not as if you're going to look any smarter being mistaken for Menton. Let's look at his game, which he basically announces up front:

The evolutionist's notion that man evolved by chance from ape-like creatures is largely based upon certain anatomical similarities between apes and men. Being convinced that such similarities "prove" an evolutionary relationship, paleoanthropologists have declared certain fossil apes to be particularly "man-like" and, thus, ancestral to man. Similarly, in an effort to fill the gap between apes and men, certain fossil men have been declared to be "ape-like" and, thus, ancestral to at least "modern" man. You might say this latter effort seeks to make a "monkey" out of man.

It's the Bin Game. He's going to lump every hominid fossil into either and "ape" bin or a "human" bin and pretend that everything in each bin is "An ape! Just an ape!" or "A man! Just a man!" What he won't acknowledge is any overall trend across all fossils, or compare the most advanced "ape" with the least advanced "man" lest it be obvious they're no more different from each other than some of the fossils inside the bins.

It's a form of begging the question, since the whole premise of creationism is that apes are apes and men are men and the categories are almost magical in their significance.

So, anyone should be able to tell an ape skull from a human skull, right?

So why does this happen? (A Comparison of Creationist Claims on Fossil Skulls). BTW, your man Menton is in here.

Creationist Classifications of Hominid Fossils
Specimen Cuozzo
(1998) Gish
(1985) Mehlert
(1996) Bowden
(1981)
Menton
(1988)
Taylor
(1992)
Gish
(1979) Baker
(1976)
Taylor
and Van
Bebber
(1995) Taylor
(1996)
Lubenow
(1992)

ER 1813
(510 cc) Ape Ape Ape Ape Ape Ape

Java
(940 cc) Ape Ape Human Ape Ape Human

Peking
(915-
1225 cc) Ape Ape Human Ape Human Human

ER 1470
(750 cc) Ape Ape Ape Human Human Human

ER 3733
(850 cc) Ape Human Human Human Human Human

WT 15000
(880 cc) Ape Human Human Human Human Human

**Creationist Classifications of Hominid Fossils**
Specimen	Cuozzo (1998)	Gish (1985)	Mehlert (1996)	Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979)	Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995)	Taylor (1996) Lubenow (1992)
	ER 1813 (510 cc)	Ape	Ape	Ape	Ape	Ape	Ape
	Java (940 cc)	Ape	Ape	Human	Ape	Ape	Human
	Peking (915- 1225 cc)	Ape	Ape	Human	Ape	Human	Human
	ER 1470 (750 cc)	Ape	Ape	Ape	Human	Human	Human
	ER 3733 (850 cc)	Ape	Human	Human	Human	Human	Human
	WT 15000 (880 cc)	Ape	Human	Human	Human	Human	Human

How did that happen?

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.

Whale?