I thought this essay summed up the creation/evolution debate nicely?

Question

http://www.helium.com/tm/196695/great-debate-between-creation

Yes or no? Explain your answer please.

Answer 1

It's a good summary of some of the issues, and I agree with most of it, but of course it just touches the surface of the problem that creationists have with evolution.

Does it start with an attack? Well, as "attacks" go, calling creationists "wishful thinkers" is as mild an attack is you can get ... but it's not exactly inviting them to read on.

> ..."scientists, biologists, and anthropologists of the World do not question whether life on Earth has evolved, but rather how it has evolved."

Absolutely, dead on correct! Even Michael Behe, originator of the Intelligent Design movement, acknowledges that all species are related by common ancestry to the first life forms. So Intelligent Design does not dispute whether life has evolved, but how it has evolved (i.e. he disputes whether Darwinism alone explains that evolution).

> "We now know these separate structures [in the eye] can indeed develop independently of each other and we have the living models to prove it."

I disagree with this wording. These parts do not develop independently, they evolve *inter*-dependently. Improvements in the retina lead to improvements in the lens, and vice versa ... the retina and lens are like symbiotic organisms (think flower and bee) ... they start out with independent functions, but end up developing such an interdependence that it is impossible to imagine one without the other. This is a subtle difference that would take me a lot more space to develop. I agree with the general argument, but I just disagree with this wording.

Overall, the author runs into the same problems we all run into when discussing the controversy. Once you start by refuting some creationist claims, you realize the imensity of the task. Creationist arguments agains evolution are generally *really* easy to refute ... but there are just so bloody many of them!

In other words, it's not like creationism rests entirely on the "irreducible complexity" or the "missing link" arguments (both easily refuted). But I can just hear the creationists go "yeah, but what about the bombardier beetle?" or "what about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?" (two other arguments easily refuted). And after you've refuted those and more, someone else will come back with "yeah, but what about the eye?" and "you still haven't found that missing link?" And you realize that, by refusing to hear any answer you've given, they can take you around the rink endlessly. This is why creationist sites are full of "lists of questions to ask evolutionists." It matters not a jot that 'evolutionists' aren't exactly stumped by these questions ... it matters not whether the answer is easily found with a minimal amount of research ... it's the *question* that matters.

Unfortunately, the author dipped his ankles in this swamp.

Good essay, however.

Answer 2

Quite nicely.

It only starts out with an "attack" if you consider stating that there is no great debate about evolution among the scientific community. There isn't. The article also very nicely refutes a couple of common creationist arguments, logically and non-confrontationally.

That many scientists do not understand the Christian perspective (debatable, just about everyone I know has read Genesis) is sort of irrelevant. Science operates by examining the evidence and trying to come up with the most likely theory. Creationism basically comes down to "God made the Earth because we believe he did." Does this make it wrong? No. But it's also scientifically unverifiable either way.

Answer 3

From an evolutionists standpoint it may well do that, but just as creationists may not understand the details of evolution, evolutionists even moreso do not understand the teachings of God's Word on creation. So we are still at a sandstill.

Answer 4

when an essay starts out with an attack (like this one does) it's credibility drops quickly.

zero stars.

Answer 5

Well put again, secret.