A Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism

A Defender's Guide
to
Science and Creationism

Cosmology
Geology
Abiogenesis
Evolutionary Biology
Paleontology
Moral/Theological Issues
Misc. Issues
Credits
Vuletic.com/hume

Cosmology

The primary area of contention between creationism and cosmology is in the age of the universe and its contents. The universe is currently thought by scientists tobe 13.7 billion years old and the solar system 5 billion years old. Many creationists, by contrast, believe that the proper interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis yields an age of 6,000 to 10,000 years for the universe. Accordingly, creationists who have confidence in this interpretation must try to poke enough holes in cosmology to cast doubt on the old ages established by science.
Another area of contention between creationism and cosmology has to do with the attempt to draw from certain cosmological phenomena proof of the existence of a creator. Although there is nothing in principle wrong with such attempts, the actual arguments that have been set forth thus far tend to manipulate scientific data or deny established findings of cosmology, and therefore need to be addressed.

1.1 Big Bang theory is disproved by the fact that something cannot come from nothing.

1.2 Big Bang theory violates the first law of thermodynamics.

1.3 Big Bang theory violates the second law of thermodynamics.

1.4 The fine-tuning of the cosmological constants proves the universe was created.

1.5 The second law of thermodynamics forbids the formation of galaxies and solar systems.

1.6 The sun would contain more than 2% of the angular momentum of the solar system if the solar system condensed from a gas cloud.

1.7 All of the planets in the solar system would be rotating in the same direction of the solar system formed the way science says it did.

1.8 The moon would have a 180-foot meteoritic dust layer if it were billions of years old.

1.9 The Earth would be rotating faster if it were billions of years old.

Geology

As with standard cosmology, most creationists who object to geology do so because they take issue with the old age of the Earth established by science. These creationists believe that Genesis, properly interpreted, establishes an age of 6,000 to 10,000 years for the earth. Some creationists appear to be especially enthusiastic about defending a young age for the earth because it would leave too little time for life to have evolved; a young age for the earth is therefore viewed as a silver bullet against evolution.

2.1 Carbon-14 dating has been shown to be unreliable; for instance, a living mollusk was once shown by carbon-14 dating to be dead for 3,000 years.
2.2 Many types of radiometric dating have error factors of several million years.
2.3 Evolutionists simply discard all of the results of radiometric dating tests that are inconsistent with their theory.
2.4 Radiometric dating only seems to indicate an old Earth because Noah's Flood changed the radioisotope concentrations in the young Earth.
2.5 The ages of rocks are determined by the kinds of fossils they contain, but the ages of the fossils are derived from evolutionary assumptions.
2.6 The rate of decay of the geomagnetic field sets an upper limit of 10,000 years on the age of the earth.
2.7 If the Earth were as old as science says, uranium decay would have put more helium in the atmosphere than we find.
2.8 Scientific methods for dating rock strata are disproved by places where supposedly older strata rest upon supposedly younger strata.
2.9 Noah's Flood was caused by the condensation of a vapor canopy which also enabled people to live hundreds of years by screening out UV rays.
2.10 The erosion rate of Niagara Falls places an upper limit of 5,000 years on its age.

Abiogenesis

The first thing that needs to be stressed about abiogenesis is that it is separable from evolutionary theory. One can consistently accept every tenet of evolution yet believe that the very first organisms from which contemporary life evolved were created. One can likewise consistently believe that life arises spontaneously from nonlife, yet reject the notion that life evolves. With this said, what is the current state of the evidence for abiogenesis?
Scientists have not yet figured out the exact mechanism by which life first came into existence. Debate even continues about some of the broader aspects of the origin of life, such as whether metabolism or genetics came first. On the other hand, creationists who claim that abiogenesis can be proved impossible or implausible are mistaken.
Origin of life research continues to be an active field of research, and has made great strides in the short time since its inception, despite being hampered by little funding and accordingly few scientists professionally involved. There is therefore every reason to be optimistic about future research. However, far from sharing this optimism, many creationists purport to have knockdown arguments that establish the impossibility of abiogenesis, whatever future research may bring.
This section of the Defender's Guide deals with such creationist arguments. Those who wish for an overview of the state of origin of life research at the turn of the millenium, with all of its ups and downs, loose ends and dead ends, are directed to Iris Fry's The Emergence of Life on Earth.

3.1 Abiogenesis contradicts the law of biogenesis.
3.2 Science cannot explain why only left-handed amino acids appear in organisms.
3.3 DNA and RNA cannot replicate without certain proteins, but these proteins cannot form unless specified by DNA or RNA.
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.
3.5 Cells are too complex to have come into existence all at once by pure chance.
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.
3.7 The second law of thermodynamics rules out abiogenesis.
3.8 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.

