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.
Uncle Dave said:
“BTW, I’m writing this on a Ubuntu Linux-based computer instead of a Windows one. I guess that means I’m evolving, too!”
No that is stuff based on a 40 year old OS. That’s not evo, that’s DEVO.
“Aww Dad! We’re ALL Devo!” – Booji Boy
Questions for Creationists…
Once you’ve rejected evolutionary theory as fallacious, deciding instead to believe the Creation model for the universe and man’s existence, how does one choose among the various competing Creation stories recorded by different civilizations? Is there some sort of methodical process by which you’ve arrived at your current beliefs, or did you just latch onto the first Creation story you heard?
#30 Evolution is a fact, it has been proven over and over again. In scientific lingo theory = fact. There is no doubt that evolution is a fact. It is a primary principle of biology. The theory of relativity is also a fact. Quantum theory is also a fact, its discovery led to lasers, transistors, and solar panels. Similarly, many mediciines and medical treatments rely on the fact of evolution to work.
You are using “theory” in non-scientific terms, and therefore displaying gross ignorance in what you are talking about.
Lets turn the tables shall we? You religious types keep talking about “faith in God”, which Paul defined a “the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (heb 11:1) To have faith in God is more than just a belief, it is a never a doubt – life fulfilling acceptance of God in your life.
We non-religious types hear the word “faith” and immediately equate it with “false hope”. Thus someone with faith in God is being a fool.
Thus your entire argument against evolution is based on false semantics.
What I find troubling is that virtually all creationists are convinced that evolution = atheism, and yet as pointed out by earlier posters, many people have no problem accepting both evolution and God.
#30 – BubbaRay – Thank you for treating me like a person. I’m very glad to see someone who can argue without calling their opponent stupid, ignorant, etc. (arguments can be stupid, but that doesn’t make the person stupid).
This is an interesting question: science or religion. For many religions, including many “Christian” religions, they hate science because they treat it as many scientists treat religion: arch nemesis. However, it is possible for true religion and true science to coexist.
For example, the Bible taught the nation of Israel to put all people with diseases outside the city. If they get well, they can return. If they had to use the restroom, they had to go outside the city. The reason for this was not proved until two thousand years later. You can say they didn’t have the cure for the disease in the Bible, but they did have a way to stop the disease from spreading.
So when scientists come and say we need to take medicine to rid ourselves of viruses and bacteria I take the medicine and thank them for their science. When a mathematician (which I am one) shows statistical evidences I say thank you for your science. But when someone tells me they have a 100 million year-old dinosaur bone based solely on the amount of carbon they think “should” be in a 100 million year-old (as though they have a book that old they can use to reference) I start to say, that’s quite strange. Were you there when that animal died? How do you know you are correct?
It is not the amount of evidence that proves or disproves a theory. Wasn’t Galileo against a mountain of evidence? Wasn’t Newton or even Louis Pasteur (I had to google his name, I had forgotten!) against a mountain of evidence? You may say, they were against religion, but I would say you are wrong! They were against the church, i.e. the Catholic Church and the Church of England. I am not a member of some “church”. I follow God. I believe his word. He was there. He knows what happened. You can’t prove him wrong. Don’t think me an uneducated man. I may only have a Bachelor’s Degree, but I do have a logical mind. What God says is logical, practical, and works. Scientists could give me a million theories of how they think the world began, but they could never pass this simple test: Were you there? Then how do you know?
I will believe in the suspension of natural law (miracles i.e. Jonah in the whale, Jesus feeding thousands – not what you see on televangelist channels) before I will believe everything came from nothing, life came from cesspools of proteins (or aliens!), or that this world has been going from chaos to order when the evidence suggests otherwise. That is illogical.
Comment by ArianeB
What I find troubling is that virtually all creationists are convinced that evolution = atheism, and yet as pointed out by earlier posters, many people have no problem accepting both evolution and God.
