evolution

Evolution vs. Creationism

    Any time someone finds out that I'm an atheist, they always ask one of two things: Either "Where do we go when we die", or "How did we get here?" The latter is extremely hard to answer, because it's just too general. I usually say something to the effect of, "Well, I drove here, how did you get here?" I hate to sound like I'm dodging the question, but I can't answer it unless they be more specific. The next thing they say is almost always "You believe we evolved?" I hate when they ask this: They asked me where humans came from (in fewer words), but then they turn around and mention evolution, which has nothing to do with origins.
     That is one huge misunderstanding. Evolution is nothing but the gradual change of a species...it has nothing to do with origins. In this sense, one could argue that "Evolution" and "Creationism" aren't even at odds, since Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. Many people associate the "Big Bang" with evolution, but this is the theory of abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with evolution, except that religous types seem to have a problem with both of them.
     Evolution is nothing more than small changes in species due to the appearance of new traits, which in turn can have an effect of natural selection. Creationists, for some bizarre reason or another, like to refer to this as "microevolution". Many modern Creationists like to make a big production out of admitting that "microevolution" is true, but "macroevolution", or the formation of a new species, isn't true. Real scientists normally call "microevolution" evolution, and call "macroevolution" speciation.
     Here's the deal, though...if you have evolution, then you also have speciation. As you should know, an organism's species is classified by certain criteria. Let's say that a dog is born without a certain trait that biologists use to classify it as Canis Domesticus. If this dog passes this new trait (or lack of one) onto it's offspring, then speciation has just occured. These aren't dogs, they are a new species under the genus "Canine".
     That is evolution and speciation in a nutshell. Why is that so hard for people to comprehend? Well, evolutionary theory is a bit broader than that, and it's scientists' idea that man most likely originated as a primitive primate (or, we "come from monkeys", as some bright folks might say) that has set off so many Christians (and Christians only, it seems). However, most modern Creationists are smarter than that, so they have come up with this "micro is true but macro isn't" tripe to keep pushing the idea that GAWD created the universe...despite the fact that it's abiogenesis, not evolution, that says the universe wasn't created.
     Now for some common crap spouted by Creationist types:

    1. There are no transitional forms in the fossil record.
     This is an example of the lack of understanding that Creationists have. Evolution is really such a gradual process that there is no clear cut "transition" between one species and another. However, if you absolutely must have a transition, you could start with Therapsids, which are sort of a cross between a reptile and a mammal, Ichtyosetigids, which is part fish and part amphibian, and Seymoromorphs, that are part fish and part reptile.
     2. The Paluxi River basin contains footprints of dinosaurs and men side by side, both dated to around the same time. This proves that dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago.
      This marvelous load of crap is used by young-earth Creationists. The "man" prints in the river basin look similar to a man's foot, but there are two problems: Not only are there no toe prints, but the foot is about 2 1/2 times the size of the average human foot. It's pretty obvious that it's not a separate print, but rather the imprint of one of the dinosaur's toes.
     3. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves Evolution can't be true, because entropy (the breaking-down of complexity) increases over time.
     The Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to thermodynamically closed systems. In an open system the new energy added reverses entropy. This is irrelevant, however, since evolution is not a mechanical system driven by any form of energy. By using this argument, the Creationists once again prove that the only reason they don't believe in evolution is they don't understand it.

     Those are the three most common Creationist arguments that I know of. If I find anymore (or if you have heard of some silly ones e-mail me) I'll add them posthaste.

Back to the article index