C&P from another board (but this is my own writing and I stand by it completely)
Part of the problem, I find, is that evolution is a rather broad topic and as such, it is impossible to describe it simultaneously as a whole and in detail. The only way to comprehend it is to examine bits of it in detail, one at a time, then sit back and fit them all together.
But this means it is almost inevitable in creation/evolution debates that the pro-creation side will always be able to accuse the pro-evolution side that they are either glossing over important detail (when we’re looking at the general picture), or making unreasonable generalisations (when we’re examining detail).
Case in point being the Peppered Moth; this example is so frequently (and rabidly) attacked by creationists that they seem to be under the impression that it has been completely debunked or otherwise demonstrated as worthless.
It hasn’t, because it was only ever a nice, neat illustration of how selective pressure can modify the distribution of phenotypes in populations. And it is still a nice, neat example of that:-
-Despite the fact that no peppered moth ever spontaneously morphed into an elephant before our very eyes.
-Despite the fact that photographs demonstrating the contrast between individuals and their environments were posed - the contrast still exists.
-Despite the fact that both light and dark varieties may have existed alongside each other.
-None of these accusations matter, because it wasn’t supposed to be a standalone example that proves the whole of evolution, all by itself, it was supposed to be an example of selective pressure, which it was, and still is.
And even if you manage to get a creationist to acknowledge this, you’ll find that when you zoom out, then zoom in to focus on another area of detail (say, the question of whether mutations can give rise to new genetic function), very often, the creationist appears to have forgotten all about previously acknowledging that natural selection is a real phenomenon, and will argue something like “Yeah, sure, random mutations can happen, but why should the beneficial ones win out over all those detrimental ones?”. It’s like trying to nail jelly to a tree, using your head as a hammer.
A when assembling a jigsaw puzzle; you have to be able to simultaneously comprehend:
-The shape of the individual pieces
-The fragmentary pictures on the pieces
-The way the pieces fit together physically
-The way the pictures match on adjacent pieces
-The emerging picture as a whole
You can’t declare the puzzle invalid just because you’ve only cursorily glanced at a couple of pieces, or you don’t like the look of the emerging picture.
