Moved back to top by popular demand
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
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.
Here are just some of the questions. The answers and seven more questions can be found in the article.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
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.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
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.
Humans aren’t descended from monkeys… we share the same ancestors. But then again if all animal life descended from amoebas, why do amoebas still exist today?
Point is, evolution doesn’t change an entire species, it creates new ones from existing ones depending on circumstances. Doesn’t mean previous ones just die off.
Evolution doesn’t TRY to explain how life started on earth. Otherwise it would be called something else. It’s about how a life form changes from one form to another.
Thing about creationists, as I read in the bible, is they “claim” to not be in conflict with evolution and science. They just have an problem with any notion of life being created with out some sort of deity starting it.
Great photo, Uncle Dave. It reminds us that even chimpanzee authors feel great exasperation when stymied by writer’s block. I remember that frustration well, and I can feel the strength of my evolutionary bond grow, even as I feel his pain.
Hang in there, Mr. Jeepers….. Inspiration will strike!
“1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.”
Evolution is something that happens on a daily basis, it’s done by the Red Queen law, remember that part of Alice in Wonderland where the Red queen says that you have to run nonstop to stay on the same place? You can see that on animals that apparently haven’t changed throughout the eras.
“2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.”
These idiots are mistaking fitness to fittest.
“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.”
Actually Evolution explains why bacteria is becoming resistant/immune to antibiotics.
“4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.”
Scientists doubt EVERYTHING.
“5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
That’s called debate.
“6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
a) We are not descendants of monkeys, we share a common ancestor.
b) Because there are still forests in Africa.
“7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.”
That’s what Molecular Biology is for.
“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.”
Have any of these idiots heard of the Chaos Theory?
Do we really wany to baffle the nutbars with facts?!?
They are quite happy with their one stop shopping handbook
The way your post is worded, it isn’t too clear that the link at the top actually goes into the various answers. Love to see a single BS question with a good short answer up at the top of your post. Something like this maybe?
“6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
[T]his objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones…. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct. “”
Such a simple and straightforward answer! Love it !!!
Good find, Uncle Dave. Unfortunately it’s content is well beyond the comprehension of die hard creationists.
#3, Angel, good post. I always knew you were more then just a pretty face.
But why must science “prove” itself correct ? I would think that if Unintelligent Design or Creationism are fact then they should have to present some “proof” of their legitimacy.
Please prove that a supreme being created a whale (or fish) that a man lived in for three days.
Please prove that a supreme being gave some soldiers horns powerful enough to make stone walls crumble.
Please prove that a supreme being made a total of seven loaves of bread and seven fish feed a multitude.
Etc., etc., etc.
I am actually Christian, and I would just like all the theories of Creationism and Evolution just be left out of the classroom. Money and time are being wasted for no real reason. Let the parents teach their children what the belief system of their family, then let the kids decide on their own. I never shove my beliefs down anyone’s throat, and any Christian that does is wrong to do so.
Awaiting flames….
I’m glad to see that science finally cleared that up in July, 2002. It’s always good to see cutting edge information on these blog entries.
One question, though: Do the same nay-sayers who slam the “theory” of evolution still believe in Santa Claus?
One cool feature of science: It gives you the evidentiary steps to form your own conclusions independently from those of the researchers.
Isn’t bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics considered mutation? I don’t believe all mutation can be considered “evolutionary”. Mutation is change. Change that proves beneficial to survival may be evolutionary, or may not be.
The point is that evolution is a process. It is a component of existence, but hardly the only component. Evolution doesn’t address the same issues that religion does, but some issues certainly intersect. I’m amazed that people still think that science and religion are somehow mutually exclusive or that they exist to refute the existence of the other. Nonsense, all of it.
True Intelligent Design would support the theory that the true miracle of creation was bringing into existence a universe downright hospitable to life to allow nature to manifest itself in all its chaotic splendor. The mechanism of how we got to this state should have nothing to do with our gratitude at its existence or how we manifest our recognition of that basic fact of being.
#5: Fixed.
#6: Beyond my ability to fix.
#9: We are not a news site. We post what us editors and John find interesting no matter when it was published. Given the astonishing interest in my last atheism post, I thought this might be of interest to others. Old doesn’t mean bad if it’s relevant, and since people still seem to believe in creationism, it is.
