# How does a Creationist explain disease? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238 "2010-01-09T02:26:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/41 "2010-01-10T00:24:08Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > IANA Young-Earth Creationist but I can give you their position about pre-Fall carnivours. > > Assuming Adam & Eve fell soon after their creation late on the Sixth Day (let’s say on Day 13), all land animals had only existed since early on Day Six and water & air animals since Day Five. They were not carnivorous, but those that became carnivorous turned so after “Day 13/The Fall Day” so any fossil evidence would not necessarily show any non-carnivorous lions. > > Btw, I picked Day 13 off the top of my head, but I could make a Biblical case for it! > But I won’t take the time to map it out unless someone is curious enough to ask (i.e. “feed my ego by asking”). _G_ A cookie for your ego? How do you reckon day 13? Genesis makes no mention of passage of time between the creation of man and woman and the encounter with the snake. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/42 "2010-01-10T04:42:45Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > I’m a Vedic man myself, but I’ve spent enough time listening to creationists to have some of the arguments down, and this isn’t a strong anti-creatonist argument. I haven’t given an anti-creationist argument. The OP asks how a creationist might respond to the question of why pathogens exist. I gave an answer based on what I’ve read on _Answers in Genesis_. In fact, it’s pretty hard to come up with anti-creationist arguments because creationism can always been defended with “creation science”; which is just a rag bag of ad hoc rationalisations and attacks on mainstream science. Pretty much the only anti-“creation science” argument is to point out how unscientific and irrational its methods are, but it’s tough to explain this to someone who really wants to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/43 "2010-01-10T13:52:57Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > The point isn’t the caterpillar suffering or not. One could certainly name a whole host of mammals that clearly suffer. Nature is red in tooth and claw afterall. But the point is why would the creator make it that way? Remember, this stuff didn’t evolve. A higher intelligence was supposed to poof this stuff into existence. > > It’s easy to do this sorta thing with the human body but it’s usually rebuffed as having something to do with the fall and the ribwoman who spoiled everything. Oh, so that’s why our back sucks and a man’s urethra goes through a gland that enlarges? Fair enough. But you can look at so many animals and ask why would the creator do that? e.g. random example #81763 Why are angler fish males basically parasites to the much larger female? Did the angler fish version of Adam really fuck up or what? This is also a problem for the label “Intelligent” Design. The natural world should more accurately be described as Malicious Design, if one takes into account how much built-in suffering there is in the natural world. If one takes the position that the Design we see is evidence of guided design rather than endpoints of evolution, what we are left with does not seem to speak for a charitable designer. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/44 "2010-01-10T15:00:51Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > So you see, I’m sure YEC IS factually incorrect, but I’m equally sure I’d much prefer it to be right just to prick the pomposity of their enemies. If you want to attack arrogance, why don’t you start with the mathematicians? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/45 "2010-01-10T18:35:27Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > That said, if we take the Garden of Eden story at face value, then it appears that at one time Man was not prone to disease as we know it. How this worked we don’t exactly know. Then the Fall brought death & misery into the world, & life became harder. This could be the point at which pathogens appeared. That is, what we now know as viruses & pernicious bacteria were allowed to mutate into dangerous forms. I’m pretty sure that for some pathogens, you’d have a really hard time working out what a plausible non-harmful pre-fall form could possibly _be_ - for lots of the things that ail man and beast (and herb, for that matter), the harmful thing is about all they’re capable of (well, that, and self-replication). Besides, even if we take this all at face value… what mechanism could have caused those those mutated dangerous forms to outcompete their supposedly benign peers? What _is_ that process called…? ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/46 "2010-01-10T21:16:06Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I’m pretty sure that for some pathogens, you’d have a really hard time working out what a plausible non-harmful pre-fall form could possibly _be_ - for lots of the things that ail man and beast (and herb, for that matter), the harmful thing is about all they’re capable of (well, that, and self-replication). > > Besides, even if we take this all at face value… what mechanism could have caused those those mutated dangerous forms to outcompete their supposedly benign peers? What _is_ that process called…? Misteriouswayosity. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/47 "2010-01-10T22:57:45Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > This is also a problem for the label “Intelligent” Design. The natural world should more accurately be described as Malicious Design, if one takes into account how much built-in suffering there is in the natural world. > > If one takes the position that the Design we see is evidence of guided design rather than endpoints of evolution, what we are left with does not seem to speak for a charitable designer. People are not comfortable with facing that life is a huge game of probabilities. Life is very complicated and a lot of things are occurring at the same time. People have been hit by meteors. Wrong place ,wrong time. It was not because of anything they did ,nor is some god sending them a message. My brother who never smoked, watched his diet and weight and exercised his whole life, came down with brain cancer. It falls into the shit happens category. Some people will just have something happen to them. