# Questions.Creationists
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 4, 2005, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448 "2005-02-04T23:29:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)
#### Post date: [February 4, 2005, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/1 "2005-02-04T23:29:32Z")
.05.02.04
Questions for Creationists
(I’ll get to them eventually)
The morning gospel preacher came on with the tube. He was all worked up over evolution. As I like to monitor the rantings of anti-Christians, I watched as I got ready. It is all ways best to know thine enemy.
In the 20 minutes before my duty would call, he described the internal workings of a cell as a factory. It took him twenty minutes to say that this was much too complicated to have formed “naturally”. This was all he could say when given twenty minutes. You just now read the same in less than 20 (if not closer to 2) seconds.
I can only assume he was trying to hypnotize the weak of mind. Evidently it works.
Yet, still, it is not true. An untruth is an untruth, even when it is belabored, even when it is spoken ten thousand times.
Imagine how confusing this is to our youth. How can one properly learn to judge truth, when the people you should be able to trust, are not above untruth?
To the undecided, I offer the first question:
What do you wish to understand about evolution or creation?
To the creationists, pharisees and doubters:
Can you name at least one thing (other than species) that has not, will not ever change?
What is your strongest proof against evolution? (After the Bible of course.)
Peace through Liberty and Knowledge
rwjefferson
a Recovering Methodist
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [February 4, 2005, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/2 "2005-02-04T23:35:19Z")
Just for the record, this board isn’t really a creationist hangout, as far as I can tell. I think we’ve got a few Intelligent Design people and some Theistic Evolutionists. There might be other places where you can get a better, less one sided conversation on this.
---
### Author:  [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/3 "2005-02-05T00:43:39Z")
Thank you for your comment. I hand it to the high caliber of the Straight Dope Debaters.
Are there any intelligent design people out there that wish to discuss ideas?
I wish to hear your evidence, but will settle for your argument, if no evidence is available.
r~
---
### Author:  [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/4 "2005-02-05T00:49:56Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#):
>
> Are there any intelligent design people out there that wish to discuss ideas?
Even this likely won’t get you many takers. In my experience, fishing expeditions such as this don’t net many keepers. The lengthy discussions usually occur when an creationist or IDer starts the thread.
---
### Author:  [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/5 "2005-02-05T03:00:34Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#):
>
> .05.02.04
> To the creationists, pharisees and doubters:
> Can you name at least one thing (other than species) that has not, will not ever change?
> What is your strongest proof against evolution? (After the Bible of course.)
> Peace through Liberty and Knowledge
>
> rwjefferson
> a Recovering Methodist
Q 1 is not a challenge to Creationists- even most YEC believe in vast changes within kinds/species, or what has been called “micro-evolution” (and the propriety of that term was strongly debated here in years past). (Macro-)Evolutionary thought calls for the eventual changes from one species into another.
Q 2- my strongest arguments against Evolution (moresoe against “Evolutionism”- the idea that everything develops out of mindless natural processes)- the
unlikeliness of order, life, mind developing randomly out of chaos, lifelessness, mindlessness. I can’t buy that at all. G.K. Chesterton in THE EVERLASTING MAN acknowledged that while the development of life may or may not have been along an evolutionary scenario, it can’t be reduced to that. To him, evidences of a Creator come from the emergence of order from chaos, life from lifelessness, more advanced animals from lesser ones, humanity from the animals, the Jews from humanity, Jesus from the Jews.
AFAIK, God may have used evolution as His methodology, even with the creation of humanity. My main fight is against materialist reductionism, aka naturalism, not with evolutionary theory.
---
### Author:  [@Good\_Egg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Good_Egg)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/6 "2005-02-05T03:12:03Z")
I’ve always heard if evolution happened, why are there still lower forms of life?
You asked “one thing that will never change”-death.
---
### Author:  [@Abbie\_Carmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abbie_Carmichael)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/7 "2005-02-05T03:39:40Z")
> [@Good Egg](#):
>
> I’ve always heard if evolution happened, why are there still lower forms of life?
Because lawyers are incapable of evolving.
😉
---
### Author:  [@Backwater\_Under\_Duck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Backwater_Under_Duck)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/8 "2005-02-05T04:10:15Z")
> [@Good Egg](#):
>
> You asked “one thing that will never change”-death.
