Answers to Creationist Nonsense*

[Kinslaughterer]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not fact or a scientific law

The National Academy of Science regards scientific theory as a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incoporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. No amount of validation changes a theory into a law. Actually one can regard evolution as a fact of science as NAS refers to fact as something that has been repeatedly and independently confirmed.

2. If Humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

First off evolution states that humans and non-human primates had a common ancestor. Its kind of like asking "if children come from adults why are there still adults?"


3. Natural Selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive and those who survive are the fittest.

Natural selection is more a conversational way of explaining survival of the fittest, the key is that adaptive fitness ran be defined without reference to survival. For instance large beaked finches are better adapted to crushing seeds but may be slow breeders so they survive with a single adaptive trait while fast breeding finches survive with another trait and nature affects which of these traits are better adaptive to given environmental circumstances.

4. Mathematically it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a small role in evolution but natural selection is anything but chance rather it harnesses nonrandom change by preserving adaptive traits and eliminating non-adaptive ones. Essentially it builds off effective adaptations to make more and more sophisticated creatures better suited to survive.

5. Living things have fantastically intricate features that could not function if they were any less complex. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design.

Many cite the eye as a sturucture that could not have evolved. Critics say that its function depends on the prefect arrangement of its parts. Thus natural selection could never favor transitional forms of the eye. Unfortunately for creationists, biology has successfully identified numerous examples of primitive eyes and light sensing or color sensing organs and even shown were eyes have evolved by independent means in other species.



These are but a few of the rather uneducated questions raised by creationists. There are certainly many more questions but there are an equal number of answers...





*scientific american editor and chief

[Lord Mhoram]

A very nice summary of evolution.

However I disagree with the following statement:

Chance plays a small role in evolution

I had thought that genetic drift, which is largely chance especially natural disasters, played a large role in evolution. Dinosaurs are a good example of genetic drift.

[Kinslaughterer]

Genetic Drift if when a population splits of from its larger population base and through time and by varying degrees of isolation from the original population begin to speciate and become a new group. Natural disasters allow drift to occur but these aren't really random in terms of evolution because they don't actually cause the drift. In other words it may set the stage for speciation but it doesn't mean it will happen.

How do you mean dinosaurs are a good example of genetic drift? By their demise? Extinction by natural disaster is an example of maladaptive traits being eliminated. The environment changed and those in the best position to survive did.

[Sheriff Lytton]

So where do babies come from ?

[Loredoctor]

Excellent list, KS!

[drew]

Why can't both theroys be correct?

Why can't there be a higher power, and evolution?

[Kinslaughterer]

Evolution doesn't state that their isn't a higher power it simply illustrates that evolution created the living things of Earth and those things began as a very simple life form. You could certainly interpret that information as god made evolutionary mechanisms. Thats all well and good but science is in the game to prove and disprove phenomenon and that last thing you can't prove.

[drew]

Well possibly not God per-sey But I sure like to think that a higher power made everthing possible.


Isn't the reason why oxygen breathing organisms even have air to breathe, is because of the millions and millions of years that there was only algea-like life that converted CO2 into breathable Oxygen, and Ozone?
I could be mistaken.

It's hard to imagine that everything is just an accident

[Kinslaughterer]

I think you missed my point entirely...

[drew]

...Well that's quite possible

I though this may have been a -Creationism -vs- Evolutionism debate starting--but unfortunatly, I live at both camps in that one!!

[Kinslaughterer]

Evolution doesn't declare the origin of life only its diversification on this planet. But I am firmly on the side of Evolution regardless

[Worm of Despite]

Evolution doesn't declare the origin of life only its diversification on this planet. But I am firmly on the side of Evolution regardless

Most excellent point, Kin. Such a distinction is often never made by those who are so ardently against evolution.

[Loredoctor]

Kins, did you see my Dinosaur Flesh thread?

[Kinslaughterer]

Yeah, good stuff too. I didn't know that it could remain so flexible over time.

[Loredoctor]

Yeah, good stuff too. I didn't know that it could remain so flexible over time.

I recently found out that it wasn't flexible when they found it; all bones are put through a chemical mix - it's just that this one became flexible when immersed in the mix; so it wasn't fresh for all this time.

[Kinslaughterer]

Fair enough, I'd not heard of creationists using it to push their agenda though. Its very interesting how they search and search for one little possibility when the mountains of evidence are right in front of them...

[Loredoctor]

I know.

[lurch]

...Okay, the Creationist arguement is a few fries short of a happy meal.
The Supreme Court long ago ruled that screaming " Fire" in a packed movie theater is not gauranteed freedom of speech.

...The State Of Kansas School Board a few years ago ruled that Creationist Perspective had to be taught along with the scientific perspective. Is loading up a child's brain with despair,,no, excuse me, is loading up a Whole Bunch of Childrens' brains with despair and the foul fruit of ignorance how close to the offense of screamin Fire in a movie theater?

I mean,the State of Wisconsin is considering having a legal cat hunt. Ferral cats,baa bye! The scroungy must die. Now, maybe the Creationists should see the hand writing on the wall. When people open their mouths and put forth 100 percent proof of their astounding ignorance and unwillingness to change for their own and alikes sake, I ask, how can any logical person not feel pressured to do the rite thing. I know..no judge and jury in this freedom loving land of ours, and if not yours, you wish it was yours, would find such a victimized assailant anything but guilty, but at least any sane , logical thinker could surely understand the force of the Insanity being propositioned by the Creationists and how one good man or women amongst us, may buckle under the onslaught and take things into their own hands...Removal from the genetic pool, however cruel, maybe be the only answer to the insanity....Hey! Tom Delay and Sen Cronin can do it , so can I!!..MEL

[Plissken]

I have almost as much difficulty believing in a 6-day creation theory as I do believing that the clockwork of the universe sprang into being on it's own accord.

In short, I believe in a creative intelligence, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know what His/Her/It's name is - much less what They want.

(I do think that They like the color green, though. Otherwise, They wouldnt've made so much of it.)

[dennisrwood]

Kin:
since science is based on observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data, why exclude creationism for not being observable when evolution can not be observed? since macroevolution would require an immense span of time to observe?

1) no one has observed evolution.

2) Darwin could not cite a single example of a new species originating, and neither has anyone else. no one has produced a species by the mechanism of natural selection.

3) no one understands how the mechanism of evolution works. it is still a mystery.

4) there is no fossil evidence. there has never been found a transitional species. most fossil specials appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for millions of years then disappear suddenly.

5) there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in actual fossil sequences.

6) the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts evolution. does this law only apply to isolated systems?

more questions later. thanks to Gary E. Parker ed.D and Henry M Morris PhD for the questions.
from the book What Is Creation Science?