# I Don't Like Being Called Irrational. \[Just because I do not accept the Theory of Evolution.\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 19, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755 "2013-05-19T19:55:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Atarii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@Atarii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atarii)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/1 "2013-05-19T19:55:03Z")
Every time I read an article on the Straight Dope I can almost immediately discern if it is David writing the article because he will oftentimes make some offhand jab at intelligent design proponents, or creationists, while bolstering the (pitifully inadequate) theory of evolution. I’m a Christian, but I am filled with doubt, conflict and wonder, but even despite questioning my own beliefs, I have no doubt that evolution is false, because the evidence is weak or contradicts known laws. For instance, microevolution is true, but evolutionists like to say that macroevolution is true too, by extension, which is like saying that if I can walk across the street, then I can fly across the Atlantic, “by extension.” The point is not to say that God exists, or creation or intelligent design is true, the point is that you gotta be really arrogant to insult a certain group of people who have one school of thought, when your own theory is so terrible. (Oh, yeah, we know this creature existed because of two teeth the size of grains of rice. We know it’s habits and exactly how it looked. . . because of two teeth. Not possible.) ---
**Author:** ![Tatterdemalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/43a26b/32.png) [@Tatterdemalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tatterdemalion)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/2 "2013-05-19T20:05:06Z")
> [@Atarii](#): > > I have no doubt that evolution is false, because the evidence is weak or contradicts known laws. Yup, you’re irrational. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/3 "2013-05-19T20:08:55Z")
Gee, talk about arrogant _and_ irrational. Great combo! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/4 "2013-05-19T20:15:56Z")
> [@Atarii](#): > > For instance, microevolution is true, but evolutionists like to say that macroevolution is true too, by extension, which is like saying that if I can walk across the street, then I can fly across the Atlantic, “by extension.” That seems a false analogy. It’s perhaps more like saying that if you can walk across the street you can walk across the US. Which you can; given enough time. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/5 "2013-05-19T20:17:07Z")
> [@Atarii](#): > > I Don’t Like Being Called Irrational. Totally understandable. Nobody likes being called irrational. Might I gently suggest that the easiest solution to minimize this problem is to stop being irrational. While you’re working on that, you might want to acquaint yourself with the [Straw Man Fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). Nothing you’re saying “evolutionists” say is something that actual scientists studying evolution say. So, yes, I agree with your points. Good thing they’re irrelevant to actual evolutionary theory. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/6 "2013-05-19T20:18:50Z")
> [@Atarii](#): > > Every time I read an article on the Straight Dope I can almost immediately discern if it is David writing the article because he will oftentimes make some offhand jab at intelligent design proponents, or creationists, while bolstering the (pitifully inadequate) theory of evolution. > > I’m a Christian, but I am filled with doubt, conflict and wonder, but even despite questioning my own beliefs, I have no doubt that evolution is false, because the evidence is weak or contradicts known laws. > For instance, microevolution is true, but evolutionists like to say that macroevolution is true too, by extension, which is like saying that if I can walk across the street, then I can fly across the Atlantic, “by extension.” Not even wrong, but the problem is that the sources that you rely on are misleading with the terms they use: > **[CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html)** > [@](#): > > Response: > > Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed. > > Creationists have created another category for which they use the word “macroevolution.” They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution. > > Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution. > [@Atarii](#): > > The point is not to say that God exists, or creation or intelligent design is true, the point is that you gotta be really arrogant to insult a certain group of people who have one school of thought, when your own theory is so terrible. Nope, it is the other way around, the insult comes for telling many that creationism or ID is science. > **[CA325: Creationists publishing](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA325.html)** > [@](#): > > The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985). > > In the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication. > > Creationists are free to publish in other venues, such as books and their own journals. These venues are as reputable as their authors and editors. Note that Darwin’s major works were published in books. > [@Atarii](#): > > (Oh, yeah, we know this creature existed because of two teeth the size of grains of rice. We know it’s habits and exactly how it looked. . . because of two teeth. Not possible.) > **[CC401: Fossil reconstruction from bits](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC401.html)** > [@](#): > > Evolution is not based on fragmentary fossils. The theory would still be extremely robust with no fossils at all, based on evidence from modern life. Furthermore, there are more than enough substantially complete skeletons to support evolution. The whale transitional sequence, for example, is based on several excellent skeletons. > > A single bone, even in isolation, can give a surprising amount of information. A tooth, for example, can show generally what kind of food an animal ate and give an idea of its size. These conclusions, in turn, tell how the animal fits into the ecology. > > … > > **The ability to deduce much about a fossil from a single tooth or bone was made famous by anatomist and paleontologist Georges Cuvier. In 1804, for example, he confidently announced that a French fossil was an opossum (then unknown from France) on the basis of only its teeth (Zimmer 1998, 135-137). Cuvier was a creationist.** ---