Yet isn’t it true that single cell organisms such as amoeba, that reproduce through by means of fission, never technically die?
I don’t know, just asking.
---
### Author:  [@Good\_Egg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Good_Egg)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/9 "2005-02-05T04:35:01Z")
So they are sortof like the original sourdough dough, yes?
😉
---
### Author:  [@633squadron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/633squadron)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/10 "2005-02-05T05:30:00Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#):
>
> In the 20 minutes before my duty would call, he described the internal workings of a cell as a factory. It took him twenty minutes to say that this was much too complicated to have formed “naturally”.
The argument he presented sounds like some variation of “irreducible complexity” (IR). IR was proposed by a member of the scientific community who noted that some biochemical systems didn’t seem like they could have “evolved.” The counter-argument is that evolution/natural selection does not presuppose moving from a simple system to a complex one. A system that appears to be IR could have evolved from a _more_ complex system whose predecessors are more obvious.
If you want the Creationist argument and counter-arguments, go to WikiPedia and look up creationism. Not only is it well-covered, but it’s constantly being updated and critiqued.
Someone else commented on the ideas surrounding “what started it all.” As others have pointed out, evolution/natural selection does not presuppose an answer to this. As far as I know, Darwin never said anything about it. Many theories exist, but none has any conclusive proof associated with it. The theory of natural selection, combined with molecular biology, proposes a mechanism by which lifeforms change over time, thus explaining the existence of distinct species and the variation between two species that seem closely related.
I suspect that we will never know what “started” life unless we have the incredible luck to see it starting somewhere else in the universe.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/11 "2005-02-05T06:01:43Z")
> [@FriarTed](#):
>
> Q 1 is not a challenge to Creationists- even most YEC believe in vast changes within kinds/species, or what has been called “micro-evolution” (and the propriety of that term was strongly debated here in years past). (Macro-)Evolutionary thought calls for the eventual changes from one species into another.
There is no mechanical difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution. That is an artficial boundary invented by creationists. It’s like admitting that hair can grow one inch but no way can it grow _six_ inches. It’s the same thing. Macro is just a whole lot of micro. If you accept “microevolution” then you accept evolution. If “microevolution” occurs then speciation must also occur unless something were to stop it. What mechanism would stop it?
Also speciation has been directly observed anyway so it’s a completely moot objection. There is no question that evolution occurs in that species mutate and change over time. That is an observed phenomenon. The _theory_ of evolution is about _how_ and _why_ it occurs, not _whether_ it occurs. It also includes common descent of all species which is really the sticking point for creationists.
[quote]
Q 2- my strongest arguments against Evolution (moresoe against “Evolutionism”- the idea that everything develops out of mindless natural processes)[.quote]
This is a completely erroneous definition of evolution…and there is no such thing in science as “evolutionism.”
> [@](#):
>
> the unlikeliness of order, life, mind developing randomly out of chaos, lifelessness, mindlessness. I can’t buy that at all. G.K. Chesterton in THE EVERLASTING MAN acknowledged that while the development of life may or may not have been along an evolutionary scenario, it can’t be reduced to that. To him, evidences of a Creator come from the emergence of order from chaos, life from lifelessness, more advanced animals from lesser ones, humanity from the animals, the Jews from humanity, Jesus from the Jews.
>
> AFAIK, God may have used evolution as His methodology, even with the creation of humanity. My main fight is against materialist reductionism, aka naturalism, not with evolutionary theory.
Without getting into the likeliness of the above, I just want to point out that it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution only explains what happened \*after life began on Earth.
Evolutionary theory is not a theory about the origin of life, or about the origin of the universe or about the existence of God. If it could be proven that God created the universe and then zapped the waters of the Earth to create the first lifeforms, evolutionary theory would be completely unaffected. Nothing in the theory would have to change or be adjusted.
---
### Author:  [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/12 "2005-02-05T06:57:25Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> There is no mechanical difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution. That is an artficial boundary invented by creationists.