Evolutionary Biology

If you have been involved in the creationism vs. science debate for any amount of time, you are probably sick of hearing Theodosius Dobzhansky's quote about nothing in biology making sense except in the light of evolution. Well, that's too bad, because, as Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Although creationists divide into separate camps on the age of the universe and the age of the Earth, they are unanimous in not heeding the wisdom of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Indeed, rarely does one seem to find the word "creationism" unaccompanied by "vs. evolution" or "/evolution."
This section of the Defender's Guide deals with strictly "biological" arguments against evolution: things like "the eye is too complex," or "mutations are always bad." Arguments against evolution that relate in some way to the fossil record are treated in the next section, while moral, theological, and philosophical objections to evolution are dealt with in the final two sections.

4.1 The perfection of structures like the human eye is proof of creation.
4.2 "Irreducibly complex" things could not have evolved by small steps, and evolutionists have not even tried to show that they have.
4.3 The bacterial flagellum could not have evolved.
4.4 Evolutionists cannot explain how feathers could have evolved.
4.5 Evolutionists cannot tell us exactly how most organisms and biological structures arose.
4.6 Evolutionists cannot explain how butterfly metamorphosis could have evolved.
4.7 The genetic variation exhibited in microevolution was deliberately put in place by the creator in advance, and did not arise from mutation.
4.8 Homologous features do not prove ancestral relationships between any organisms, because all classifications above the species level are man-made and arbitrary.
4.9 The peppered moth does not demonstrate evolution because no speciation occurs.
4.10 Mutations are always harmful.
4.11 Mutations are rarely beneficial, so they cannot drive evolution. Would you want your house built by a carpenter who made 99 bad houses for every good one?
4.12 Mutations never increase the amount of genetic information.
4.13 Chromosome numbers cannot change without producing harmful effects.
4.14 Punctuated equilibrium posits massive mutations which cause an organism to give birth to a radically different organism, like a reptile giving birth to a bird.
4.15 There are plenty of mutations that cause birth defects, but none that cause "birth improvements."
4.16 The rate of mutation is too small for mutation to serve as a source of variation.
4.17 Regardless of mutation rates, the rate of microevolution is too low to account for the macroevolutionary change observed in the fossil record.
4.18 Macroevolution remains unproved because no one has observed it. In fact, macroevolution is in principle unobservable, so evolution is unscientific.
4.19 No one has ever seen one species arise from another.
4.20 If evolution were true, fish would have evolved into amphibians and land animals more than once.
4.21 Sexual reproduction could not have come about through evolution.
4.22 There is no evidence for the rapid development of new species in nature.
4.23 Natural selection is a tautology: the fittest survive, and those who survive are the fittest.
4.24 Given uniform population growth rates, there could not have been humans before 10,000 years ago.
4.25 Haldane's Dilemma proves that humans could not have evolved over the time span evolutionists say they did.
4.26 If humans had evolved from apes, there would no longer be any apes around.
4.27 Natural selection is not sensitive enough to small changes to drive evolution.
4.28 Homologous features exist not because of evolution, but because the creator used a common body plan in designing most of life.
4.29 Molecular similarities exist because of functional similarities.

Paleontology

Paleontology is an ambiguous tool in the hands of a creationist. Some creationist arguments against evolution attack established aspects of the fossil record, particularly the major transitional forms. Other creationist arguments proceed from the fossil record, such as the argument that the Cambrian explosion proves creation or that the gaps in the fossil record (the real ones this time) disprove evolution. What is one to make of all of this? Are there any transitional forms at all? Are there too few? Are they fakes? These are the kinds of questions taken up in this section of the Defender's Guide.

5.1 There are no transitional forms between fish and amphibians.
5.2 There are no transitional forms between amphibians and reptiles.
5.3 There are no transitional forms between reptiles and mammals.
5.4 There are no transitional forms between reptiles and birds.
5.5 There are no transitional forms between humans and their nonhuman ancestors.
5.6 There are no transitional forms between whales and their landgoing ancestors.
5.7 If evolution were true, there would be more transitional forms.
5.8 The Cambrian explosion is proof of creation.
5.9 Evolutionists have been taken in by fradulent or speculative transitional forms like Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man.
5.10 Fossils are the remains of the organisms that perished in Noah's Flood.
5.11 The fossil record shows long periods of stasis, but evolution predicts constant and gradual change.

