Answering Creationist Questions:
If you are a creationist, perhaps one of the largest misconceptions you have fallen prey to is the idea that creationist arguments have not been answered. Some of you ascribe to Ken Ham’s version of creationism. Just for the record, if you do, I think what you think is unbelievably crazy and indefensible.
However, some of you are more like what I used to be. Simply a theist that believes a Supreme Being was ultimately responsible for the existence of our universe. How that creation happened was open to debate.
But no matter what type of creationist you are, the most controversial theory is that of evolution. The big bang and age of the universe – that is often times accepted by many creationists. Though, definitely not by all. But, it’s the theory of evolution that is the sticking point.
I AIN’T COME FROM NO MONKEY!
Especially in this country, there is a misconception that we have two equal sides of the debate, and that each have sound arguments. Each have sticking points that the other side cannot answer.
This is a lie.
There are many hallmark questions and arguments posed by creationists. All of these have been answered, and in fact, those answers are still waiting on rebuttals. Hell, some of the questions have been answered for decades, even centuries.
Take the argument still used today about the complexity of the human eye. Many a creationist will tell you that Darwin himself spoke of the impossible complexity of the human eye. Here, I’ll even give you the quote.
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” -- Charles Darwin
Wow. Darwin just showed that his own theory should be considered ridiculous. How amazing.
This is called quote mining, and in the realm of reason, is considered a heinous crime. Quote mining is the act of taking a person’s words far out of their context to prove one’s point.
How do I know that the above quote was taken out of context? Well, all you have to do is read the rest of the section from which that quote came. That thought wasn’t Darwin’s end thought. Here’s the rest.
“…If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.” -- Charles Darwin
What does this prove? Well, this type of quote mining shows intentional contextual inaccuracy. The miner must have known what he/she was doing and purposely took it out of context. AKA - deceit.
And if they only so happened to read that little section of The Origin of Species and were honest in their ignorance, Darwin himself, in a later edition of the book, expounded upon the answer with this.
“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of vox populi, vox dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.” -- Charles Darwin
So the answer to that “what about the complexity of the human eye” question has been around for over a hundred years. Darwin, the rest of us, still await a reply. Yet, that argument is used over and over and over and over.
I have my own question. When you present any argument, are you actually listening to the reply?
Because this eye argument is in no way unique. Every creationist argument that I come across has been answered for a long time. Let me rattle you off some popular ones.
Creationist: The second law of thermodynamics shows that evolution is impossible.
A. This is a “order cannot be created from disorder” argument. And not only is it a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics, but it’s also false even if it was. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, which the Earth is not. Energy from the sun drives life on Earth, making life an open system.
For a better understanding, see the articles provided in the link. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
Creationist: Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Why is it taught as fact?
A. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. I partially blame the scientific community and the inflexibility of language for this misunderstanding. Evolution is a scientific theory.
Other examples of scientific theories? Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Plate Tectonics. Now, no one thinks that our understanding of gravity is still a theory, but it is. A scientific theory.
Unfortunately, people haven’t tackled this misunderstanding very well. You have stop thinking of evolution as only a theory. It is a well established scientific theory - otherwise known as fact. How does it compare to other scientific theories?
Gravity for instance is something we absolutely know exists. We use our understanding of it every day; we used it to build planes, to land on the moon using an on board computer no more complex than a calculator, to skydive, to explain the tides, etc. But we also don’t have the full picture of what gravity actually is. But it’s effects and our experimentation of it has proven it true. So, would you argue that the theory of gravity is only a theory? Do you believe it?
Germ theory - pretty self explanatory. The theory that microscopic organisms (bacteria, viruses, etc.) cause infectious diseases. Do you argue this?
These theories aren’t theories because they haven’t been proven. A scientific theory will always be a scientific theory. Because a scientific theory explains facts. It organizes a broad manner of facts and explains them.
Creationist: There are no transitional fossils.
A. To me, this represents the biggest lie of them all. And to it, I provide this link. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Human ancestry alone has a bunch. Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus. Not to mention all sorts of other animals. Take a look through the link - explore. But here are some good ones.
Fish to Tetrapods
Dinosaurs to Birds
Synapsids to Mammals
Here’s another link that goes into better explanation. http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
What all of these arguments truly demonstrate is a lack of understanding. Good arguments come from examining what you disagree with carefully and to the full extent. Arguments like the ones above are the result of not understanding. And they have been answered to a ridiculous degree. And they are awaiting rebuttals. So, have at it. Reply - please. And if the rebuttal answers the argument/question, stop presenting it.