This is not correct. The concepts of microevolution and macroevolution are alive and well within evolutionary biology (the terms were coined by an entomologist). In fact, I quote the following from the text _Evolutionary Biology_ (2nd ed), by Douglas J. Futuyma:
> [@](#):
>
> We are concerned with what is generally called macroevoltuion or “evoltuion above the species level”. The question of whether or not macroevolution ential different processes from microevolution, or genetic change within populations and species, was a contentious issue earlier in this century [the 20th, that is], and has been revived recently, especially by some paleontologists and developmental biologists.
> [@](#):
>
> The current complexion of the Equidae is as fully a consequence of extinction versus survival of lineages as it is of adaptive change within populations. In this sense, macroevolution is indeed decoupled from microevolution, for microevolutionary events have no long-term consequences if they are obliterated by extinction. To understand evolution in the long run, it is as necessary to study the history of speciation events and extinction events as it is to study the processes of microevolution. A comprehensive view of evolution, then, must be hierarchical in its structure, encompassing both the dynamics of species and higher taxa, and of the genotypes and genes they include.
> [@](#):
>
> Thus the major problem of macroevolution, the evolution of complex traits that cannot function unless their several parts evolve in concert, may be partly solved by the hierarchical, integrated nature of development.
So, they are valid evolutionary terms. However, this is not to say that creationists haven’t latched onto the terms and twisted meaning from them which is not generally meant by evolutionary biologists. An easy counter to any creationists who claims to not accept macroevolution (while accepting microevolution) is to ask if they therefore do not accept that extinction occurs, as extinction is a macroevolutionary concept.
---
### Author:  [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/13 "2005-02-05T07:04:47Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#):
>
> To the undecided, I offer the first question:
> What do you wish to understand about evolution or creation?
Why can’t they both be compatible? Why are there holes in arguments for both?
(Hey, this sounds like a theology debate.) :smack:
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/14 "2005-02-05T07:04:55Z")
I said there is no _mechanical_ difference. There is no mechanical _barrier_ between the two events as creationists like to imply.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/15 "2005-02-05T07:06:05Z")
> [@Othersider](#):
>
> Why can’t they both be compatible? Why are there holes in arguments for both?
There are no holes in evolutionary theory.
---
### Author:  [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/16 "2005-02-05T07:26:59Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> There are no holes in evolutionary theory.
I’m not a creationist, so I’m not arguing against it because I think it’s wrong. On the contrary, I would find it hard to believe there are people that believe in the scientific method, but think there is no merit in the theory of evolution. But many people have poked holes in the theory of evolution. I’m sure there are many websites that have collected some of them. If you insist, I will find you some, but it hardly seems worth my time right now.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/17 "2005-02-05T07:38:17Z")
Nobody has poked holes in evolutionary theory. You are misinformed and, I suspect, not aware of how the word “theory” is defined in science. I am not trying to pick a fight with you, I honestly think you’ve been given bad information.
---
### Author:  [@anonymousbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anonymousbob)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/18 "2005-02-05T08:09:16Z")
> [@](#):
>
> There is no mechanical difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution. That is an artficial boundary invented by creationists. It’s like admitting that hair can grow one inch but no way can it grow six inches. It’s the same thing. Macro is just a whole lot of micro.
That statment its self makes the argument against evolution.
We know that viri probably traveled here from space long before life could even under the best conditions have formed on its own. We know given the estimated ages of both the earth and the universe, that conditions would have been right
[quote]
elsewhere long before earth was a dribble down milkys leg. For us to live under the delusion that life got its start from the muck of this world is pure loonisy. we stopped believing the earth was the center of the universe a long time ago. Get a news paper its 2005.
:smack:
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/19 "2005-02-05T08:14:16Z")
I have no idea what you’re talking about. You seem to be implying that terrestrial life came from outer space, which…whatever…but you misspelled “lunacy.”
---
### Author:  [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)
#### Post date: [February 5, 2005, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/20 "2005-02-05T08:48:17Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> I said there is no _mechanical_ difference. There is no mechanical _barrier_ between the two events as creationists like to imply.
Agreed. I suspect that creationists make the distinction because they subconsciously (or consciously) equate macroevolution with changes in _kind_ (however it is they define that word), rather than changes from one species to another (which is but one macroevolutionary concept; there are others), despite **FriarTed** ’s wording.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448.md?page=2)