And I think Santa is a Buddhist.
Both evolutionists and creationists recognize the fact that small changes do take place in plants and animals. However, the changes do have certain LIMITS. Evolutionists believe that if nature is given enough time, then it will eventually turn a dog into something other than a dog.
This idea is that all living things originated from a single life form billions of years ago. this would mean that life “evolved” into different creatures such as fish, lizards, monkeys, and man.
Here is the problem with called macroevolution! It doesn’t recognize the LIMITS of change. No one has EVER seen a dog produce anything other than a dog.
Rom:1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
quoting scripture on this board will get you nothing.
However, I am fascinated that in the face of all this evolutionary fact, why do so many academics still have to wrestle with the person of Jesus of Nazareth?
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, fundamathiests can’t still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy… mostly because they can’t explain the beginning of time as amazingly described in the Bible. Go figure. (Quick, go make another bizillion universes and see if that helps).
#8
How about we stop teaching mathematics, history and English in school? After all, we should let parents teach their kids what they believe. If parents believe that 2 + 2 = 5 we should let them go ahead and teach that to their kids and let the kids figure it out on their own later.
It is imperative that children learn how to go about finding truth by using the scientific method even if they never intend on becoming scientists. In addition, it is important to understand what science has learned in order to better understand the world around them.
“How about we stop teaching….etc.?”
I think we already did somewhere back before the election of Richard Nixon.
Let’s think about what this Intelligent Designer did-
-Create parasitic hornets.
-Tape worms
-Bubonic plague bacteria (or is that micro evolution, it’s hard to understand where lines get drawn).
And holding the cruelty of the kill aside, he created a large number of creatures that must kill the other creatures he designed in order to survive.
So, what conclusions can we draw about this designer? Certainly, intelligent and obviously sadistic.
This is a designer a bunch of people are keen to worship???? Sorry, but my bet’s on evolution.
Thanks, Uncle Dave! I’ve still got the original issue of SA with this article and keep it handy just to honk off morons (at least those that can read.)
#11, Alix, are you referring to the anthropic principle? Very brief intro here:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html
and thus reminds me of a great quote:
“We are a way for the universe to know itself” — Carl Sagan
I’m not going to go after the whole article, but there’s one point I’d like to bring up. There seem to be two basic supports for macroevolution that they bring up. The first is that DNA is similar – that can be explained as well by common design as evolutionary change – Q: why do all Ford’s look kinda the same? A: Because its the same group of people designing them. The second is the fossil record. They brought up Archaeopteryx – it is a bird – they neglect to mention any of the other “flock” of examples – In any case, it still doesn’t prove anything – species go extinct. They ramble some about “Jurassic strata” – it has been shown that disasters (volcanos, floods (perhaps a worldwide flood with a big boat, hmm?)) can lay down a heck of a lot of sediment at once. And the Eohippus series. I have to thank them for bringing that one up. Many of the supposed transitional forms in the series hold only basic similarity in shape. Smaller details, like the number of ribs they have (possibly toes as well – its been a while since I studied this) vary wildly, going back and forth, which seems illogical for evolutionary change, and instead suggests different species sharing some similarities of form. I have no issue with microevolution, I have no issue with speciation within a kind, but I can’t accept macroevolution – the arguments for it seem misty and mainly based on “we interpret how things are this way” – the interpretation can be argued with if you can come up with another model to describe the data.
I agree with #2. Evolution does not shake my faith in God. Now if someone can come up with scientific proof of something coming from nothing, you may have something.
At some point our time and space did not exist and nothing existed and then something happened, and something appeared or was created. What happened next doesn’t really matter.
What started everything??????
If a a universe is created (assuming it WAS created and wasn’t always there, pulsing between singularity and expansion or whatever) in the forest of dimensions and there was no human around to see it, must there still be a God?
Anthropomorphizing because we can’t yet understand the process has been going on for millenia. It’s just the pace of shrinkage has accelerated. Once we thought an invisible being pushed plants up from the ground and another threw water from the sky so we sacrificed animals to appease them when they stopped doing their job causing famine and drought. Now that science and understanding has pushed the boundaries back to where God is only ‘needed’ to create life and the universe, doesn’t that imply, once we fully understand those processes, He will go the way of the plant and water gods, too?
