Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism: 2002 Edition

Edited by Mark I. Vuletic (hume@vuletic.com)

Introduction

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -- Theodosius Dobzhansky

The purpose of this document is to introduce and respond to some of the claims various creationists make in the evolution vs. creationism controversy. The creationist criticisms covered are directed mainly at four targets:

• The evolutionary history of life, as well as its mainstream proponents.
• The idea that the origin of life did not require direct supernatural intervention.
• The idea that the universe, or at least the Earth, is substantially older than 6,000 years.
• The idea that the origin of the universe did not require direct supernatural intervention.

It must immediately be pointed out that the second, third, and fourth categories have nothing to do with evolution, properly speaking, since evolution cannot take place until a replicator exists. However, since creationists tend to lump multiple categories together under titles like "evolution", "evolutionism", or "Darwinism", criticisms in all four categories are legitimate targets for rebuttal in a document devoted to the evolution vs. creationism controversy. I can only exhort the reader to be cautious not to conflate evolution with naturalism, creationist attempts to confuse the issue notwithstanding.

Allow me to make several more comments:

• There are many different kinds of creationists. Although virtually all creationists fall on the highly conservative end of the theological spectrum, their exact theological commitments can vary in some important respects. For instance, while Henry Morris is committed to a young earth, Hugh Ross is not, and Michael Behe goes so far as to concede that humans share common ancestry with other primates. Likewise, creationists have widely varying levels of intelligence, education, and honesty. No one should assume that every creationist would set forth all, or even most, of the criticisms this document discusses. One can safely assume only that one will encounter the majority of these criticisms if one has wide exposure to the creationist movement.
  
  
• At the same time, it would be misguided to accuse me of attacking straw men simply because there are creationists who do not make the majority of the criticisms in this document. Again, my claim is only that one can safely assume that one will encounter the majority of these criticisms if one has wide exposure to the creationist movement. I have myself encountered each of the criticisms in this document either in creationist literature or in personal correspondence or in both. If a more sophisticated creationist finds this fact embarrassing, I should not be held to blame.
  
  
• The most common complaint I have received about earlier drafts of this document is that while I respond to creationist criticisms, I nowhere offer a systematic positive case for evolution, a naturalistic origin of life, a 4.5 billion year old earth, a 10-20 billion year old universe, and so forth. However, a comprehensive presentation of the evidence for evolution, a naturalistic origin of life, and so forth, is simply beyond the intended scope of this work. Specialists have taken up this task in many good books, and I encourage anyone interested in evolution to read them. This document should be taken as a supplement to such works.
  
  
• Because it is my intention to try to supply comparatively brief responses, I have not been nearly as complete and rigorous as I could have been in responding to many of the criticisms listed. For a more rigorous treatment, I recommend the reader consult the Talk.origins archive (www.talkorigins.org).
  
  
• Since most creationists are deeply concerned about religion, I must in fairness be candid about where I stand on the religious spectrum. Although I was at one time a Christian, I later became an agnostic, and am now an atheist. Before the theological conservatives start shouting "Aha!" I should make two things crystal clear. First, my acceptance of evolution is not driven by any ideological devotion to atheism: I was an evolutionist even when I was a Christian, and will continue to be an evolutionist even if I become a Christian once again, because this is simply where the evidence points. Second, although thinking about evolution played some role in my move from agnosticism to atheism, it played no role whatsoever in my earlier move from Christianity to agnosticism - acceptance of evolution, that is, did not cause me to lose my faith.
  
  
• It has been suggested to me on occasion that I might be able to publish this document for profit. I would like to go on the record with this promise: as long as I have a say in the matter, the newest edition of this document will always be available on the Internet, free of charge to all. If you have a desire to "compensate" me somehow for my work (I use scare quotes because such gratifying work is truly its own compensation), a few words of encouragement to hume@vuletic.com would be more than enough. If, for whatever reason, you feel the need to do more, please consider investing in good science education for the world by offering a donation to the National Center for Science Education (www.ncseweb.org), or to any organization in your country that plays a similar role.
  
  
• I will attempt to produce a new edition of this document every year until I die (I probably won't be able to do very much afterwards). If you have suggestions or complaints, please e-mail them to me at hume@vuletic.com. I cannot guarantee that any particular suggestion or complaint will be reflected in new editions, but I will certainly take the time to consider every e-mail I receive.
  
