Evolution is both a scientific fact, and about as well-supported a theory as there is in science. It is sad that this needs to be said up front, but unfortunately a good half of the United States population, and a smaller but not insignificant portion of people in Europe and elsewhere, not only doubt it, but actually, actively deny it. This means that those of us who care about the truth – liberal theists and humanists alike – have a problem. Creationist organisations are well funded and, feeding on the rampant theism (which protects and encourages the flourishing of fundamentalism [1]) of countries such as the US, they have considerable political and educational influence. This means there is a real danger of children being taught wild falsehoods. And children have a habit of growing up... and voting. What can we ordinary folks do?

The simplest thing is to politely disagree whenever someone talks nonsense, and explain why. Don’t worry, it doesn’t require becoming a professor of palaeontology, but it does pay to be acquainted with some of the creationist’s stock in trade. So what I am aiming for here is a ‘cut out and keep’ guide for lay people, suggesting some simple responses and where to look for more detailed information.

Why are they like it?

Richard Dawkins has neatly summarised the situation: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)”, and later added: “There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under ‘insane’ but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid, and not wicked can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding of what their holy book tells them on the other.” [2] Creationism, and its Trojan turkey ‘intelligent design’, draw their strength from this internal conflict. Believers are attracted to these pseudosciences because of two perceived attacks by ‘evolution’ on their faith: on humanity's uniqueness, and on the existence of God.

Both of these perceptions are misconceptions. Firstly, all species are unique. Sure, humans have used their vast brains to create art and literature and music and put people on the Moon. That, perhaps, is our uniqueness. But the platypus has electrosensors in its bill for detecting prey in muddy river bottoms; bats can ‘see’ in darkness by listening to their squeaks; and insects can see far into the ultraviolet. Simply by being here, by being the tips of the branches of the tree of life, by coming from very long lines of successful ancestors, every species is unique. This realisation does not diminish our own achievements, which are many. It could – should, even – inspire: not just ‘we are special’, but that everything is special in its own way. Those of a religious bent might even find in this additional cause for celebration.

As for science (especially evolution) attacking God's existence, there are two schools of thought. Stephen Jay Gould among others felt that science, by definition, was incapable of commenting one way or the other. Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, has argued (convincingly, in my opinion) that while science cannot absolutely disprove God's existence (any more than it can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's celestial teapot), it can certainly shade the probabilities, and when you let it, gods become very unlikely [3]. But no matter. It is enough to note that, however they manage it, plenty of theists do indeed live comfortably with the idea of evolution [4]. Rejecting the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark as historical fact is, presumably, a small price to pay for being able to eat (evolved by selection) crops and take (informed by evolution) medicines with a clear conscience.

Science, then, is only a problem for those who insist that their ancient books are literally true. To such people you can respond: whatever their provenance, these writings are ancient. The product of less sophisticated and less knowledgeable times. Given that, why on earth would God tell the writers his actual methods of creation? Why would God not describe His creation to a bunch of Bronze Age goat herders in the sort of way we find in Genesis... confident in the knowledge that we'd work out how he really did it later?

“Okay Moses, write this down. In the beginning, I caused a quantum vacuum fluctuation to...”

“Uh, Lord, can I just stop you there...?”

If He does exist, he must be laughing his divine fundament off at those who today still take literally what he told ‘those ignorant folks back then’!.

The Illogic of Creationists

The creationist’s chief weapon is the logical fallacy known as the Straw Man. Set up a weaker (or plain false) version of evolution, and attack that. When you’ve destroyed it, it looks to the unwary like you’ve won. So because evolution is true, it is safe to assume that any creationist claim starting “the theory of evolution says...” is a straw man argument. (While it is necessary to know what evolution really ‘says’ to counter such statements, just hearing something in that format should ring alarm bells – you can look up the details later.)

Note how amazingly arrogant these arguments are. They imply that all the working biologists, biochemists, palaeontologists and the rest are too thick to notice the alleged problem. No, it takes Joe Bloggs the creationist to see it. Or else it is suggested that scientists are too blinkered or wedded to ‘atheistic evolution’ to see alternatives. The three-pronged response is to point to all the theists who are not troubled by evolution; to say that creationism is the very idea that evolution replaced because it was inadequate, and to note that all science is ‘atheistic’, in that it does not include the supernatural except as a last resort: methodological naturalism [5] is the basis of what science is... and why it is so successful at doing stuff.

Another favourite fallacy is the God of the Gaps [6]. Found something science can’t explain? Ascribe it to God. No idea how a bacterial flagellum or the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog could have evolved? God did it! This is of course both appalling science and appalling theology. It says to the scientist “don’t bother looking for an answer!”, and to God it says “Gotcha!” But when science does find a natural answer, the believer hasn’t ‘got’ Him any more. God is no longer required to make apples fall or keep the planets in their orbits. Most educated theists therefore avoid God of the Gaps arguments.