One cannot believe in the evolutional theory as the way “In the beginning” happened. This would be a complete disregard for God and his creation.
thus, refer to post #13
#32. As a Christian, I believe that the New Testament is beyond the capability of human manufacture. It is therefore a proof of its own authenticity. Jesus referred to the Old Testament and its creation account as true. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’.” Mark 10:6. So the beginning of the creation of this world and humankind is described by the Genesis account.
This is an excellent article. I’ll certainly want to keep this around for debates with those who have too short an attention span to read full length science books. I suspect, however, that those who prefer to just read and re-read and re-re-read the same damned book over and over will not be willing to really read this article.
#7 – Mr. Fusion,
You said:
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.
Actually this is only a somewhat correct statement. Science indeed must prove itself every single day. But hey, that is what science does every single day. UD (great term, BTW) or Creationism must also do likewise if they want their hypotheses to be considered theories. The fact of the matter is though that they want to use proofs more appropriate to a court of law or simply baffle with made up statistics instead of providing anything remotely similar to scientific evidence, which is held to much higher standards.
#8 – Gwendle,
What else would you like removed from the classroom? All biology? All physics? All cosmology? Particle physics? Chemistry? Mathematics? All of these are on equal footing. Perhaps we should not teach our children anything other than reading and let them make up their own minds whether the Earth is flat or the Sun revolves around the Earth.
#10 – tkane,
Actually, yes, that is evolution. That is why you need a new flu shot every year. Bacteria change very quickly because they go through many generations in a very short time. Our cultural evolution, which can happen a lot faster than biological evolution of large species, still sometimes fails to keep up with the biological evolution of bacteria and viruses.
#13 – Higghawker,
Here’s a different tack to try. Think about this. Why do we perform tests of medications on animals? Why does it work? It works because we’re all related.
#20 – Bruce IV,
You said:
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 think you’re making the other case better than your own. Evolution is directed only toward survival. Going back and forth may enhance survival as conditions change back and forth. For an intelligent designer to go back and forth like this would show a decided lack of intelligence. Perhaps it’s the same lack of intelligence that put the rods and cones in our eyes backward causing blind spots in each eye. perhaps it’s the lack of intelligence that couldn’t think of detaching the fused portion of the panda’s thumb from the rest of its hand and instead enlarged a wrist bone for the purpose. Perhaps it’s the same intelligence that created 10^11 galaxies and 10^22 planets just for the sole purpose of divinely creating and plopping our perfect asses down here on this lonely insignificant rock.
#23 – Ben Waymark,
Legislating against teaching science and for teaching a 2000 year old mythology would be a pretty sick joke for a bunch of atheists.
#24 – Bubba Ray,
You beat me to it. Quantum Mechanics does indeed deny the existence of cause and effect at the most fundamental level of the universe.
#30 – Johnny,
You’re missing a key point. The reason scientists say theory now is in recognition that our theories may turn out to be just very good approximations that work in a tremendous number of cases. Newton called his theories laws. They turned out to be excellent approximations, but did not account for some of the more extreme cases of quantum mechanics and relativity. We still use them in day to day engineering because they work in our everyday lives. We may come up with a theory that brings together quantum mechanics and relativity, or we may not be able to before we kill ourselves off. But, in science, the word theory is very different than it is in day to day English. In science, it means as close to fact as anything we know.
Further, you are confusing evolution, the theory that all life as we know it descended from a common ancestor, which is proven to about 99.999999999% (a made up number for purpose of example) with natural selection the mechanism by which evolution happens, which is only proven to about 99.99999%.
I would further argue that, while scientists may argue against creationism, scientists do not even try to disprove creationism. This is not the way science works. If someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Creationists must provide the proof in the same way that Darwin provided his proof, Einstein provided his proof, etc.
Creationism fails as a hypothesis. It’s just turtles all the way down. It proverbially flies up its own asshole in endless recursion. If the universe requires a creator, so does god, and the god creator and the god creator creator, etc.
