# Questions.Creationists **URL:** \ **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:** 3
**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:** [February 5, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/41 "2005-02-05T23:37:53Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > Do you understand that this belief does not belong in public schools? I really hope you just worded this poorly - you do mean that _it shouldn’t form part of the curriculum_, don’t you? (as opposed to some bizarre kind of thought-police). ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/42 "2005-02-06T00:20:38Z")
**bob** : Perhaps you should have put a link in with your post, but no matter: [My Cite.](http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp) Not on the up and up for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/43 "2005-02-06T01:02:45Z")
**Bob** , it is no trick to find a bunch of fundies with impressive sounding credentials who believe in creationism. The PhD , in itself, means nothing. The fact that a creationist is a medical doctor means nothing. What counts is whether they have actually submitted a scientific argument or objection for peer review. There is, in fact, no “growing consensus” in any of the relevant disciplines that evolutionary theory is in any sort of danger whatsoever. Also, the fact that you personally can’t understand something is hardly an argument against it. Just ask somebody to explain it to you. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/44 "2005-02-06T01:22:51Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > And I am saying that some people _have_ and _do_ dispute the validity of evolutionary theory. Here are several examples I found by a simple search: > [- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -](http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp). I just opened this one, at random. The author makes his case on the basis of 5 arguments (in bold, blue, characters). All five are blatantly false. I didn’t even read further. Like everybody else says, these arguments aren’t holes, they don’t even need to be discussed. They’re just _false_ . Evolution has been observed, it doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics, there are transitional fossils, the theory of evolution doesn’t say that life originated and evolution proceeds by random chance, and it isn’t “just a theory that hasn’t been proven”. All the author’s premises being completely wrong, there’s no point in reading the demonstration made on this basis. It’s just like discussing astronomy with someone beginning with : “since the sun rises in the north…” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/45 "2005-02-06T01:31:21Z")
> [@anonymousbob](#): > > A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism > . . . > There are a few. [100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/) > [@](#): > > 100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism > A list conducted by the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute (DI) which got 103 people with doctorates in science to sign the following statement: > I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. > > It should be noted that some of the signers this list do accept that humans share a common ancestor with a chimpanzee and that, contrary to the list’s implication, modern evolutionary biology does recognize factors other than mutation and selection. This particular list sometimes lists the institution that granted the signers’ doctorates and sometimes lists their current position apparently depending on which sounds more prestigious. In a magazine advertisement (PDF format), the Discovery Institute added two more people and a misleading quotation: see Doubting Darwinism through Creative License. Yes, there are a few. Of course, not as many as the deceptive statement implies (and the list should be further reduced by those who have already retired (or died) and those in irrelevant disciplines who have not demonstrated an actual knowledge of the required biology and those who were willing to sign that particular statement (for whatever reason) who do not actually dispute neo-Darwinism, but only encourage sceptical thinking). I think that leaves Behe. Anyone else? (And still no holes in the Theory.) ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/46 "2005-02-06T02:18:54Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I really hope you just worded this poorly - you do mean that _it shouldn’t form part of the curriculum_, don’t you? (as opposed to some bizarre kind of thought-police). Agreed. I meant curriculum. r~ ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/47 "2005-02-06T02:25:57Z")
bob: Please tell me what you see as the biggest hole. One of us has been lied to. r~ P.S. Do you know the prophesy of the anti-Christ? ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/48 "2005-02-06T03:01:00Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > However, the phrase you used was not that people have _challenged_ evolutionary theory, (many have), but that people had “poked holes” in it. The citations you have provided range from the misinformed through the deluded to the truly dishonest, but none of those _challenges_ has successfully _poked a hole_ in the Theory of Evolution. That is what has prompted the responses you are receiving. I seem to have used the wrong word. My bad. I should have used the word “challenge” in my original post. I don’t know why I thought “poke hole in” was synonymous with “challenge”. > [@clairobscur](#): > > Evolution has been observed This is the only one that makes me wonder, since, you know, evolution doesn’t happen overnight, and people don’t usually live for hundreds of years. