Skip to main content

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind).

But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all life is descended from either one or a few original forms of life. All life is related; we know this from genetics, from the DNA that is within all of us. We see the process of evolution in bacteria acquiring new abilities from the ability to digest nylon to antibiotic resistance. We see the process of evolution in, ironically, the developing resistance of weeds to our industrial pesticides. We see evolution in the ability of chimpanzees (our closest living relatives) to use tools as we learned to do, in the immense and changing variety of dog breeds, all derived from a single wild ancestor. We see it in the development of kale, brussel sprouts, cabbage and kohlrabi, all from a single wild plant. We see it in the fossil record, as whole classes of species rose to dominance, diversified and fell away...and in the fact that there is a definite progression in the fossil record, over millions of years. Humans do not exist with dinosaurs; rabbits aren't found on the level with dimetrodon, trilobites and chimps don't happen in the same strata. Evolution explains this; creationism tries to explain it away with silly stories of "hydraulic sorting."

Below is what is known as the phylogenetic tree of life. It charts the inter-relatedness of all species on the planet; there are better images out there, available in a larger size, but from the design alone, it's clear. All life is related. Evolution explains this. Evolution is based on the evidence that we have available now. It isn't a made-up "fairy tale for grown-ups" as Ray Comfort likes to think. We have to operate based on evidence, because we live in the real world and have to deal with it. The recognition that there is evidence supporting evolution is the first step to accepting it, and I encourage you to seek that information out and learn about it, because the theory of evolution reveals the majestic story of life on earth, the story that is ultimately about all of us and our place in the world.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...