By Dr. Jason Lisle (original source here)

Recently, someone sent me a link to an article appearing in Scientific American – a popular science magazine. The article is entitled “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.”[1] The article was extremely revealing, but not in the way the author probably intended. The article exhibited a very common problem we often see among evolutionists: ignorance of creation literature. Creationists have written literally thousands of peer-reviewed publications showing how modern scientific discoveries confirm creation and biblical history. These range from layman-level articles, to highly technical scientific publications.

Unfortunately, most evolutionists are too intellectually lazy to read these. Consequently, the majority of evolutionists are badly uninformed about creation.

Not only are they uninformed about creation, but most evolutionists are misinformed. They have heard other evolutionists claim that creation scientists believe a particular thing, but they didn’t bother to check. Instead, most simply repeat the claim and the myth is reinforced rather than corrected. This tends to result in straw-man fallacies. Namely, an evolutionist will misrepresent what creationists claim, and then refute that misrepresentation. Indeed, most of the article’s criticisms are against a position that no informed creation scientist holds. They are not claims that are published and defended in peer-reviewed creation technical literature. So, far from refuting creationist “nonsense”, the critic has actually merely revealed his profound ignorance of the topic.

Second, the article reveals another problem commonly found among the most ardent defenders of particles-to-people evolution: a lack of critical thinking skills. Let’s face it. When it comes to origins, evolutionists simply don’t reason rationally or scientifically. They might reason very well when it comes to other areas of thinking. But for some reason, when it comes to origins, logic seems to disappear. We see several examples of this in the article. So, let’s examine the article’s claims, and see if they (1) fairly represent what creation scientists teach, and (2) stand up to rational scrutiny. I will put the article in purple font, with my comments in black.

The problems begin with the article’s subtitle:

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don’t hold up.

This subtitle contains the first straw-man fallacy: it claims that creationists are against science – indeed that creationists are “tearing down” science. This is false. As a creationist, I really like science! I like it so much that I spent years in graduate school to obtain a Ph.D. in astrophysics. Furthermore, most of the active researchers in creation science have a Ph.D. in science, such as Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Dr. Georgia Purdom, Dr. Tim Clarey, Dr. Andrew Snelling, Dr. Danny Faulkner, Dr. Russ Humphreys, Dr. John Hartnett, to name just a few. If they are so anti-science, then why do they spend their lives doing science?

Students of logic will also recognize the “no true Scotsman” fallacy in the critic’s subtitle. Note the phrase “real science.” Presumably the critic wants us to think that his position is scientific and the creationist position is not. And he tries to persuade by simply redefining “true science” as that which corresponds to his beliefs. But anyone could apply that rhetorical trick. I could say, “real science is creation science” and that would have no more logical weight than the critic’s assertion.

We also see an example of the question-begging epithet fallacy. This is the fallacy of using rhetoric in place of logic to persuade someone. One such epithet is subtle: evolution is contrasted with creationism. The addition of the ‘ism’ on ‘creation’ but not ‘evolution’ rhetorically suggests that creation is a belief, whereas evolution is not. But no logical argument is made for this, and nothing could be further from the truth. It is empty rhetoric, without any logical merit.

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.

Here we have the fallacy of elephant-hurling. Rather than providing actual evidence for Darwinian evolution, the critic simply claims that there is overwhelming evidence for it, and lists many fields of science. This would be acceptable if he later gave specific examples from these fields that establish his claim. But he doesn’t. His attempt to persuade is mere rhetoric with no logical merit.

Note that the kind of evolution we are discussing here is the kind Darwin believed in – that all organisms on earth are descended from a common ancestor through progressive modification over billions of years. We might call this “Darwinian evolution.”

It is also sometimes called “neo-Darwinian evolution” (since this includes the specifics of mutations and genes which Darwin did not know). It is significant that we do not mean “evolution” in some generic sense of change. Rather, we are debating a very specific claim about how organisms change.

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, …

It doesn’t seem to even occur to the critic that there might be a connection. Could it be that the reason the United States is so scientifically advanced is because we employ creationist thinking? The creationist presumes the world is upheld by the mind of God, so we expect to find patterns in nature. The creationist believes his senses and mind were designed by God, and therefore have the capacity to learn about nature. These biblical convictions justify our faith in science. But if the universe were just an accident, if our senses are merely the result of accidental mutations, why expect science to work?

…creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy.

Again, we see a question-begging epithet fallacy. Presumably, we’re supposed to think, “how terrible that people can be convinced that evolution is a poorly supported fantasy!” But that would only be a problem if evolution were not a poorly supported fantasy. Second, notice that the critic does not mention the many scientists that have been persuaded that evolution is a poorly supported fantasy. But if he mentioned that, it might be harder to maintain his façade that science somehow supports Darwinian evolution.

They lobby for creationist ideas such as “intelligent design” to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms.

There are several problems here. First, there is a whopping big difference between biblical creation, and the intelligent design movement; yet the critic does not distinguish between these two. Most of the creation scientists I know are not affiliated with the intelligent design movement. Creation scientists like myself are not primarily concerned with applying political pressure to get alternatives to evolution taught in secular schools. Neither are we opposed to this. It is simply not our focus. Continue reading →

Email To Russ Miller (CreationMinistries.org):

“My child’s school is teaching her she evolved from primates. Are there any valid examples of evolution?”