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/49 "2005-02-06T03:23:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by **Othersider** > This is the only one that makes me wonder, since, you know, evolution doesn’t happen overnight, and people don’t usually live for hundreds of years. You should probably do a little reading before you start posting statements like this here. Start with this: [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/50 "2005-02-06T03:30:14Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > I seem to have used the wrong word. My bad. I should have used the word “challenge” in my original post. I don’t know why I thought “poke hole in” was synonymous with “challenge”. If I object to an assertion that the earth is round by averring that, “it don’t look round to me,” I will have _challenged_ the assertion but I will not have come close to “poking a hole” in it. There are no serious, scientific challenges to evolutionary theory. There are are religious objections which are rooted in a desire to preserve an _a priori_ belief in the “inerrancy” of scripture. These objections are not scientific and are not proffered in scientific arenas or formulated as formal theories or arguments in peer reviewed journals and the like. They are purely religious teachings aimed at a naive and largely ill-informed audience of self-selected true believers. > [@](#): > > This is the only one that makes me wonder, since, you know, evolution doesn’t happen overnight, and people don’t usually live for hundreds of years. 😉 [Observed instances of speciation](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) [Some more](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html%5B/url) ---
**Author:** ![anonymousbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ea924/32.png) [@anonymousbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anonymousbob)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/51 "2005-02-06T03:53:02Z")
Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits. perhaps you should do some more reading before you post. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/52 "2005-02-06T04:02:19Z")
> [@anonymousbob](#): > > perhaps you should do some more reading before you post. We really need an irony smiley. “New traits” are called “mutations.” Do you deny that mutation exists? Also, you should click on one of those “observed speciation” links. You might find them helpful and informative. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/53 "2005-02-06T04:16:41Z")
**anonymousbob** , If your going to copy and paste others words, it is customary here to post the link of the site you got them from or post the author’s name. [Here](http://www.digisys.net/users/hoppnrmt/observed.htm) is one possible site you could’ve gotten your last post from, but I doubt it. I think you should take a look. ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/54 "2005-02-06T04:18:18Z")
> [@x-ray vision](#): > > You should probably do a little reading before you start posting statements like this here. Start with this: > [Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html) [Tongue-in-cheek Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tongue-in-cheek)😉 ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/55 "2005-02-06T05:44:23Z")
> [@anonymousbob](#): > > A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism > > “I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” > > -names- (probably 350) > > There are a few. > [@newsweek](#): > > The [American Association for the advancement of science’s] “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,” whose operative sentence reads We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" has been signed by 350 scientists. (AAAS has 120,000 members.) Another organizantio has circulated a countermanifesto asserting that “There is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occured or that natural selection is [the] major mechanism…” As a tongue-in-cheek tribute to the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, they signed up only scientists named Steve. At last count they had 528. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/56 "2005-02-06T05:46:35Z")
that will teach me not to preview posts… the non-quoted text is from Newsweek ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/57 "2005-02-06T05:47:44Z")
> [@Taber](#): > > that will teach me not to preview posts… > > the non-quoted text is from Newsweek I hate irony ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/58 "2005-02-06T06:42:31Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > Although it is indeed a simplification, I do not understand your disagreement. I said nothing about ladders. Please review my _basic understanding_ and please be more specific over “our” disagreement. I’m not sure we differ that greatly. My disagreement is with the general idea that organisms adapting to specific niches has anything at all do to with why primitive forms continue to exist (i.e., the answer is _not_ “simply that those niches still exist and there is no better solution to utilize that niche”). And the mention of “lower forms” and ladders was a response to the original example given about “if evolution happened, why are there still lower forms of life”. The question, as often phrased by creationists, is flawed as there is no such thing as a “lower form” because the course of evolution is not analogous to a ladder. > [@anonymousbob](#): > > “I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” That statement is not equivalent to your claim that “there is a very long and growing list of respectable scientists that _question the possibility of evolution_” (my emphasis). As I have already pointed out, there is, in fact, debate as to whether microevolutionary processes are sufficient to explain the complexity of life. But, let’s look at a few of the indivudals on your list: [Henry F. Schaefer](http://zopyros.ccqc.uga.edu/group/Dr.Schaefer.html): a respected scientist, indeed. However, let’s look at his [actual objections (.pdf doc)](http://www.westminsterhall.us/hfs3/evo_theory.pdf): > [@](#): > > Let me preface these brief remarks by noting that I think the scientific evidence that God created the universe 13-15 billion years ago is good. My first concern is that, with the collapse of the Miller-Urey model, there is no plausible scientific mechanism for the origin of life, i.e., the appearance of the first self-replicating biochemical system. The staggeringly high information content of