Rebutting Creationism

The creationist flood of illogic would take forever to rebut, although all of it can be rebutted. On this page I will address a few cases. In this way the companion anticreationist page can be reserved for other arguments.

An excellent book on this topic is by R. T. Pennock: Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, MIT Press Cambridge, MA, 1999 ISBN 026216180X.

He perfectly captured the sentiments of most working biologists on pages 37-38:

As the new creationists portray the battle, they are now undermining the foundation of the Darwinian citadel, and evolutionary theory is about to collapse upon itself. From the point of view of biologists, however, such statements are absurd, and there is no controversy about whether or not evolutionary theory is true. The repeated claims by creationists that the theory is false are not taken seriously by scientists, except in the sense that they worry that the rest of the public might take them seriously, which would then be a problem. But that is a problem of education. As a problem for science, however, the "creationism debate" is basically a nonissue.
(Quotation posted with permission, ©1999 MIT)

• Evolution of Biological Information is a published scientific paper that addresses flaws in several creationist arguments by Royal Truman, Michael Behe and Lee Spetner.

• Discussion with a Creationist about the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Tim Wallace. I had a lot of difficulty just getting him merely to agree to public disclosure of our communication. He terminated the discussion before being forced to admit his errors.

• Michael Behe is a creationist who denies the possibility of evolving complex systems. A Roman Arch demonstrates the flaw in this thinking.

• False Arguments of Lee Spetner.

• Fairy Tales from Fred Williams.

• A Typical Creationist Error by Bill Sardi.

• Unravling the Ideas of William A. Dembski.

• John Calvert plays legal games.

• Phillip E. Johnson avoided answering a direct question.