Moral and Theological Issues Related to Science

For all of the talk about science, moral and theological issues appear to be the true heart of creationist objections to mainstream science. Whether through the contention that evolution entails atheism, or that children were never ill-behaved before 1859, or that an otherwise likeable Hitler was possessed by Darwin's ghost, creationists are always eager to demonstrate that the controversy is no mere scientific dispute. But what ought one think of their moral and theological objections? This section of the Defender's Guide tries to answer that question.

6.1 Evolution is atheistic because it makes no reference to God.
6.2 Evolution entails atheism.
6.3 Acceptance of evolution makes one better disposed towards atheism.
6.4 The only reason anyone accepts evolution is because of a dogmatic prior commitment to atheism.
6.5 Evolution entails that humanity was not predestined for existence.
6.6 Acceptance of evolution entails the denial of Christianity and Islam.
6.7 If evolution was true, then there was no Fall of man, and hence there is no need for Christ.
6.8 The cruelty and wastefulness of evolution is inconsistent with the goodness of God.
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.
6.10 The teaching of evolution is responsible for immorality, because evolution says that people are just animals.
6.11 Evolution robs our origin of its grandeur.
6.12 Evolutionary theory is responsible for the horrors of Communism.
6.13 Karl Marx dedicated Das Kapital to Darwin.
6.14 Evolution is the basis for Naziism.
6.15 Evolution is responsible for the Holocaust.
6.16 Evolution is the basis for laissez-faire capitalism.
6.17 Evolution is responsible for slavery.
6.18 Darwin was a racist.

Miscellaneous Issues Related to Science

If one subtracts from creationism all of the moral, theological, and nominally scientific arguments against mainstream science, much still remains. Most of this remainder, like "evolution is unfalsifiable," is philosophical; the rest is difficult to categorize, ranging from the obtuse ("Darwin never got a biology degree") to the obnoxious ("100 scientists signed a statement denying evolution"). This final section of the Defender's Guide grapples with these unpalatable leftovers.

7.1 Many great scientists were creationists
7.2 Evolutionists are trying to take over the school system and force their beliefs upon students.
7.3 Natural processes cannot be the cause of things like love; the cause of love must itself be loving.
7.4 There are many theories of evolution, each of which disproves the others.
7.5 Evolution is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.
7.6 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?
7.7 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.
7.8 No one was around to observe creation except for God; therefore, we must take His word for it as to how things actually happened.
7.9 There is nothing wrong with invoking a supernatural explanation.
7.10 There are many unanswered questions in science, therefore we must bring a god into the picture to make things complete.
7.11 Evolution is just a theory.
7.12 Evolution and creationism are the only two options.
7.13 Einstein believed evolution was impossible; he said "God does not play dice."
7.14 Darwin never had a formal education in biology.
7.15 100 scientists have signed a declaration denying the evolutionary history of life.
7.16 Creationist objections to science should be taught in school to help students to develop critical thinking skills.

Acknowledgements

My decade or so of involvement with this project has left me indebted to too many people to list by name; I am forced to resort to the unsatisfying alternative of offering my gratitude across the board to the hundreds of people who have written words of advice or encouragement to me over the years the Defender's Guide has taken shape. I must also acknowledge the thousands of scientists and scholars whose lifetime efforts have, in one form or another, managed to find their way into this work. Although I have injected personal commentary into the Defender's Guide wherever I have been qualified to do so as a philosopher, my primary function has been that of an editor: gathering, sifting, and presenting the thoughts and works of other, better minds. Most of the credit for the good in this guide therefore belongs to others, while the deficiencies that remain are, of course, entirely my own.
Dedication

The Defender's Guide is dedicated to Dr. Douglas J. Futuyma. Though I do not know him personally, I have reason to recognize him. His valiant efforts on behalf of evolutionary biology and other parts of mainstream science have set an example well worth emulating: despite holding the three jobs of professor, textbook writer, and journal editor (of the scientific journal Evolution), Dr. Futuyma elected to take the time to author Science on Trial, a fine popular response to the creationist onslaught. Science on Trial, now in its second edition, was one of the first, and one of the most helpful, books I read when I first became interested in creationism, and it was the appendix to that book that provided me with the initial inspiration for the Defender's Guide. Without Dr. Futuyma's example, this project might never have been started.
About the Editor

Mark I. Vuletic received an MA in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1997, where he is currently waiting to defend his doctoral dissertation on the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. He is a Corporal in the United States Marine Corps, and has deployed twice to Al Anbar province, Iraq, as a field MP, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom II and III.

This guide was originally created by Mark I Vuletic
http://www.vuletic.com/hume

Please use original url when citing this source!