Leave the fictitious bible out of this argument. It was written/re-written/re-translated by man. We all know that man is great at lying, cheating, stealing, exaggerating, embellishing, killing…
Thanks, Shubee #36. “Beyond the capability of human manufacture” and “proof of its own authenticity” are classic phrases I won’t soon forget 😉
Apparently, the councils that decided which manuscripts to include in the Bible and which ones to reject must have been divinely inspired. However, their decisions and conduct were not unanimous, so if the end result of those decisions was divinely inspired as you suggest, then the dissenters from those various decisions leading up to that result must not have been acting under divine direction. So at best, the councils were only partially inspired by a deity. The various dissenters must have been heretics, perhaps planted on the council by Satan (or even Lex Luthor).
The Bible reminds me of sausage — you don’t really want to know how it was made.
#39. I don’t accept your logic or the inspiration of those councils. God has enough sovereign control over His word to providentially overrule the decisions and efforts of councils. Look at Christian history and the efforts of the corrupt Church to suppress the Bible. In the long battle against the truth, Satan and his minions were unable to destroy God’s word.
#28
> 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!
No! There is a huge difference. Scientists postulate that perhaps material from asteroids contributed or that aliens might have dropped material. That is a FAR cry from stating for a fact that is how it happened unlike creationists. Simply put, scientists do not make claims about anything without evidence.
#30
> 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?
Read the article again. When people use the word “evolution” it means two very different things. In one aspect it means the observable fact that species evolve and THAT is what scientists find unquestioned. The other aspect relates to scientific theories that discuss how that evolution occurred.
#33
> In scientific lingo theory = fact.
NO! A fact is an observable phenomenon (e.g. objects fall, species evolve, light refracts). A scientific theory explains and provides a means to predict the behavior of facts. To scientists they are very different. That species evolve is a fact. The theory(-ies) of evolution such as natural selection explain how that evolution occurred.
#36
> As a Christian, I believe that the New Testament
> is beyond the capability of human manufacture. It
> is therefore a proof of its own authenticity.
It is circular logic to claim the Bible is true because it says it is true. This is yet more evidence of why we should specifically teach logical reasoning in schools.
#40 Shubee, your assertion that your god would “providentially overrule the decisions and efforts of councils” undermines the notion that human beings always act on their own free will, long considered a centerpiece of Christian doctrine.
I’m shopping for a god who writes his own material using good enough communication skills to avoid the enormous amount of ambiguity that has created so many interpretive conflicts concerning the Bible.
#40
I think you should do a bit more research about how your Bible came into being. In the hundred years after Jesus’ death (through until the Council of Trent I believe), there were hundreds of books that were considered holy (some still are). The Council then voted on the books that should be included in the Bible. Yes, a bunch of guys voted on which books were holy. Why the vote if “God’s word” were so obvious? What about “God’s word” that was voted out (some even claimed to have been written by Apostles)?
Since this post is already a day old, perhaps I’ll get the last word, but with this crowd, I’m not betting on it.
Riddle me this: If religion and fervent belief in a supreme being is so great, and the books so true, then why has religion been the basis of war as long as written history can record (and still to this day?) I’m not about to pick up a quantum torpedo and nuke all that disagree with science, but some fervent religious fanatics seem to want to fight to the death with those that disagree.
Now that’s not a theory, it’s a fact.
Believe what you want, I’m just a scientist, no theory is ‘true’, but most work well enough to enable me to post on this thread. Regardless of your choice, I’ll just wish all a great day!
#42. Gary, I’m all for greater interpretive clarity but the whole point of the Bible is to exercise the faith we have to live in a godly way and to pursue the truth, not to find excuses. I’m delighted that you are a firm believer in human free will but it would be difficult to deny the many instances in Scripture where God thwarted the designs and purposes of evil men. Have you ever read any of the Old Testament accounts where God defeated armies by putting them into confusion or the time an angel busted the apostle Peter out of prison? That’s a direct intervention isn’t it?