Beware, too, anything a creationist says a Famous Scientist said. This is the fallacy called ‘Argument from Authority’. Authorities can be wrong; and anyway ‘Dave says’ carries less weight than ‘Dave demonstrates’. Worse, authorities can be misquoted. Creationists (or their sources, at least) are experts at ‘quote-mining’: pulling passages from reputable scientists out of context. The most famous example is Darwin’s own “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” They miss out the subsequent great chunk where he explained just how it could! Always, the quoted person is a non-expert (eg: another creationist), an expert in a different (and hence irrelevant) discipline, is a voice from the past (expert or not, he said it a long time ago, before other discoveries), is quoted out of context... or is just plain wrong. So the first question needs to be, “Who is this guy?”, followed by “Did he really say it?” and “Did he mean it as presented?” [7]

Frequently asked questions (with handy replies)

But while the above covers some of the basic problems with creationist reasoning, you are likely in practice to be faced with some apparently random assertion. There are so many of these that the Talk Origins newsgroup’s Index of Creationist Claims [8] runs to 19 pages if you print it. These random assertions are intended to catch you out, so don’t be rushed into an ill-considered reply. Undoubtedly the best single response to anything a creationist says is: “Really? That's interesting. Let me have the details, and I'll check and get back to you.” (Apart from anything else, they often do not have the details!) Then you can check the TO index or other resource, such as asking on the Evolution / Creation forum of the Internet Infidels [9] where many real experts hang out, willing to answer such questions.

It is very much worth consulting one creationist webpage: ‘Arguments we think creationists should NOT use’ by Answers in Genesis [10]. You’d be surprised how common these are anyway. But you will also often see variations on the following.

“Amazing biological thing X could not be the result of random accidents.”
Correct. And evolution by natural selection is the exact opposite of random accidents. Mutations are random, but selection is not, and the effect is cumulative, generation upon generation.

“Amazing biological thing X is clearly designed.”
Yes, it was designed by natural selection. If X is designed by an intelligence, what idiot designed the laryngeal nerve’s routing? (Or your own favourite [11].)

“There are no transitional fossils.”
Yes there are, thousands in fact, Tiktaalik and Homo ergaster for two. According to creationism, such things should not exist at all. They do, so creationism is refuted.

“The fossil record is incomplete.”
God of the Gaps, and anyway, all the fossils we do have fit with evolution. The record will always be incomplete – do you expect every last creature there’s ever been to have become fossilised?

“Mutations cannot add information.”
How are you defining ‘information’? (They probably won’t know.) But if you mean inventing something new, the evolution of antifreeze in Antarctic fish (from a pancreatic protein gene, duplicated and the copy modified) is well documented [12]. Does that count?

“Evolution does not explain the origin of life / the universe / everything.”
True. Nor does it try to. Evolution is about biological diversity. Ask a biochemist / cosmologist / relevant scientist. But anyway, ‘God of the Gaps’.

“Evolution is a religion.”
Evolution is based on heaps of evidence, and is open to new and refuting evidence – is yours?

So then. Off you go and fight the good fight. And check the resources, especially the Infidels board. We’re here to help. Just remember: “Be careful out there.”

Simon Coleman-Smith has a BA in Classical Studies and works in local government in the south of England. Having always been interested in science, he has been dismantling anti-evolution arguments as a hobby since he met his first creationist in 1998. He is living proof that anyone can do it.

References

1 Dawkins (2006): The God Delusion, Chapter 8

2 Dawkins, ‘Ignorance Is No Crime’:
www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html

3 Dawkins (2006): The God Delusion, Chapter 4

4 See eg: National Center for Science Education, ‘Statements from Religious Organizations’: www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7445_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp
and
The Clergy Letter Project, ‘An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science’:
www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm

5 See eg: Wikipedia entry, ‘Methodological Naturalism’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

6 See eg: Wikipedia entry, ‘God of the Gaps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

7 A good resource is the Talk Origins Archive’s ‘Quote Mine Project’:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

8 Talk Origins Archive, Index to Creationist Claims’:
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

9 www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66

10 www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

11 See eg: ‘Some More of God’s Greatest Mistakes’ at:
http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm
for many examples of the designer’s incompetence.

12 Chen et al (1997): ‘Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish’. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
Vol. 94, pp. 3811-3816. Available at:
www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/8/3811

Useful reading

John Brockman (ed.): Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement, Vintage Books 2006

Richard Dawkins: Climbing Mount Improbable, W.W.Norton, New York and Viking Penguin, London.1996

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion, Bantam Press 2006

Cameron M Smith and Charles Sullivan: The Top Ten Myths About Evolution, Prometheus 2006.