Answer: Millions of examples of Micro-evolution, better called micro-adaptations or variations, could be shown. Adaptations are simply ‘kinds bringing forth after their kind’ as Scripture tells us will happen. These are caused by the sorting or loss of the genetic data they inherited from their parents. Never has a viable example of Darwinian/Macro change, such as a primate becoming a human, been found. This would require the addition of massive amounts of new and functionally beneficial genetic information. Real science, based on the observation of existing evidence, knows of no viable example of nature adding this kind of data to an existing gene pool. Thus, Genetic loss (Gene Depletion) + Selection prevents Darwinian style change to occur.

Some Further Russ Miller Quotes:

“Darwinian evolutionism is a religious belief that puts one’s faith in a single celled creature having come to life before mutating to bears, beavers and biology professors. Yet it’s estimated a single celled bacteria requires genetic data that’s 10,000 times more complex than a space shuttle. 1 in 10 to the 50th power is considered absolute zero & the odds of life forming by natural processes has been calculated to be 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power (1 in 10 to the 18th would cover every second for 30 billion years). Mathematical probability alone refutes Darwinism.”

“The next time you’re asked if you believe in evolution, correctly respond, “I believe in Biblically and scientifically correct micro-evolution.” Let me explain. Darwinists show kids pictures of brown moths and yellow moths; then discuss how they’ve descended from a common ancestor over ‘millions of years.” Well, drop the “millions of years” and I agree they have a common ancestor, it was a moth. They’ve simply ‘brought forth after their kind’ as God’s Word tells us will occur and as real science always finds. This is micro-evolution, not never-observed Darwinian-macro evolution. The ability to micro-adapt was placed in their gene pool from the start by their Creator who gave His created kinds a tremendous range of genetic variation which allows them to adapt to various climates & conditions.”

“Population studies show if we began with 4 couples (off the ark) 4,500 years ago and averaged 2.2 kids per couple we’d have around 7 billion folks today…which is what we have.”

“We constantly hear about the search for THE missing link, as if such a discovery would cause the Darwinian chain to materialize. But macro evolution requires billions of links leading from the supposed first cell to the millions of kinds of plants and animals living on earth today, yet never has a viable link of any kind been found that proves Darwinian change occurred; and Darwinism requires billions of these links. Scripture warns us to avoid false science, which some believing will err concerning their faith. Indicating that finding a ‘missing link” would cause the whole Darwinian chain to come together is science falsely so called.”

“The Bible says creatures will bring forth their kind and warns us to beware of false science; yet billions have lost their faith due to Darwinian bait & switch con games presented in science classes. For instance, texts present a Biblically correct example of a variation within a kind (also called micro-evolution or adaptation), such as a fly bringing forth a fly with shorter wings (caused by the sorting or loss of the parent’s genetic data), then switch the discussion to Darwinian (macro) evolution which requires the addition of new and beneficial genetic data. Observation-based science is a Believer’s true friend so don’t be fooled by false teachings and put your faith in the Word of God.”

“Following the 1969 moon landing, moon rocks were aged using radiometric dating techniques. One rock was sliced into pieces & sent to 8 labs for testing. As usual, a wide range of dates (10,000 to 3.6 billion years) were obtained with only the desired age of 3.6 billion years being published. But New Scientist magazine reported, “Signs of volcanic activity indicate the moon formed “just a few million years ago.” Well, that’s only about 1% of what we’ve been told and couldn’t this also prove the moon is just a few thousand years old? Absolutely! Since no one observed the creation of the moon, I’ll humble myself to accept God’s uncompromised Word.”

“Jesus said Satan was the father of lies and one of the Devil’s most successful tactics is to get man to twist what’s good into something Satan can use to serve his evil purposes. Take ‘natural selection.’ 24 years before Darwin’s book came out, Biblical creationist Edward Blyth showed how natural selection eliminated harmful mutations & helped creatures adapt to various climates in the post-flood world. Darwin twisted this into something that has misled billions of people yet, as I like to point out; natural selection is God’s Quality Assurance program. It removes genetically weaker variations & mutations, preventing them from corrupting the gene pools our heavenly Father created. Without natural selection most creatures would go extinct within 1,500 years.”

“FB message: “There are 100’s of creation myths. What evidence do you have that the Bible’s story is the right one?” Thanks for your vital question as where a person will spend eternity hangs in the balance! A great way to tell the Truth from the 1,000’s of myths about our origins, whether they are evolution, creation or alien based, is by the 100’s of Biblical prophecies fulfilled. Then add to the Bible’s amazing ability to correctly predict the future the Archaeological finds that always support the Scriptures; the Biological proofs, as kinds only being forth after their kind; and the Geological evidences of the Global Flood and it’s what I call a ‘Done Deal.'”

“Hebrews 11:3 tells us we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God through faith, so the things which are seen were not made of things which appear. Our DNA doesn’t appear to the naked eye, yet our DNA contains the data to produce more than 100,000 different proteins, each with a unique function. Human technology can store data on the surface of a computer chip. However, DNA stores data in three dimensions and, if written out in 500 page books, a pinhead sized holder of DNA could hold enough data to make a pile of books that would extend from earth to the moon 500 times! Talk about incredible design! Romans 1:20 tells us the invisible things from the creation will be clearly seen so unbelievers will stand without excuse. Put your faith in the Word of your Creator.”