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, but it is beyond predictability. It would be nice to capture it all into a nice predictable pattern. It will not happen. Evolution is just a lot of reactions going on . Sometimes there is a bad result. Sometimes a handy combination occurs which makes the host or the progeny a little more efficient. Those ones are good for the species. There is no good or bad in the religious sense. That is a fabrication of the human mind that does not want to face powerlessness. But there is no maliciousness. That is a human trait. Good thing for that. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/48 "2010-01-11T00:04:52Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > Misteriouswayosity. Or natural selection. Either way, if all the bugs and beasties that now afflict inhabitants of our world were once benign or useful, some of them must have changed a LOT - meaning that evolution is possible, or that they were subject to purposeful (and arguably malicious) change. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/49 "2010-01-11T18:26:50Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > Interesting. Do they call themselves “creationists”? Are “evolutionists” offended by the term?. > > What’s the difference between the terms “creationist” and “evolutionist”? > > ETA: No agenda here. I just never thought of “evolutionist” as a creationist term and something to be avoided. Then again, I am normally blind to this kind of sensitivities. That’s actually something of an interesting question. First, I want to address the issue of the term “Darwinist” because it’s far more obnoxious and more to the point. Have you ever noticed that religious people are actually more friendly and accepting towards people of other, contradictory religions than atheists? That’s a relative thing, of course - often they’re not friendly to either. But if you read polls about, for example, who you’d vote for for president, the guy who denies your magic guy in the sky but beliefs in his own different magic guy in the sky is treated much more tolerantly than the guy who says “uh, I believe in things with evidence behind them”. Now why is that? You would think that the guy saying “your magic dude in the sky doesn’t exist, but mine does and here are his rules!” would be a more offensive position than “I don’t believe in any of that stuff”, but it isn’t. Atheists are universally reviled amongst the religious. It’s one of the few things they can agree on. The reason for that, I think, is that the guy with the other magic sky dude isn’t a threat to your beliefs. He’s essentially on the same level as you, you both decide to buy into the set of beliefs in your culture based on faith. His views are different, but fundamentally you’re thinking on the same level. But the atheist is something different. Religious beliefs are reinforced by knowing that most of the people in your life are taking the same irrational plunge with you, and it gives you some sort of herd comfort. But the guy who comes in and says “let’s examine this issue objectively by thinking about it and looking at the evidence” threatens to bring your entire mental house of cards down. I don’t think religious people overtly think this, but on some deep level of consciousness I think they know their beliefs are weak and vulnerable to this sort of thing. So atheists represent a threat greater than those of other (and often totally incompatable) religions believe. So what’s their response to this? They try to turn atheism, and a belief in science and evidence in general, into a religion. You often see the (stupid and illogical) argument out of people like “you’re religious too, science is your religion!” This is an attempt to put atheism (and in general, any science issue that they’re uncomfortable with) on the same footing as their beliefs, in the same way that people with other religious beliefs aren’t that much a threat to them. “Oh, he has his silly beliefs, but they’re equivelant, just different, to my silly beliefs”. It’s essentially a defense mechanism against having to critically view your own beliefs, which on some level you understand would crumble under actual scrutiny. Which brings me back to “Darwinist”. The reality is that Darwin was the first person to put a few ideas together to explain observations. He did a lot of great work and he hit pretty close to the mark, but science is not a set of beliefs set in stone handed out by a prophet. It’s a constantly evolving sum of knowledge that is tweaked and added to and revised by people who make new observations and have new data in the future. Darwin didn’t know that genes existed, for example, (although he correctly predicted that there must be some physical component to heritability) and so clearly his works do not encompass all of our knowledge of evolution. The sum of our total knowledge of evolution is not limited to what Darwin knew in the same way that our knowledge of physics is not limited to what Newton knew, even though they both did valuable, revolutionary work. So it doesn’t make any more sense to call evolution “Darwinism” than it would to call physics “Newtonism”. So why do they do it? Because, as I said, they want to reduce atheism and science to the level of belief of any religious person. And so they think of Darwin as our prophet, the man we have unshakable belief in, whose words we treat as gospel. From there, they can attempt to discredit that one man - for instance, there’s a myth that Darwin