**Author:** ![Atarii](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@Atarii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atarii)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/7 "2013-05-19T20:19:05Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > That seems a false analogy. It’s perhaps more like saying that if you can walk across the street you can walk across the US. Which you can; given enough time. Which would be true, except macroevolution does not say that one thing becomes “bigger,” it says that one thing becomes “different.” Arms become wings, not stronger arms, you perceive. > [@](#): > > The ability to deduce much about a fossil from a single tooth or bone was made famous by anatomist and paleontologist Georges Cuvier. In 1804, for example, he confidently announced that a French fossil was an opossum (then unknown from France) on the basis of only its teeth (Zimmer 1998, 135-137). Cuvier was a creationist. Quite interesting. To the study-mobile! ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/8 "2013-05-19T20:19:34Z")
> [@Atarii](#): > > the point is that you gotta be really arrogant to insult a certain group of people who have one school of thought, when your own theory is so terrible. Maybe if you had actually gone to a proper school, you could have proper thoughts on the matter. But, it’s never too late. Start reading. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/9 "2013-05-19T20:23:50Z")
> [@Atarii](#): > > Which would be true, except macroevolution does not say that one thing becomes “bigger,” it says that one thing becomes “different.” > Arms become wings, not stronger arms, you perceive. > > Quite interesting. > To the study-mobile! And that should be [Talkorigins.org](http://Talkorigins.org) : > **[Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html)** > > In evolutionary biology today macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another. > [@](#): > > Creationists often assert that “macroevolution” is not proven, even if “microevolution” is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism. > > In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means “big”, and micro at the beginning of a word just means “small” (both from the Greek words). For example, “macrofauna” means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while “microfauna” means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be “macro” by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct. > > In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning “the origin of a branch”, see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels. > > Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/10 "2013-05-19T20:24:34Z")
> [@Atarii](#): > > Every time I read an article on the Straight Dope I can almost immediately discern if it is David writing the article because he will oftentimes make some offhand jab at intelligent design proponents, or creationists, while bolstering the (pitifully inadequate) theory of evolution. > > I’m a Christian, but I am filled with doubt, conflict and wonder, but even despite questioning my own beliefs, I have no doubt that evolution is false, because the evidence is weak or contradicts known laws. > For instance, microevolution is true, but evolutionists like to say that macroevolution is true too, by extension, which is like saying that if I can walk across the street, then I can fly across the Atlantic, “by extension.” > > The point is not to say that God exists, or creation or intelligent design is true, the point is that you gotta be really arrogant to insult a certain group of people who have one school of thought, when your own theory is so terrible. > (Oh, yeah, we know this creature existed because of two teeth the size of grains of rice. We know it’s habits and exactly how it looked. . . because of two teeth. Not possible.) You’ve been given incorrect knowledge. And since your “knowledge” is flawed, you are coming up with faulty conclusions. If you had access to correct information your reasoning would stand a chance of success. So, I’d say you might not be irrational, but you’re misinformed, and still utterly wrong. For instance, read this simple example to see why your understanding of macro vs. micro is wrong: [Imgur: The magic of the Internet](http://i.imgur.com/KQfUewL.jpg) Now, if you can read that, and still cling to your position, yeah, you’re irrational. Because you’ll see for yourself that you’re wrong, but will decide to ignore it in favor of comfortable misinformation. The fact is that evolution is so supported that no one who actually knows even a little about biology can doubt it. It is almost like saying you doubt gravity because you can throw a ball up in the air. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/11 "2013-05-19T20:29:01Z")
> [@Atarii](#): > > I have no doubt that evolution is false, because the evidence is weak or contradicts known laws. What are the “known laws” you think it contradicts? ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/12 "2013-05-19T20:44:02Z")
One thing I’ve never seen creationists even attempt to explain, when they say that microevolution is fine, but macroevolution is impossible: How do you stop it? If you accept that microevolution happens, then you’re accepting that genes can change, mutate, adapt, etc, over time, leading to small-scale changes in a species. OK, so how do you then draw a line and say evolution can’t go farther than that? The most common definition of macroevolution is change at the species level or higher. Well, science says that speciation can occur when just a few mutations happen in genes involved in sexual reproduction (look up the Dobzhansky-Muller model of speciation or the work of Daniel Barbash for examples). So, if you accept that genes can mutate and change, what is the mechansim that prevents those things happening to the specific, special genes that lead to speciation? Remember that at a fundamental level, the “species” grouping is artificial. It’s a dividing line we humans made up. So how is it that we prevent a natural process like evolution from crossing the line that WE drew in the sand? ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/13 "2013-05-19T20:50:48Z")
