Questioning Creationism? - Responses to 10 Common Creationist Claims

Creationists, in trying to attack evolution, make many very poor arguments that demonstrate a lack of understanding of science and evolutionary theory. This article is meant to be a guide to refute 10 common creationist claims. Please note that this is by no means an exhaustive list of claims of creationists, though all of their arguments demonstrate the same ignorance.

1. Evolution is just a theory
Creationists who use this argument profoundly misunderstand the meaning of "theory" in the scientific sense. Colloquially, theory means an unproven idea. In science, a theory is an explanation of facts or a linking idea. It does not imply uncertainty. The theory of evolution is a repeatedly proven concept linking several facts. The facts of evolution include the facts that life appeared on Earth billions of years ago and has changed over time. The theory is that this has happened by a process of genetic mutation and natural selection. To reiterate, in science, theories are not uncertain.

By the way, the idea that illnesses are caused by microscopic organisms? Germ theory. Maybe creationists should reject modern medicine on the "just a theory" grounds.

2. Schools should teach both theories, and let kids decide
Schools should teach any hypotheses with a scientific basis. Creationism has no scientific basis. Quite the opposite, creationism violates the scientific method by beginning with the conclusion. Teaching creationism in science classes is akin to teaching holocaust denial in history classes. Besides, if we're going to teach Biblical creationism so the kids have both options, why not the creationism story of every religion on Earth? Such a curriculum would leave time for nothing else.

3. Darwin recanted on his deathbed
This is, without a doubt, the most absurd creationist claim. There is an old story that Darwin rejected evolution as he died, a claim originally made by Lady Hope. Creationists repeat this as if it proves something. First of all, it is a lie. Darwin's daughter was with her father until he died. She made it clear that Lady Hope never visited to begin with, and Darwin never recanted.

More importantly, though, it's irrelevant. Say Darwin recanted. So what? Evolution's factuality is not based on Darwin's authority. It is based on evidence. Creationists rely on the authority of the Bible, and can't understand why evidence matters and authority does not. That's why creationists reject science.

4. Many scientists reject evolution
Creationists often present lists of scientists who reject evolution. These lists include very few biologists. They include engineers, mathematicians, etc - all very intelligent scientists, but people whose opinions on evolution have little more value than the average person on the street. There are virtually no creationists among people in relevant fields, and polls have proven this. A Newsweek poll found that among earth and life scientists in the United States, only 0.14% are creationists.

Another creationist technique is to offer a quote from a scientist who appears to deny evolution or promote creationism. Invariably, the quote is out of context and suggests far less than the creationist claims. If the creationist actually understood the scientist's position and wanted to fairly represent it, he would summarize, not quote, since quotes are so easy to misuse.

5. The complexity of life is too much to have evolved
In all likelihood, this is the most common creationist argument. It is, however, a logical fallacy: argument from incredulity. The creationist tells you that he cannot understand how life could come about via natural processes, therefore it was God's work. The fact that we don't know all the details yet does not mean that what we do know should be tossed aside.

Imagine you are in ancient Greece. Somebody asks you what causes thunder. Being in the ancient world, you have no idea. The person then says that if you have no other answer, it must be Zeus. This person is behaving just like a modern creationist. He is using current ignorance to plug in a deity. We don't know how certain species evolved. Maybe we'll never know. There is no reason to assume, based on that, that evolution couldn't occur.

This argument is also based on the creationist's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Creationists will often say that "randomness" or "chance" cannot produce such complex, specific orders of life. Evolution and natural selection are not random processes. Species that fit in their environment survive. This is not random.

6. New information has not been observed
Creationists often claim that species cannot become more complex because new "information" in the genome is never generated. The trouble is, creationists can never clearly define what they mean by "information." This is no doubt intentional, as creationists can use this fact to prevent scientists from ever responding to the claim. Biologists have observed new genetic material and new genetic abilities. If these are not information, the information has no relevance to evolutionary theory. Creationists know this but keep quiet about it.

7. Microevolution occurs; macroevolution does not
Here is another example of creationists keeping terms vague to avoid debate. They say microevolution is change on a small scale, and macro on a large scale. It is true that nobody has observed change on a massive scale, but that's simply a product of the fact that evolution takes millions of years to fully happen. The creationist claim is akin to watching a tree for five minutes and conclude that it's not growing. Moreover, creationists cannot offer a mechanism that prevents mutations and changes from piling up and making a species more and more different over time.

Often, a creationist will claim that macroevolution is a change that breaks the border of "kind." This is another word that creationists either cannot or will not define. Fortunately, legitimate scientists have a better system of classification: species. And new species have been observed.

8. Irreducible complexity exists in nature
Irreducibly complex systems, according to creationists, are systems that could not function with even one part removed. The cell, for example, could not function with any of its pieces missing, so how could it evolve? It would be selected out of nature before its evolution was complete. But irreducible complexity can evolve. Earlier cells may have functioned differently. Parts may have performed different or multiple roles.

Consider, as an analogy, a large city. It has electricity, transportation systems, plumbing systems, etc. If you remove any one of these, the city shuts down. But they were not always there - they evolved to be essential parts of the city's function.

9. Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics
Once again, creationists deliberately misinterpret science. They claim the second law says that all systems tend from order to disorder. The law says no such thing. It says that heat will not flow from a cold body to warm one spontaneously. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the complexity of life.

The law also refers only to closed system. The Earth is not a closed system; it receives heat energy from the sun. That's the big yellow thing in the sky, creationists.

10. Evolutionists have perpetrated hoaxes
It would be foolish to deny that evolutionary scientists have made mistakes. Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are examples. They were said to be major evolutionary discoveries and later turned out to be not so significant. Creationists call these "hoaxes," but they are no such thing. They are simply errors. The same scientists who made the mistakes discovered they were mistakes. Science is self-correcting in this way. The fact that evolution, in spite of massive pressure over the past century, has become the opinion of the enormous majority of biologists, makes it all the more likely to be true. The scientific process would have falsified it if it were untrue. Moreover, Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were never essential pieces of the evolutionary picture. When a creationist suggests that their falsity makes evolutionary theory unstable, ask him if the falsity of the Shroud of Turin makes creationism unstable.

Evolutionary biologists no longer use these so-called "hoaxes" to build a case for evolution. Creationists, however, still use hoaxes, such as Paluxy footprints.