BTW, I’m writing this on a Ubuntu Linux-based computer instead of a Windows one. I guess that means I’m evolving, too!
I’d just to support #22 too…. I’d like to say, for the record, that there is a very large group of Christians (probably most Christians to be honest) who think that evolution is sound science and creationism is not a scientific theory.
I have a theory that the loony religious right are actually atheists who are secretly working to discredit religion in general and Christianity in particular. Indeed, given the loony religious rights’ love of monopolies I am beginning to wonder if they might be communists as well… secretly trying to subvert capitalism into a command economy.
-Ben.
PS: I am just joking godless communist part, well, mostly joking ….
#22, Now if someone can come up with scientific proof of something coming from nothing, you may have something.
OK, how about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum chromodynamics? Virtual particle production (“the quantum vacuum is full of activity”, from the PVLAS experiment):
http://www.ts.infn.it/physics/experiments/pvlas/index.html
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” – Richard P. Feynman
#25. You are definitely correct. Consequently, there exists a quantum amplitude of extremely low probability that our world came into existence out of nothing in six literal days. Incredible, isn’t it?
#26 – Great quote! Feynman – what a remarkable guy.
#24 – Nice idea – the revolutionary religio-right as agents trying to destroy religions of peace and tolerance, as someone named Jesus was supposed to have preached. Kinda like the theory a relative has that the chicken hawks who started the Iraq debacle hold their real loyalties only to the oil states. Sounded ridiculous to me until Halliburton, which still pays Cheney last I heard, announced it would scurry to Dubai to avoid awkward questions. Another funny thing – they’re all in bed together politically. Weird, what passes for morality on the right. Maybe they’re all proof of devolution. That way they wouldn’t have to be considered dishonorable and dishonest, only stupid.
I love this answer to number 7: “Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets … But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.”
Creationists say God created everything and they say it is terrible and ignorant. Scientists say life comes from asteroids or aliens (life or the building blocks of life which has not been even remotely proved) they call it science!
As a creationist I do not ask for you to give me more credence than science, all I ask for is the same level of respect !
Most of their arguments I agree with: Monkeys still here, microevolution, etc. etc. However, they keep showing evidence of microevolution and saying it proves macroevolution. That is like saying if a one story building stands then we can build a 200 story building on that same spot! Give me a break.
#28, Graham, so what does science have to do with religion? I suppose we could debate the scientific method vs. ancient texts forever, I’m placing all my money (well, all I have left, $1 Louis) on the scientific method.
Unfortunately, it will be difficult to educate creationists and theists in relativity and quantum theory (I’m not an expert or leading edge theorist — but I am a a respected astronomer.)
Query of the day: Despite all of the scientific evidence to the contrary, do you really believe that the universe is 6,000 years old?
I am a Christian and a Creationist and I have a point:
First off after reading this article, I am baffalled why you guys still can’t see how stupid this theory is. I thought the artlcie was well written and fair, but shows how you guys can’t see three inches in front of your faces.
Then the article explains that even though evolution is a theory, many scientist believe that it is a fact, like that is supposed to prove something?
The point is that even though many scientist believe it to be a fact personally the theory of Evolution is still a theory.
The Creationist is just pointing out what the Evolutionist said to them. We got the “Theory of Evolution” from you. It is a the beginning of every college science text book. If evolution is a fact, then begin each science book with the “Fact of Evolution”.
Sorry if what you teach and believe don’t mesh, but science is not derived from consensus. It must make really tick them off that a dumb Christian has to point this out to them.
The whole article is like this, point by point. Each point states that the Creationist is wrong, then proves them correct by the end of the point. Even though you state the counter point well and prove you understand your detractors, you can’t just rely on “well we still believe we are right” as an argument. In the first point the evolutionist has to establish evolution as a fact to win the point against the Creationist. He doesn’t because he can’t.
The only one that has any merit is the “Why aren’t there still monkey/men alive today” and that comes more from the regular person, not the Creationist in the know about the debate. I’ll give them a half point on that one.