  
• For anyone who wishes to reprint or distribute this document, you have my permission to do so subject only to the proviso that no copy may be sold - all distribution must be done free of charge to the recipients.
  
  
• Finally, I must emphasize that I am solely responsible for the editing of this document, and that my work on it competes with many other pressing duties. It is therefore unavoidable that mistakes will creep in, and that my writing will lag far behind the current state of research. I apologize for any deficiencies, and encourage the reader to do his or her research.

Section Index

Section 1: Cosmology and Astronomy.
Section 2: Terrestrial Geology
Section 3: The Origin of Life
Section 4: Biological Evolution
Section 5: Fossils and Transitional Forms
Section 6: Philosophy, Theology, and Education

Long Index

Section 1: Cosmology and Astronomy.

1.1: According to Big Bang theory, the universe came from nothing. But something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, there must be a creator. REPLY.
1.2: The 1st law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe is constant. Big Bang theory, on the other hand, states that all of the energy of the universe came from nothing. Therefore, Big Bang cosmology violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. REPLY.
1.3: If the fundamental constants of our universe were even slightly different than we find them, life could not exist in the universe; therefore, the fundamental constants of our universe must have been set by a god for the express purpose of creating man. REPLY.
1.4: The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that disorder in the universe always increases; therefore the universe could not have started in an ordered state unless it was "wound up" by a creator. REPLY.
1.5: The 2nd law of thermodynamics forbids the formation of ordered galaxies and solar systems from a disordered explosion. REPLY.
1.6: The sun contains most of the mass, but only 2% of the angular momentum of the solar system. If the solar system had condensed from a gas cloud, most of its angular momentum would be in the sun. REPLY.
1.7: If the moon were 5 billion years old, it would be covered with a layer of meteoritic dust 180 feet thick. REPLY.
1.8: The rotation of the Earth has been slowing at a rate of 30 seconds per century. If the Earth were billions of years old, the rotation rate would have been too great for the planet to hold together. REPLY.

Section 2: Terrestrial Geology.

2.1: Many tests using carbon-14 give dates that are obviously wrong or conflict with the results of other radioisotope tests. For instance, a living mollusk was once shown by carbon-14 dating to be dead for 3,000 years. REPLY.
2.2: Radiometric dating is extremely inaccurate, as is shown by the fact that such experiments frequently have error factors of a few million years. REPLY.
2.3: Many radiometric dating tests have yielded false results. Evolutionists discard all those that are inconsistent with their prior assumptions and keep those that support their theory. REPLY.
2.4: Radiometric dating reports the Earth to be old only because the cataclysmic action of Noah's Flood changed the radioisotope concentrations in the young Earth? REPLY.
2.5: The ages of rocks are determined by the kinds of fossils they contain, but the dating of fossils depends on evolutionary assumptions. REPLY.
2.6: The rate of decay in the geomagnetic field sets an outside limit of 10,000 years for the age of the earth. REPLY.
2.7: If the earth were as old as geologists say, uranium decay would have put more helium into the atmosphere than we actually find. REPLY.
2.8: There are places where supposedly older rock strata rest upon supposedly younger rock strata. Since this is geologically impossible, there must be something wrong with conventional means of dating rock strata. REPLY.
2.9: Noah's Flood was caused by the condensation of a vapor canopy that contained the waters of the Flood. Prior to the Flood, the vapor canopy also extended people's lifespans to the huge ages listed in the Book of Genesis, because it blocked out harmful UV rays. REPLY.
2.10: Niagara Falls is moving upstream at a known rate each year. Its current location allows only about 5,000 years since the time it started eroding. REPLY.
2.11: The apparently old structures in the universe were actually created 6,000 years ago with the mere appearance of old age. REPLY.

Section 3: The Origin of Life.

