An argument in favor of creationism

Report this Argument Pro There are no sound arguments for creationism because the only arguments creationists can use are arguments based on empirical evidence; and none of those arguments are based on evidence that has not been discredited and if they aren't based on evidence that haven't been discredited; they rely on misinterpretations.

An argument in favor of creationism

Advertisement In Brief Despite definitive legal cases that have established the unconstitutionality of teaching intelligent design or creationist ideology in science class, the theory of evolution remains consistently under attack.

Creationist arguments are notoriously errant or based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary science and evidence. Hundreds of studies verify the facts of evolution, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scale—from the origin of new traits and new species to the underpinnings of the complexity we see in life and the statistical probability of such complexity arising.

Today that battle has been won everywhere—except in the public imagination. Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy.

When this article first went to press inthe Ohio Board of Education was debating whether to mandate such a change.

Online Debate: There are no sound arguments for creationism |

Prominent antievolutionists of the day, such as Philip E. The good news is that in the landmark legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover in Harrisburg, Pa. The bad news is that in response, creationists have reinvented their movement and pressed on.

Consequently, besieged teachers and others are still likely to find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism, by whatever name. Nevertheless, even if their objections are flimsy, the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

These answers by themselves probably will not change the minds of those set against evolution. But they may help inform those who are genuinely open to argument, and they can aid anyone who wants to engage constructively in this important struggle for the scientific integrity of our civilization.

Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers.

Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds.

Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.

The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable.

It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.Based on the resolution presented by the pro side, the debate is over whether or not there are sound arguments for creationism. Since con has the burden of proof it is logical that if con can prove that there is at least 1 sound argument in favor of creationism then con should win this debate round.

Dec 30,  · We hear the same Creationist arguments SO OFTEN, we decided to assemble our 10 favorites and address them here.

Other Resources for Defending Evolution

Feel free to use this video as a response to the Creationists in your TheThinkingAtheist. Sep 09,  · Don’t you just love a challenge? I’m always looking for some splendid argument from a creationist that would make me think, but they always give me such silliness, instead.

An argument in favor of creationism

Thank you, Shaun, for giving a concise but lucid summary of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. I have always felt that Anselm's argument is something of a shell game.

One of the most challenging tasks for the modern day creationist to is reconcile the belief in a 6, year old Earth with the ever-growing mountain of scientific evidence pointing to a vastly.

Common Argument #6: Like creationism, evolution is just a theory. Your Response: No, evolution is not a “theory” in the way that creationism is a theory.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American