the simplest living thing is not readily explained by evolutionists. Second, the time frame for speciation events seems all wrong to me. The major feature of the fossil > record is stasis, long periods in which new species do not appear. When new developments occur, they come rapidly, not gradually. My third area of reservation is that I find no satisfactory mechanism for macroevolutionary changes. Analogies between a few inches of change in the beaks of a Galapagos finch species and a purported transition from dinosaur to bird (or vice versa) appear to me inappropriate. First off, there _is no scientific evidence_ that God created the universe. There is evidence, indeed, that the universe is 13-15 billion years old. But there is not, and cannot be, scientific evidence for God having anything to do with its creation. Second, he invokes the common fallacy of equating abiogenesis with evolution. Thirdly, he appears ignorant of punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory aimed specifically at the observation of long periods of stasis followed by rapid periods of change and speciation within the fossil record. Finally, he resorts to exactly the confusion I mentioned earlier, where he essentially resorts to changes in “kind” as an argument against macroevolution. Yet, the fossil record is pretty claer regarding his very wexample of the dinosaur-bird transition (and yes, it involvee more than just _Archaeopteryx_). So, respectable chemist, sure. But, unfortunately, a stereotypical creationist (albeit an “old earther”) as regards his undersatnding of evoltuion. Next up, is [Fred Sigworth](http://info.med.yale.edu/cmphysiol/sigworth/). Again, a respectable biochemist. [However](http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6937_34_brande_1990_science_te_11_23_2004.asp): > [@](#): > > The second witness was Dr. Fred Sigworth, a molecular biochemist from Yale University. Sigworth called evolution a fact but said he distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. He doubts that macroevolutionary theory can adequately account for the development of the major groups of organisms. He said that, like evolution, “Intelligent Design” does a good job of explaining the data of biology and paleontology. Again, he draws the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, again based on an incomplete understanding of the the two processes. He is, in essence, a Behe-clone, and Behe has been shown to be incorrect and mistaken numerous times here and elsewhere. [Philip S. Skell (near the bottom)](http://www.research.psu.edu/history/history4.shtml). Not much from him lately, other than [anti-evolution screeds](http://www.geocities.com/fdocch/creat.htm'). There, he simply argues that becasue eovlutionary biology makes no directive predictions for general biological study (particularly in medical fields), that it is utterly unimportant to study at all. Sorry, but I just can’t take this one seriously. And so on… I would suspect that a continued examination would yield no new information regarding the source of dissent from those individuals. Common themes presented are simply typical creationist dogma: evolution cannot explain abiogenesis; microevolutionary processes cannot account fro macroevolutionary changes; life is too complex to for “mere” random variation and natural selection to account for it, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/59 "2005-02-06T07:30:14Z")
> [@anonymousbob](#): > > Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits. Talk about “reading more before you post”…you are doing nothing more than rehashing a 19th century argument put forth by Fleeming Jenkins, and revised in the early 20th century by Hugo De Vries. Of course, De Vries was a saltationist (and a Darwinian), rather than gradualist - or even creationist, in terms of his views on evolutionary biology. You are essentially arguing that because stasis is apparent in established populations, macro-level changes cannot occur. To an extent, you are correct. However, one of the keys to understanding speciation (and the orgins of subsequent higher-level taxa) is the fact that large, established populations aren’t doing the speciating. Splinter populations - those subpopulations which fragment off of the parent population, pushing the boundaries of that species into new environments - are where the action is. Smaller populations in a new(er) environment are subjected to selection pressures different from those of the main population. While this does not alter their variability as such, it does alter which variations prove beneficial, thus diverting the direction in which that population evolves. And, of course, once altered, the modifed genome acts as a new “center”, or mean, from which further variation occurs. It is not the case that Jenkins’ “rigid spheres” of variation only allow a genome to vary around a single mean for all time. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2005, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/60 "2005-02-06T12:36:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits. It’s hard to overemphasize how wrong this is. First of all, many many 'new" traits that we see arise in organisms are actually slight modifications of “old” traits that slowl take on novel functions when expressed (that’s why anthropod blood clotting is so similar to their egg shell proteins: it’s just a slightly modified set of protein systems used in a novel way to create a “new” feature). But second of all, there is no such thing as “well-defined” in a gene pool: no barrier to any particular direction of change. Gene pools are simply ever widening gradients of slight variation: and yet there is no “true” central genome of which all the variations are “straying” from and can be called back. And, get this: not only do the mophological changes which are the result of this widening variatoin occur as a matter of course, but they occur litterally ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE faster than is needed to explain even the fastest transitions in the fossil record. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448.md?page=4)