3.1: The law of biogenesis states that life comes only from previous life. Therefore, the idea of an origin of life from nonliving molecules contradicts a major law of science. REPLY.
3.2: Amino acids in living organisms are all left-handed, but in nature, equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids form, so one would expect them to occur in equal proportions in living organisms if abiogenesis were true. REPLY.
3.3: Nucleic acids cannot replicate without the help of specific proteins, but the needed proteins cannot form unless specified by nucleic acid sequences. Therefore, it is not possible for a genetic system to have formed naturally. REPLY.
3.4: Meteorite bombardment of the early Earth would have destroyed any new life, and there is too little time between the bombardment and the first signs of life for life to have come into existence naturally. REPLY.
3.5: Cells are too complex to have come into existence all at once by pure chance. REPLY.
3.6: There are too many different combinations of amino acids and nucleic acids for a given enzyme or DNA sequence to come into existence without the guidance of a Creator. REPLY.
3.7: The second law of thermodynamics rules out abiogenesis. For life to come into existence spontaneously would be like a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard assembling the loose parts into a functioning pickup truck. REPLY.

Section 4: Biological Evolution.

4.1: The perfection of certain biological structures (especially the human eye) clearly indicates the hand of a designer. REPLY.
4.2: Organisms feature numerous "irreducibly complex" structures and processes which could not have developed by small evolutionary steps. Evolutionists have not even tried to explain how such structures and processes could have evolved. REPLY.
4.3: There is no explanation for how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved. REPLY.
4.4: Evolutionists cannot explain how feathers evolved. REPLY.
4.5: Evolutionists cannot tell us exactly how most organisms and biological structures arose. REPLY.
4.6: Evolutionists cannot explain how butterfly metamorphosis could have evolved. REPLY.
4.7: The genetic variation that allows populations to adapt to environmental change through microevolution was deliberately put in place by the creator, and thus did not arise by mutation. REPLY.
4.8: Homologous features do not prove ancestral relationships between any organisms, because all classifications above the species level are man-made and arbitrary. REPLY.
4.9: Industrial melanism does not demonstrate evolution at all because no speciation occurs. REPLY.
4.10: Mutations are always deleterious, and thus cannot be a driving factor in evolution. REPLY.
4.11: Mutations cannot be responsible for evolution, since they are usually deleterious. Would you want your house built by a carpenter who made 99 bad houses for every good one? REPLY.
4.12: Mutations never increase the amount of genetic information. REPLY.
4.13: Chromosome numbers cannot change without producing harmful effects. REPLY.
4.14: Punctuated equilibrium posits massive mutations which cause an organism to give birth to a radically different organism, e.g. a reptile giving birth to a bird. REPLY.
4.15: There are plenty of mutations that cause birth defects, but none that cause "birth improvements." REPLY.
4.16: The rate of mutation is too small for mutation to serve as a source of variation. REPLY.
4.17: Regardless of mutation rates, the rate of microevolution is too low to account for the macroevolutionary change observed in the fossil record. REPLY.
4.18: Macroevolution remains unproved because no one has observed it. In fact, macroevolution is in principle unobservable, so evolution is unscientific. REPLY.
4.19: No one has ever seen one species arise from another. REPLY.
4.20: If evolution were true, then fish would have evolved into amphibians and land animals more than once. REPLY.
4.21: Sexual reproduction could not have come about through evolution. REPLY.
4.22: There is no evidence for the rapid development of new species in nature. REPLY.
4.23: The idea of natural selection is tautological: the fittest survive, and those who survive are the fittest. REPLY.
4.24: Given uniform population growth rates, we can extrapolate backwards from today's population to prove that there could not have been humans before 10,000 years ago. REPLY.
4.25: Haldane's Dilemma proves that human could not have evolved over the time span evolutionists say they did. REPLY.

Section 5: Fossils and Transitional Forms.

5.1: There are no transitional forms between fish and amphibians. REPLY.
5.2: There are no transitional forms between amphibians and reptiles. REPLY.
5.3: There are no transitional forms between reptiles and mammals. REPLY.
5.4: There are no transitional forms between early hominids and Homo sapiens. REPLY.
5.5: There are no transitional forms between whales and their alleged Mesonychid ancestors. REPLY.
5.6: The feather impressions in fossils of Archaeopteryx are forgeries. Feathers were pressed into a thin layer of artificial cement, or else the feather impressions were chiseled in directly. REPLY.
5.7: Archaeopteryx is not a true transitional form; any reptilian characteristics it displays are mirrored in modern birds, like the hoatzin. REPLY.
5.8: Protoavis precedes Archaeopteryx in the fossil record; hence, Archaeopteryx cannot be a transitional form. REPLY.
5.9: The Cambrian explosion is a sure sign of the activity of a Creator, suddenly creating a multitude of complex forms out of nothing. There are no fossils before the explosion. REPLY.
5.10: There are gaps in the fossil record; but evolution predicts that there should be no gaps. REPLY.
5.11: Fossils are the remains of the organisms that perished in Noah's Flood. REPLY.
5.12: In their search for transitional forms, evolutionists have been taken in by outright fraud, as in the case of Piltdown Man, and by unfounded speculation, as in the case of Nebraska Man. REPLY.