I hope those scientist’s have tenure. The politics of working in that field can be a bitch
#41. Thomas wrote, “It is circular logic to claim the Bible is true because it says it is true.” That’s not my argument. My argument is that truth which is beyond mankind’s ability to manufacture is sufficiently compelling to believe.
NO! A fact is an observable phenomenon (e.g. objects fall, species evolve, light refracts). A scientific theory explains and provides a means to predict the behavior of facts. To scientists they are very different. That species evolve is a fact. The theory(-ies) of evolution such as natural selection explain how that evolution occurred.
My point was this science uses a different vocabulary than we understand everyday. A scientific “theory” can be explained in everyday terms as a “fact”. In scientific terms facts are as you say.
What #30 was doing was equating “scientific theory” with the everyday usage of theory, which means an unproven idea. Evolution is far from an unproven idea, in everyday terms evolution is a fact.
#43. Thomas asked, What about “God’s word” that was voted out (some even claimed to have been written by Apostles)?
Martin Luther questioned the Councils of the Church and rejected several supposedly inspired books the Church had said make up the sacred canon. I have read those books in the Catholic Bible and agree with Luther that those texts are not inspired. The decisions of Church Councils do not impress me.
Shubee #45 & 49, I agree that there are instances in the Bible where the god depicted there caused people to act against their free will, although I would disagree with the specific examples you chose (confusing armies, angels executing a prison break) — those showed direct intervention of a sort, but not really suppression of free will in the sense of altering decisions or intent.
I would characterize your assertion of god’s “sovereign control” in the decision-making process that produced the Bible as a much truer contravention of free will, since it caused a different action to come about… a different decision to be made by councils that were uninspired (as you seem to agree).
I find it a little puzzling though, that even after your god exercised his sovereign control over the Bible, you seem to admit that his control was not complete enough to have kept several books from being included that were not divinely inspired works. Why did Martin Luther have to complete the culling process many years later? There seems to have been a significant time span when true believers were being exposed to heretical writings as if they were just as “divinely inspired” as the rest of the Bible.
Are there any more books that need redaction, or is the Bible ready for prime time now?
Shubee,
I think your idea of “truth which is beyond mankind’s ability to manufacture is sufficiently compelling to believe” doesn’t add anything to the mix. Humans have conjured up even stranger things than virgin birth before. In fact, Mary’s immaculate conception and the later one by Jesus were not even the first two such cases.
Weren’t all of Osiris, Mithra, and Dionysus conceived immaculately according to a nearly identical myth to the Jesus myth? In fact, wasn’t the Jesus myth just a resurrection of the 2400 year earlier Osiris myth? Isn’t that the real resurrection in the Bible?
Besides, the fact that your imagination cannot dream of the imagination of the bible authors being so outlandish does not add any credibility to the bible. I think Occam’s Razor still leads to the conclusion that the simplest explanation for the bible is that it is a made up fiction like all of the other mythologies that came before and after it.
Oh and Shubee, try throwing this on your netflix queue if you use netflix and are confident enough in your faith that you think this won’t shake it.
http://tinyurl.com/2bcbea
How about over 300 prophecies over hundreds of years in the Old Testament coming true? No way was this chance! Jesus death on the cross was prophecied in Isaiah 53 some 700 years before His death. Do you think man could come up with such correctness? No, the Bible is absolute truth. Everyone is under the law of Jesus. Jesus (New Testament) has left the guidebook, it’s your CHOICE whether you obey it or not.
#34, Graham, II will believe everything came from nothing, life came from cesspools of proteins (or aliens!), or that this world has been going from chaos to order when the evidence suggests otherwise. That is illogical.
Actually, according to the laws of thermodynamics, it’s only human effort and logic that tend to bring order from chaos. Nature prefers chaos over order, but I’ve enjoyed reading your comments.
The British scientist and author C.P. Snow had an excellent way of remembering the three laws of thermodyanics:
1. You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).
2. You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).
3. You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).
#54, BubbaRay, learn to spell “thermodynamics”. Thank you.