> [@Atarii](#): > > Which would be true, except macroevolution does not say that one thing becomes “bigger,” it says that one thing becomes “different.” > Arms become wings, not stronger arms, you perceive. I’ll happily leave the specifics to more knowledgeable folk such as **GIGObuster** , but I’d suggest that (leaving aside the lack of rigour around "macro-evolution), that it’s perhaps more like: heat exchangers that are larger are found to have some use extending jumps, these prove to be a survival advantage and get passed to descendants, eventually these become useful for gliding, and eventually become useful for flying. Going back to the walking analogy, you walk across the street, then across town, eventually you cross into another State, and eventually reach the opposite sea-board… each walk is small, but overall you’ve walked across a continent. > [@](#): > > To the study-mobile! Cool! Because I was thinking, that if by “contradicts known laws” you meant scientific laws – a common misconception is to state that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics – then definitely go and read up on this. (Try [talkorigins on thermodynamics](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html)). If by “known laws” you meant something else… well you may not find the answers you want. 🙂 The following is a quote from a poster on the Fark forums which might interest you: [QUOTE=Lizard\_SF (Fark forums 6 July 2010)] "Let me try this another way. Suppose, in the interest of debating Christianity, I said to you, “How is it that of God’s five sons, which he bore upon five different mothers at different times in history (See Aristotle 5:6-16), it was only Jesus who actually went into hell and fought Satan hand-to-hand (Cohen 14:2-45), while the others just sat around? Also, when Thor and Hercules meet Moses in the desert (Second Exodus, 17:1-12), why does the Bible have Thor wielding a sword, instead of his famous hammer?” "You’d look at me slack-jawed for a second or two, then tell me that I clearly haven’t read the Bible, know nothing about Christianity, and you can’t answer these questions because they’re nonsensical – it’s like asking “If 2 and 2 makes oranges, how can you say pi=51?” The question shows such a fundamental level of ignorance that the only way to “answer” it is to go back to ground zero and start over, and, by the time you’ve learned enough to ask a sensible question, you’d know why your first question was nonsense. “Based on your posts here, that’s the state you’re at with your “knowledge” of evolution. You’re speaking nonsense. Your questions can only be “answered” by starting you over in first grade and teaching you science. There are certainly many intelligent and interesting questions to be asked about evolution – this is why scientists keep filling up journals with new studies, new discoveries, etc – they ask the question and then they seek out the answers. You, however, do not yet possess enough knowledge to ask those questions. This doesn’t mean you’re stupid, just ill-informed. The main question for you, then, is are you willing to invest the time to learn what you need to learn to ask the right questions, or do you prefer ignorance? Your call.” [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/14 "2013-05-19T21:07:07Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@Atarii](#): > > > > I have no doubt that evolution is false, because the evidence is weak or contradicts known laws. > > What are the “known laws” you think it contradicts? I, too, am curious as to what laws you believe are violated by the Theory of Evolution. As to the weakness of the evidence, it is not so much weak as overwhelming. > [@Atarii](#): > > For instance, microevolution is true, but evolutionists like to say that macroevolution is true too, by extension, which is like saying that if I can walk across the street, then I can fly across the Atlantic, “by extension.” That is not the reason that is given to support macroevolution. It is not true “by extension,” but because the evidence supports the Theory. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/15 "2013-05-19T21:12:26Z")
Can’t say I love seeing you attribute his quote to me. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/16 "2013-05-19T21:24:30Z")
I would say the broad framework of the theory of evolution is probably one of the best demonstrated (i.e. the most evidence exists for ) in the whole of science: there’s just so many independent lines of evidence for it. And that’s not just rhetoric either, not scientific theory is beyond question, but for me there’s so much evidence it’s difficult to think what kind of way you could reasonably question the theory (compare to say Einstein’s general relativity where I can think of so many reasonable lines of which you could question, despite it probably being the best gravitational theory we have). ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/17 "2013-05-19T21:26:30Z")
If you don’t like being called irrational then I suggest you spend more time using reason and logic. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/18 "2013-05-19T21:26:56Z")
> [@Atarii](#): > > Every time I read an article on the Straight Dope I can almost immediately discern if it is David writing the article David who? > [@](#): > > I’m a Christian, but I am filled with doubt, conflict and wonder, but even despite questioning my own beliefs, I have no doubt that evolution is false, because the evidence is weak or contradicts known laws. Recommended reading for you: the (perhaps misleadingly-titled) book by Francis Collins: [The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief](http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368998293&sr=1-1%5B/url), especially the latter part of the book, where he, as a scientist and a Christian, explains the case for evolution, and what’s wrong with Creationism and Intelligent Design. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/19 "2013-05-19T21:30:05Z")
I trust our visitor has never been to a museum of natural history, where you are surrounded by the evidence that he says is lacking. I wonder also what he thinks the theory of evolution says. If one cannot express this, one can’t really refute it. As for wings not being arms, he must never have eaten a chicken. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755/20 "2013-05-19T21:30:10Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Can’t say I love seeing you attribute his quote to me. 😉 Sorry. Fixed. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-being-called-irrational-just-because-i-do-not-accept-the-theory-of-evolution/658755.md?page=2)