John Rennie reported in 2002, and it is worth repeating again, that opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments do not hold up. When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established the truth of evolution beyond reasonable doubt. 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. They lobby for creationist ideas such as intelligent design to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press (in 2002), the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some anti-evolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a wedge for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God. Besieged teachers and others may find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism.
The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright misrepresentations about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage. To help with answering them, the following list rebuts the most common arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information. Have a read because even in 2015 the problems persist. Religious memes are hard to eliminate, as Richard Dawkins knows all too well.
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