#53 – Higghawker,
I’m not sure what 300 predictions you’re talking about. As far as I’m aware, all of the “predictions” in the old testament were over and done with by 200 BC, the earliest known copy of the OT. See, I’ve actually read a book on apologetics, a major heaping steaming mound of dung, but I read it. I also returned it to its owner with post-it notes in nearly every single page giving the scientific answer to every one of its claims.
Want my prediction? No OT “prediction” will ever be found in written form and accurately dated to a time period before the event took place.
As for Jesus:
1) There is some really interesting evidence that the man never actually existed. I realize a single web page will not convince you of this. It actually didn’t even convince me. But, there’s so much good data in this one that it might at least give reason for doubt of the literal existence of Jesus. I personally like the observation that there were journalists that kept detailed records of the time from both the Romans and the Hebrews and neither made a single mention of the man or of a controversial crucifixion at the time.
http://tinyurl.com/34amgh
2) If Jesus did exist, he was a Rabbi. Is it really so difficult to imagine him acting out the “predictions” of the OT on cue? Certainly if there were such a man claiming to be the messiah, he would have been intimately familiar with and would probably have memorized, large tracts of the portion of the OT dealing with the messiah.
#56 – Me,
I meant to say that the predictions were over and done by 200 BC, which happens to be the date of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest known copy of the Old Testament. This makes it very likely, IMNSHO, that the events were “predicted” after the fact.
#47
> My argument is that truth which is beyond mankind’s ability
> to manufacture is sufficiently compelling to believe.
If your usage of the word “manufacture” includes transcribing, then by definition, an idea that is beyond man’s ability to manufacture is unknowable. If you can find such an idea, then it is clearly not beyond man’s ability to manufacture or transcribe.
However, if by the word “manufacture” you mean “to create”, then there is no end to which we can take that line of thinking. For example, it must be true that people have flown on broomsticks because Rowling could not have come up with the idea herself in Harry Potter. It must be true that leprechauns have pots of gold stashed at the end of rainbows because man couldn’t have possible come up with that idea.
Either way, your line of logic is entirely faulty. It is akin to trying to find evidence of the supernatural. If you can find scientific evidence of a supernatural entity, then it is by definition part of the natural world.
#53
Nonsense. Claiming that Isaiah prophesized the coming of Jesus is a classic example of choosing the hits and ignoring the misses like most psychics and astrologers. For example, did not Isaiah claim that Babylon would never again be inhabited (Isaiah 13:19-20)? Did he not claim that dragons will live in Babylon and satyrs will dance there (Isaiah 13:21-22)? He claimed that the Nile would dry up which it never has (Isaiah 19:5). At no time did Isaiah refer to Jesus by name. He never referred to crucifixion specifically.
Shubee & his group need to step back and look at what the implication of ID & Creationism and all their prophesies. It is fraught with problems of the worst sort.
Once you put an Actor into evolution or human events, that actor becomes responsible for effects and that actor really can’t blame the stupidity of his creation, any more than I can blame my children for being children. Your designer is quite a grisly being.
-Why does God need evolution any kind? Why doesn’t he do everything at once and get it over-with? He is all powerful, right?
-Why did God design a system in which lower (i.e., holding humans and all of BubbaRay’s wars aside here ) animals depend on killing to survive? What is intelligent or grand about that?
-What is intelligent or Loving in the design of a system that allows for or actually compels the suffering of innocents? Imagine yourself and your children as Egyptians during the Exodus. You lose your family and everything you care about because the Pharaoh is an idiot and a God got angry. What would you think of such a God? Would you think him moral, admirable, wonderful.
Do you really want to be associated with a theory in which a presumably moral, intelligent or even loving being would create such a system? Or perhaps worse, sees the suffering and does nothing?
You’ve got think about the implications of what has supposedly been done and ask would you love a God who did that today. I think not.