Jackson Wheat

May 9, 2015
12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid
Ken Ham and his associates at Answers in Genesis have created a list of arguments that
evolutionists, people who accept evolution and a silly word, should not use. AiG also has a list
of arguments that creationists should avoid using, and those arguments are rather interesting
(even if the page says that arguments that do not hold up scrutiny should be avoided, which is
only slightly ironic): the second law of thermodynamics should be avoided; Charles Darwins
supposed conversion should be avoided; and the, Why are there still monkeys? question should
be avoided. This page made me give a little more respect to the AiG organization because these
arguments are so often used and destroyed. Anyway, onward to their arguments to avoid.
1. Evolution is a fact.
Yeah, that seems about right. The description says that evolution is not a fact because
there is no observable evidence to support it. The first problem is that they think all phenomena
must be directly studied to be true, and that is demonstrably fallacious. If no one is around to see
a crime occur, then how do investigators catch the criminal? They use evidence that points to the
criminal, even if the evidence is indirect. Second, there is plenty of observable evidence to
support evolution. Just look up the long-term E. coli experiment performed by Dr. Richard
Lenski at Michigan State University. He directly observed the bacterias evolve until they were
able to metabolize their citric environment. The creationist counter-argument is that the bacteria
populations simply changed biologically over a short period of time. That sounds oddly like
microevolution.
2. Only the uneducated reject evolution.
I do not know anyone who uses this argument, but I can imagine someone saying this. It
does not prove evolution and is not even an argument. There are some doctorscreationists,
mind youwho do not accept evolution; they are pretty educated. However, those uneducated
in evolution often do not accept evolution because they neither understand evolution nor want to
understand evolution. I have not yet seen one creationist who understands evolution.
3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution.
This, to me, is actually the biggest proof of evolution. When all different lines of
evidence reach the same conclusion via objective studies, then we know that conclusion is
correct. Zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, archaeology, anthropology, geology,
paleontology, chemistry, and astrophysics all support evolution. Note that only creationism
posits that the universe is six-thousand-years-old. The description of this argument on the AiG
page says that the problem is not evidence but worldviews. That seems illogical; no one started
with the conclusion that evolution is true, unlike how creationists began with the conclusion that
the Bible is true, and looked for evidence to support it. The universe presented the evidence of
evolution.
4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity.
This is a reference to the evolution is just a theory argument. You know what else is a
theory? Theories include gravity; atoms; microscopic organisms; cells; and sliding filaments,

which is how our muscles work. AiG attempts to prove that the theory of evolution is faith while
the theory of gravity is fact with a simple experiment. It says, Why does this argument fail?
Well show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. Thats gravity.
Next, make a single-celled organismlike an amoebaturn into a goat. Go ahead. Well wait. . .
. No? As you can see, theres a fundamental difference between operational science, which can
be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot. The
argument is, again, we can observe gravity, but we cannot observe evolution. Also, how do they
propose that someone creates an amoeba and turns it into a goat? How does that defeat
evolution? Next, there is no such thing in the scientific world as historical and observable
science. Finally, there is absolutely no guarantee that the amoeba, given enough time, would
turn into a goat. Evolution is not predetermined, and we are not the pinnacle of evolution.
5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat.
This is not an argument, and I do not know who claims it is.
6. Its here, so it must have evolved.
The description says that an unsubstantiated conclusion does not prove the premise.
Wow, that is the pot calling the kettle black; no one makes unsubstantiated claims like the
religious. Even more ironic is the fact that the description says, [T]he Bible offers another (and
sounder) framework for how those traits and species came to be. So the AiG people say one
cannot just claim something without evidence, and then they say the Bible is true without
evidence. That is real dedication.
7. Natural selection is evolution.
No, natural selection is a part of evolution. The fact that the environment plays a role in
selecting genes that will be passed on to the next generation is indicative of evolution.
8. Common design means common ancestry.
This is referring to common body plans among organisms. It is an attempt to say that
even though organisms have many of the same parts, they are not related. Comparative anatomy
is the study of how similarities among organisms contribute to evolution. This field covers
phenotypic variations from the number of limbs to organ locations to the similar structure of
DNA polymerase, RNA, and DNA. Amusingly, the last sentence of the AiG description says, A
common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better. No, a common designer of nature
neither fits the evidence nor is a better explanation of biology than evolution. The first problem
is proving the creator exists using objective evidence, not the Bible. After that, which creator is
it? Even if a creator is proven, that creator must have planted evidence of evolution to test the
faith of believers. Or if a creator does exist, then it could be one that no one ever considered.
The problems that positing a creator of evidence create create far more questions than answers.
9. Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geologic activity.
Yes, sedimentary layers do show millions of years of geologic activity, and this can be
tested. Using radioisotopes, scientists can show the age of rock layers. The interesting thing
about rock layers is that they get older the farther down in the Earth they go; they do not
fluctuate between young and old ages. Scientists learn the length of time radioisotopes take to
decomposition times by observing certain isotopes, like the ones doctors inject in patients, and

extrapolate the age of other isotopes using mathematical formulas. The common creationist
counter-argument is something to the effect of, Scientists are just asserting what they cannot
prove. The counter to this counter-argument is, Before the first telescope observed Neptune,
did Neptune still exist? Yes, Neptune existed because the evidence points to its existence
regardless of observing it; we must extrapolate that it existed. Any creationist who admits to this
is guilty of a double standard.
10. Mutations drive evolution.
Meh, partially. Mutations are part of evolution, but other factors that drive evolution
include biogeographic distribution, predation, parasitism, etc. The AiG pages decrees that
mutations are the only engines of evolution, but that is demonstrably false because it implies
that organisms do not interact with the environment, which is a tenant of life.
11. The Scopes trial.
Because I change my views in accordance with the evidence, I must agree with AiG. The
Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 was not about a plucky, young biology teacher who was
apprehended by religious fundamentalists; it was about the American Civil Liberties Union
overturning an unjust law, the Butler Act, in Tennessee, which essentially stated that evolution
was not allowed to be taught in school. The ACLU lost the case while making a mockery of the
fundamentalists, so the secularists counted the case as a victory. The Butler Act was repealed
three days later.
12. Science vs. religion
I do not think this is an argument so much as just an observation. While religion asserts
whatever it wants regardless of the evidence, science looks at the evidence and draws
conclusions. The AiG description says, Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical
Christianity, but science does not. Actually, science opposes the Earth being created six
thousand years ago, a flood covering all land on Earth, the Nile River turning to blood, a man
raising from the dead, a man raising another man from the dead, etc. To say science does not
oppose the Bibles magical events is extremely fallacious.