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.

[Diamond]

The circumference is still off by over a full cubit.

Off WHAT? Your standard of reporting precision? An approximation or a rounding is by definition "off".

You want to believe that the circumference is is incorrect. But just suppose, for the sake of argument, outlandishly, that the text is not a statement that pi=3.0, but rather is intended to describe a bathtub. Suppose further and even more outlandishly that the bathtub may have looked liked the drawing below, and was measured in this the following manner:

2. Verse 26 of 1 Kings 7 says that the vessel in question had a brim which ‘was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies’ (KJV), or a rim ‘like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom’ (NIV), i.e. the brim or rim turned outward, suggesting the curvature of a lily.³ It is believed by Bible scholars to have looked like the drawing below.⁴

Let us consider the details given in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2. These are:

1. The diameter of 10 cubits was measured ‘from brim to brim’ (v. 23), i.e. from the topmost point of the brim on one side to the topmost point of the brim on the other side (points A and B in the diagram).

2. The circumference of 30 cubits was measured with a line, ‘round about’ (v. 23), i.e. the most natural meaning of these words is that they refer to the circumference of the outside of the main body of the tank, measured by a string pulled tightly around the vessel below the brim. It is very obvious that the diameter of the main body of the tank was less than the diameter of the top of the brim. And it is also obvious that the circumference of 30 cubits could have been measured at any point down the vertical sides of the vessel, below the brim. For a measured circumference of 30 cubits, we can calculate what the external diameter of the vessel would have been at that point from the formula:

    diameter = circumference ¸ p

= 30 cubits ¸ 3.14

= 9.55 cubits.

source

If the above scenario is a possibility, how do you, typing on your keyboard here in 2002, know for certain that "the circumference is off by over a full cubit"?

Cordially,

[Physicist]

An amoeba does not contain the code elements necessary to be come a fish or a monkey. It does not have any mechanism to add the code either.

But code does get added! Duplicate copies of genes arise through replication errors. Transposons spread extra copies of themselves throughout the genome. Viruses attach their own code. Extra copies of entire chromosomes can be added.

But extra code is not always necessary to create a radically different creature. The number of genes in a man or a mouse are not so very different. The genes a simple animal has are enough to produce a gigantically large number of wildly different species, if exploited to their full potential.

And finally, there do exist "genetic toolkits" in nature that are capable of making highly complex, coordinated changes to a large number of genes at a single throw. (I recommend The Wisdom of the Genes by Christopher Wills for a description of some examples of this.) The ability to evolve does itself evolve.

[Phaedrus]

Well, that's your #949 . . .

[Junior]

Gotta admit, you make a good point. Personally, I think the contractor was skimming off the top ...

[yendu bwam]

Actually, I don't expect or desire "help" from strangers (other than in an emergency or disaster) so I don't feel the need to hand out help randomly either.

Well, as it's said, there but for the grace of God go I. I don't expect help from the homeless man on my street, but I know I should try to help him. If I'm homeless someday, I hope somebody will find it in himself to help me.

[f.Christian]

No current Freeper by that name.

[jlogajan]

Use of the word "literal" in Biblical hermeneutics generally means taking the words in their proper grammatical, historical, contextual sense

Ho ho ho. If you have to use a vast base of knowledge to interpret the grammer, history and context of the Biblical passages -- you are well beyond anything "literal."

To the fundamentalist, "literal" means he can lock himself in the bedroom and gain total insight from the Bible alone.

Hermeneutics means expanding outside the Bible and consulting a vast array of writings by historical authors.

There is a huge friction between the Catholic church which teaches based upon a organized hermeneutic approach and the fundamentalist individual with his personal Bible.

There is no basis for the individual Bible reader to question Genesis as a literal description of the creation of the universe as well as man. But if you take the Catholic church approach, they have already factored in the possibility of natural evolution giving rise to species including mankind.

Equating "literal" with the hermenuetic approach is a Clintonian exercize in obfuscation of the plain spoken word.

