1.) The whole law versus theory thing. Go back 50-75 years and you'll find creationists that use that argument, but not today. I doubt that very many people actually use that argument today. I think that Scientific American is using a weak argument that a back woods, Bible thumper might use.
2.) I've actually never heard a creationist use the argument that survival of the fittest is circular reasoning. Maybe some have, but again I don't think you'd find modern scientists using such logic. It would be nice to have some sort of example of this argument being used in journal, philosophy paper, etc.
3.) Yes, most creationists would agree that macro-evolution takes place. The problem is that macro-evolution doesn't prove micro-evolution. We can observe small changes in birds, animals, plants, etc. None of the changes results in an increase of information which would prove evolution. All changes that are observed deal with losses in information. We are still waiting to observe the increase of information which would be observable micro-evolution.
4.) This is really a silly assertion by Scientific American. They admit that most of the papers submitted by creationists or Intelligent Design folks deal with specific and well known evolutionary problems. Our side has more people than yours...silly.
5.) This is a straw man argument. We all know that there are going to be disagreements within any community. I keep waiting for SA to give the knock-out argument, but so far it hasn't happened.
6.) Humans split off from monkeys and they both went in their evolutionary directions. I doubt this is a recent argument. If there are folks using it, then they should stop. Evolutionists should also stop using the argument about humans and chimpanzees being such close relatives. It is the same kind of argument.
7.) I think that the complaint over how life began stems from the fact that some of our ideas are being taught as fact. We can put together some basic "building blocks" in a lab, but we can't say with any assurance that it is even the most likely scenario. However, take a biology class in any high school or university and you'll be told about the primordial soup and that is that. No other options.
8.) I think that the mathematical argument is used to show the odds of life starting and not of evolution. There are so many things that would have to have been just right for it all to have started.
9.) An embryo to a baby to an adult. Solve the micro-evolution problem and then we'll talk about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
10.) If SA were being honest, they would have framed the argument in regards to the increase of genetic information. We have not found a single example of an increase in genetic information that resulted from a mutation. If there isn't an increase in genetic information, there isn't micro-evolution. There are a few cases in which advantage has resulted from mutation, but none have resulted in an increase of genetic information.
11.) This answers both 11 and 12. Speciation has always resulted within a kind. We don't have evidence of out of kind speciation. Again, where is the increase in genetic information. There are hypothesis about speciation in regards to isolation, but they are just guesses. Give us some evidence.
12.) See 11#
13.) I love the examples given of transitional forms, but SA isn't being completely honest. They bring up Archaeopteryx and then a "flock's worth" of other feathered fossil species. Are these other feathers species transitional forms of Archaeoptyeryx? We don't know. Neither does SA. We were told that we'd have the entire fossil record as evidence for evolution. We've got a few candidates for transitional species and not much more. I like how they threw in molecular biology as proof. Here is the big problem. Where is micro-evolution? There isn't any new genetic information being introduced. No new genetic information means no micro-evolution.
14.) This is for #14 & #15. Whether it be a computer program, a car, house, etc. we assume that there is a creator. We can't assume that the complexity of nature has a creator. Heavens no. We have a entire series of hypothesis that simple forms of mechanism could evolve into more complex forms if given the perfect conditions. When dealing with speciation, splitting a group of organism off and putting pressures on them to reproduce might force them to merge with another kind. We cannot prove it. It is just a guess. We also have some ideas on how light sensitive organisms might have been able to detect light, reproduce and mutate greater vision capabilities. Again, just a guess. We can easily observer mathematical patterns, symmetry, complexity in nature and yet we cannot assume a creator.
Link to the Scientific American article.I hate reading this kind of stuff because most of the time, the writer(s) are so sanctimonious and pompous. This article was no exception. Phrases such as "far-fetched" and "nothing of intellectual value" are examples, in my opinion, of the politics of evolution. You are not allowed to hold to any other belief. If you do, you believe in fables. I love how they stated that God is an "un-proven" being. Yet, I would offer creation as proof of that creator. I can't because then I'm being unscientific. I'm sticking in my religious beliefs. Oh well. As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly.
albertmohler (@albertmohler)