recanted his belief in evolution on his deathbed and professed religious belief instead. They think that, if Darwin is our prophet, then his failing must prove that we’re wrong, and their beliefs must be superior. But the reality is that science does not rely on the beliefs or ideas of one man. Even if Darwin did on his deathbed say that he was wrong about evolution, it wouldn’t matter. The idea was out there, the evidence was out there, and the science was out there. No scientist has a relationship to science that a prophet does to his religion, as much as they’d like that to be. “Evolutionist” is a trickier term to handle, because what’s a quick way to refer to the people who accept the facts about evolution? “Scientist” is too generic a term and implies someone professionally working in the sciences. Really, it’s an unnecesary term - as **Der Trihs** elegantly put it, it’s trying to make a faction out of something where there’s universal agreement. Anyone who believes in the scientific method believes in evolution - there’s no controversy, no competing schools of thought - the evidence for it is so overwhelming and obvious that there’s no scientific controversy over the existance of evolution. So to even try to make a group out of “evolutionists” as opposed to people with critical thinking skills and scientific knowledge in general is misguided. But then again “people with critical thinking skills and a scientific knowledge in general” is a pretty clunky phrase to use in an argument, so I’m not sure what to use as an alternative. So when people say “evolutionist” when I can’t think of a more concise, elegant way to put it, I usually let it slide, although I do think it carries a lot of the same taint that “Darwinist” does. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/50 "2010-01-27T21:31:04Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Which brings me back to “Darwinist”. The reality is that Darwin was the first person to put a few ideas together to explain observations. He did a lot of great work and he hit pretty close to the mark, but science is not a set of beliefs set in stone handed out by a prophet. It’s a constantly evolving sum of knowledge that is tweaked and added to and revised by people who make new observations and have new data in the future. Darwin didn’t know that genes existed, for example, (although he correctly predicted that there must be some physical component to heritability) and so clearly his works do not encompass all of our knowledge of evolution. The sum of our total knowledge of evolution is not limited to what Darwin knew in the same way that our knowledge of physics is not limited to what Newton knew, even though they both did valuable, revolutionary work. So it doesn’t make any more sense to call evolution “Darwinism” than it would to call physics “Newtonism”. I recall one young woman who insisted that she wasn’t a fundamentalist make this “point” on another discussion site: She pointed out that biological evolution was moot because Darwin had recanted on his deathbed. Poof! No more evolution! Of course, the story is total crap, and Darwin actually went from Christian belief to agnosticism. But even if it were a true story, it would not destroy evolution. * * * There has been much reference to the Fall in this thread, but none about the Deluge, Bible version. It would seem to be a problem for Creationists that since many diseases are simply living things (quasi-life in the case of viruses?) they would have had to have been aboard the ark of Noah. Not that they would be at loss for an “answer.” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/51 "2010-01-27T22:17:27Z")
As a quick aside, I have always thought a good replacement term for ‘evolutionist’ would be ‘biologist’ since that is, after all, what the discipline is actually called. Just sayin… ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/52 "2010-01-27T22:22:01Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > As a quick aside, I have always thought a good replacement term for ‘evolutionist’ would be ‘biologist’ since that is, after all, what the discipline is actually called. > > Just sayin… I believe in evolution, but I’m no biologist. And evolution is only a very small subset of the field of biology - except the bits that aren’t tied to biology at all like natural selection, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/53 "2010-01-27T23:19:18Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I believe in evolution, but I’m no biologist. > > And evolution is only a very small subset of the field of biology - except the bits that aren’t tied to biology at all like natural selection, anyway. Not really, no. Evolution is the central unifying fact of biology; “without evolution biology becomes nothing but a collection of unrelated facts” is one way I’ve heard it put. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/54 "2010-01-27T23:26:08Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Not really, no. Evolution is the central unifying fact of biology; “without evolution biology becomes nothing but a collection of unrelated facts” is one way I’ve heard it put. Unrelated? Being _biological_ is the central unifying fact of biology, and it and the study of it predated the realization of evolution by a fair bit. I like the theory of evolution too, but let’s not get carried away. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/55 "2010-01-27T23:47:50Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Unrelated? Being _biological_ is the central unifying fact of biology, and it and the study of it predated the realization of evolution by a fair bit. And before evolution came along, it was largely all about collecting and organizing data; understanding what was going on required evolution. It’s even worse now; the more we look into biology, the more central evolution becomes. Avoiding talking about evolution means you have to leave out a wide variety of biological phenomena as well as reducing it to a mass of unconnected data. You might as well try to talk about biology without mentioning ingestion - don’t talk about teeth! Or the stomach, or the intestines! Or cell walls! Or predation! ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/56 "2010-01-27T23:57:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And before evolution came along, it was largely all about collecting and organizing data; understanding what was going on required evolution. It’s even worse now; the more we look into biology, the more central evolution becomes. Avoiding talking about evolution means you have to leave out a wide variety of biological phenomena as well as reducing it to a mass of unconnected data. > > You might as well try to talk about biology without mentioning ingestion - don’t talk about teeth! Or the stomach, or the intestines! Or cell walls! Or predation! (This is kind of a pointless tangent, but…) I’d think it’s rather obvious that while things may become unconnected\*, you certainly don’t have to leave phenomena _out_. Heck, you don’t even have to leave out phenomena that we commonly think of in evolutionary terms - animal husbandry was happening _before_ Darwin, remember? - And even then only unconnected to the degree that only evolution connected them. The way your spleen works with the rest of your body can be perfectly understood without touching on how it evolved. Seriously man, you’re wrong about this. That fact doesn’t change the fact that evolution is obviously true and pretty important in explaining how and why the specific current biological forms _developed_ - but you’re still wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/57 "2010-01-28T00:15:37Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’d think it’s rather obvious that while things may become unconnected\*, you certainly don’t have to leave phenomena _out_. Heck, you don’t even have to leave out phenomena that we commonly think of in evolutionary terms - animal husbandry was happening _before_ Darwin, remember? And therefore was left alone by the various Believers, because no one knew what it meant. And then along comes Darwin, and we end up with nonsense ranging from Lysenkoism from the Communists to the Christian denial that overuse of antibiotics in animals can cause bacteria to evolve antibiotic resistance. Denying evolution means you need to deny scientific proven, economically and medically important facts. Evolution is occurring everywhere, all the time, and affecting all of life in large and small ways; denying evolution means you are withdrawing into a biological fantasy world. > [@begbert2](#): > > The way your spleen works with the rest of your body can be perfectly understood without touching on how it evolved. Until it gets, say, cancer - which is an evolutionary process. Or someone asks why it works in the way it does. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/58 "2010-01-28T00:24:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And therefore was left alone by the various Believers, because no one knew what it meant. And then along comes Darwin, and we end up with nonsense ranging from Lysenkoism from the Communists to the Christian denial that overuse of antibiotics in animals can cause bacteria to evolve antibiotic resistance. > > Denying evolution means you need to deny scientific proven, economically and medically important facts. Evolution is occurring everywhere, all the time, and affecting all of life in large and small ways; denying evolution means you are withdrawing into a biological fantasy world. > > Until it gets, say, cancer - which is an evolutionary process. Or someone asks why it works in the way it does. And yet, there’s large amounts of biology that can be understood without referencing biology (since you don’t _have_ to ask why it works the way it does). Sure, you’re in fantasyland when you deny evolution. But you’re not in a fantasyland that inherently\* leaves you staring in slackjawed incomprehension at every biological process you encounter. - Sure there’s a correlation, but if there’s causation I’d say it runs the other direction. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/59 "2010-01-28T00:29:26Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > And yet, there’s large amounts of biology that can be understood without referencing biology (since you don’t _have_ to ask why it works the way it does). > > Sure, you’re in fantasyland when you deny evolution. But you’re not in a fantasyland that inherently\* leaves you staring in slackjawed incomprehension at every biological process you encounter. Pretty much, yes it does. When you spend that much time denying reality about a field, you aren’t going to be able to do well at anything involving any aspect of what you are denying. Which is why you aren’t likely to find creationist biologists. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238/60 "2010-01-28T00:37:56Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Pretty much, yes it does. When you spend that much time denying reality about a field, you aren’t going to be able to do well at anything involving any aspect of what you are denying. Which is why you aren’t likely to find creationist biologists. Correlation/causation, buddy. There’s lots of possible reasons why you would find few creationist biologists, including a possible correlation with antievolutionary creationism and being too stupid/ignroant to get a biology degree, and the possibility of an institutional bias against antievolutionist biologists which might deter them from entering or rising in the field. And this is a pretty sideways way to attempt to demonstrate that everything in biology requires an understanding/acceptance of evolution to comprehend it. Maybe you should stop trying to demonstrate that (clearly false) claim. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-creationist-explain-disease/524238.md?page=4)