Section 6: Philosophy, Theology, and Education.

6.1: Evolution is atheistic because it makes no reference to God. REPLY.
6.2: Evolution entails atheism. REPLY.
6.3: Acceptance of evolution at the very least makes one better disposed towards atheism. REPLY.
6.4: The only reason anyone accepts evolution is because of a dogmatic prior commitment to atheism. REPLY.
6.5: Evolution at least entails that humanity was not predestined for existence. REPLY.
6.6: Acceptance of evolution at least entails the denial of Christianity (Islam). REPLY.
6.7: If evolution was true, then there was no Fall of man, and hence there is no need for Christ. REPLY.
6.8: The cruelty and wastefulness of evolution is inconsistent with the goodness of God. REPLY.
6.9: The teaching of evolution is responsible for immorality: it is no surprise that people behave like animals given that they are taught they come from animals. REPLY.
6.10: Teaching evolution is responsible for immorality, because evolution teaches that people are just animals. REPLY.
6.11: Evolution robs our origin of its grandeur. REPLY.
6.12: Great scientists such as Newton and Kepler believed in a literal Genesis. REPLY.
6.13: Evolutionists are trying to take over the school system and force their beliefs upon students. REPLY.
6.14: Natural processes cannot be the cause of things like love; the cause of love must itself be loving. REPLY.
6.15: There are many theories of evolution, each of which disproves the others. REPLY.
6.16: Evolution is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. REPLY.
6.17: Electrons are materially inconceivable, but physicists accept them as real entities; so what is to keep one from likewise accepting the reality of an inconceivable Creator? REPLY.
6.18: Evolution predicts that natural law should be constantly evolving; creationism, on the other hand, predicts that natural laws should remain fixed, which is what we actually see. REPLY.
6.19: No one was around to observe creation except for God; therefore, we must take His word for it as to how things actually happened. REPLY.
6.20: There is nothing wrong with invoking supernatural explanation. REPLY.
6.21: There are many unanswered questions in science, therefore we must bring a god into the picture to make things complete. REPLY.
6.22: Evolution is just a theory. REPLY.
6.23: Evolution and creationism are the only two options. REPLY.
6.24: Evolutionary theory is responsible for the horrors of Communism. REPLY.
6.25: Karl Marx dedicated Das Kapital to Darwin. REPLY.
6.26: Evolution is the basis for Naziism. REPLY.
6.27: Evolution is responsible for the Holocaust. REPLY.
6.28: Evolution is the basis for laissez-faire capitalism. REPLY.
6.29: Evolution is responsible for slavery. REPLY.
6.30: Darwin was a racist. REPLY.
6.31: Einstein believed evolution was impossible; he said "God does not play dice." REPLY.
6.32: Darwin never had a formal education in biology. REPLY.

Acknowledgments

Having reached the 2002 edition of this document, I now owe thanks to too many people to list by name. Hence, I would like to just offer general gratitude to the hundreds of people who have written words of advice and encouragement to me over the years this document has taken shape. I must also thank the thousands of scientists and scholars whose lifetime efforts have, in one form or another, trickled down into this work. Although I have injected my own commentary wherever I had a right to, my primary capacity has been that of an editor, so most of the credit for the good aspects of this document truly belongs to others (while the deficiencies are, of course, strictly mine).

Dedication

I would like to dedicate this work to Dr. Douglas J. Futuyma. Despite having a triple job as professor, textbook writer, and editor of the scientific journal Evolution, Dr. Futuyma took the time to write a fine book on evolution vs. creationism for the general public - Science on Trial, now in its second edition. Dr. Futuyma certainly deserves recognition for his valiant efforts in the defense and advancement of science. However, he deserves special recognition from me in particular because it was the appendix to Science on Trial that provided me with the initial inspiration for this document. Without Dr. Futuyma's example, this project might never even have been started.