Common Creationist arguments

Q: If there is literal death in the book of Genesis, then why did Adam go on living for a full 950 years? Why is it sin did not kill Adam at the very beginning? More importantly, why did Adam continue living for such a long time period? Not every generation following Adam has a shorter lifespan in a certain order, some live longer than their predecessors. Death as Creationists imply does not make any logical sense whatsoever.

A: This is a common fallacy that Creationists use to somehow show that evolution is a theory that is to be invalidated because of the changing modifications to the theory. However, scientific theories always change and become more complex as we discover more results. An example of this is the original model of what we first perceived atoms to be. The Greek Heredotus originally stated that atoms were plainly spherical particles. In our modern day era, we now know that the atom is much more complex. The atom is now known for having a nucleus comprised of protons and neutrons, and an area of free-floating electrons called "the electron cloud." Further into atoms we get into quantum models and physics. By Creationist reasoning, because our perceptions of the atom have changed so vastly from the original postulate, atomic particles must also be inaccurate observations coming from people who simply don't know what they where/are talking about.

"In evolution, things progress and become bigger and better over time. Evolution teaches that there are genetic increases and that mutations are beneficial. However, in reality, most mutations are actually harmful and not a single example of increasing genetic material has been found."

A: This is a common misunderstanding about evolution. Evolution does not predict beneficial progressions in the sense that an organism continues to get bigger and better. Instead, evolution is about an organism adapting to its specific environment in the midst of change. From what is safe to say is our current modern day understanding of explaining how evolution operates, this can mean that the changing species may evolve a useful characteristic while another characteristic that goes unused in that specific environment obviously becomes useless. Evolution does imply in some areas that there are "genetic increases", but they go through several other modifying mechanisms in order to get to speciation. Contrary to what Creationists might say, evolution is not some sort of direct accumulation or progressional ascension in species.

A: Evolution does not work by random mutations or coincedental accidents. External influences will eventually modify internal structures or adaptations to better cope with those external influences. An example of this comes from the current theory on the origins of the human eye. To help explain this current theory, we will have to take a look at earthworms, which have light-sensitive cells on the surface of their skin. These cells act as sensory devises and help distinguish between bright light and darkness. The eye would have developed from this primitive form to become more sophisticated. Internal cells would have developed eventually focusing light rays from various angles and forming the shape of the eyeball. All other modifications would have come about by the same process through precision of focused light. As we can see, evolution works by gradual steps through intricate processes, not by immediate random chance or accidental mutations; evolution continually builds and modifies on structures that have already come into existence.

A: Although the prebiotic soup is relevant to the Theory of Evolution, it is not evolution in a strict sense. The theoretical "prebiotic soup" is instead a distinct process called abiogenesis, and deals with the assortment of chemicals to form the first amino acids necessary for life. Evolution deals with biological changes in living systems via populations and their allelic frequencies. In other words, abiogenesis is concerned with life from non-life, and evolution is concerned with internal life structures.

A: Such an argument is intended to show that science was influenced by Creationism through science's most influencial figures throughout history. Isaac Newton, for example, is argued to have been a "Creationist", as though it makes any signifigant difference in

his theology; unfortunately, pro-evolution websites such as the Talk Origins archive rebut this point by saying that Newton was before the dawn of evolution, and therefore would have considered changing his mind if he had been alive around that time. The argument is entirely relevant to their contributions and their overall theological belief. Whether Isaac Newton or any other famous turning point scientist would have been an evolutionist or not would not necessarily conclude that it means decifering between theism and atheism.

"In Darwin's day the first 'primitive' cell was considered to be nothing more than simplistic ooze. Today, we have discovered that a 'simple' cell has an enormous range of complexity and variety and is therefore proof of Intelligent Design."

A: Suprisingly, Creationists use this as an argument to imply that it is impossible for things to have evolved over time. However, the fallacy here is an evident one. Indeed, if a simple cell is so complex, then we should expect it has the mutational potential to help produce a large variety of higher organisms. The argument that a primitive celluar organism has too much complexity to have evolved into what we have today is to contradict the argument premise itself: That things are too complex to have evolved from simplicity.

"There was a time when I used to be a theistic evolutionist; today, however, I am wholeheartedly convinced that the earth is between 10,000 to 6,000 years old in its historical existence, and that Genesis is not to be taken as mere allegory or poetic literature."

A: Congratulations. However, having once belonged to one perspective and then switching sides does not necessarily warrant that you have made a logical and or sensible philosophical transition. It merely means that you have changed your views on a particular given subject.

"Now that I believe that the Bible is nearly 100% literal in context, 'theistic evolution' is a blasphemous and condemnable view that would only be tolerated and perpetuated by liberals who already deny the fundamentals of Christianity and the divinity of Christ."

Aside from that rather simple point, it is not always wise to condemn others for holding to the views that you may have once held in the distant past. Much like it would be wrong for atheist-turned Christians to condemn and seperate themselves from every atheist they met on the street, and vice versa. True wisdom is established if a person has enough compassion to feel towards those that currently follow the paths that one has personally tread themselves, given them respect and admiration for their humane efforts and how the common grounds shared between you and them can serve as an effective mean of furthering understanding and ending intolerant bigotry. Even if you might consider your past to be shrouded with "skeletons in the closet", arrogance and pretentiousness are not admirable characteristics, and certaintly not characteristics that are helpful to the progression of society and humanity's overall survival.