[Diamond]

Personally, I think the contractor was skimming off the top ...

hehehe. You may have a point, there. And the poor old plumber subcontractor slob who had to install the darn thing probably never even knew the difference.

Cordially,

[Gumlegs]

Given what holding that thing up, you wouldn't want to be skimming off the bottom (assuming that's even possible).

[Diddle E. Squat]

16. My frosted flakes are better than your captain crunch.[Rebuttal omitted to save face. See original subjective article.]

[Physicist]

I know a lot of "literalist Christians" and not one holds to your definition.

Fair enough. But if "ten cubits" doesn't necessarily mean ten cubits, why does "six days" necessarily mean six days?

[Diamond]

Equating "literal" with the hermenuetic approach is a Clintonian exercize in obfuscation of the plain spoken word.

here and here are more links and more information on Biblical hermenuetics than you would possibly care to absorb.

But the word "literal" has several different connotations, as the following shows. Notice the first usage:

lit·er·al   Pronunciation Key  (ltr-l)
adj.

1. Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
2. Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.
3. Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.
4. Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation.
5. Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

Cordially,

[jennyp]

You can't fold a solid rock. You most certainly can.	Lecture 11 Structural Geology Structural Geology
CRETIGO: B (Personal Incredulity)

Hmmm... interesting experiment in formatting. Keep working on it.

[jennyp]

Evolution itself goes against the law of entropy, implying there is something in evolution that pushes toward complexity. In the PC days of Darwin, they called this the "life force".

Ah, doc? That's just not true. All the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) says about evolution is: Living organisms must eat to survive. This is because in order to keep the disorder at bay, they must move molecules around, and in order to move molecules around they must expend energy. This says nothing about evolution per se, and this doesn't make life or evolution impossible. It only implies that all living things must eat.

[AndrewC]

No current Freeper by that name.

Yes, I noticed that too. Are we supposed to wail and moan over the unfairness of the management? Something about freedom of speech needs to be yelled from the rooftops! On the other hand, maybe he did something he wasn't supposed to do, and did it more than once.

[biblewonk]

The number of genes in a man or a mouse are not so very different. The genes a simple animal has are enough to produce a gigantically large number of wildly different species, if exploited to their full potential.

So, do you believe that mouse DNA contains enough info to make a man? I think there are 3 billion polypeptides in human DNA so that would seem like a lot more than needed to make a mouse.

[CWRWinger]

RE: Post# 962

Hogwash.

[f.Christian]

Entropy is physics...material world---biology is totally different!

[AndrewC]

But if "ten cubits" doesn't necessarily mean ten cubits, why does "six days" necessarily mean six days?

"Ten cubits" does mean ten cubits. Ten cubits and 30 cubits are not the calculation of pi but the measurement of a "molten sea"? How and where are the measurements of a "molten sea" made after its construction? It was made, you know. In any case, turning the question --- but if "ten cubits" doesn't necessarily mean pi why does "six days" necessarily mean six days? The answer is--- it doesn't.(necessarily) But that has been answered numerous times. It only means that to those who are literalists of a translation.

[jennyp]

From 429:

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.

From 941:

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?

Close, but not quite.  My argument is that since all such experiments are intelligently directed, they cannot show the lack of ID in the natural state.  In order to do so, they must remove the ID element from such experiments.

That is wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong! <banging shoe on desk>

All experiments about any aspect of the natural world are designed! You cannot have an experiment without designing & controlling a part of the phenomenon under test. The whole idea behind an experiment is to allow certain parts of a complex phenomenon to act "on their own", so to speak, while keeping other parts constant. In this way, scientists are able to understand the phenomenon's constituent parts and how they interact to produce said phenomenon.

If you didn't keep some parts of a phenomenon constant, it wouldn't be an experiment. It's inherent in the very concept of "experiment".

If you insist on keeping to your argument that any experiment that is designed in any way is inherently invalid, then you have just invalidated all of modern science - which would be clearly absurd.

If that's the price of holding on to ID, then I'm appalled that anyone would want to pay that price.