The website of Creation Ministries International starts off with a warning under the heading, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use."
"It is notable that some skeptics criticise creationists when they retract doubtful arguments, but these are also the same people who accuse creationists of being unwilling to change their minds!"
"Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is “the truth� (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the ‘doubtful’ arguments."
There is a long list of arguments specifically identified as doubful that include these that I have seen on forums (maybe some even here):
If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?
Archaeopteryx is a fraud,
There are no beneficial mutations.
No new species have been produced.
Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species.
Natural selection as tautology.
Evolution is just a theory.
There are no transitional forms.
Plate tectonics is fallacious.
Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.
The last doubtful argument is interesting since it heralds a major change in direction. For many years creationists argued against any sort of evolution. Under the weight of crushing evidence they gave up on their absolute claim and grabbed hold of the discussion that was then going on in the scientific community concerning rates of evolution, which included the ideas of micro and macro evolution. The creationists perverted the meaning and discussion of both the species concept and the micro/macro evolution.
But now we see a new attempt to obfuscate using semantics amalgamated with a misrepresentation of thermodynamics and what is implied to be "good old common sense," rather than clarification via the scientific merits.
Let's look at what the creationists are doing, here is the entire statement from the CMI website:
<“Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.� These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information (e.g., specifications for manufacturing nerves, muscle, bone, etc.), but all we observe is sorting and, overwhelmingly, loss of information. We are hard-pressed to find examples of even ‘micro’ increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off. Importantly, the term microevolution will be seen by many as just a ‘little bit’ of the process that they think turned bacteria to people. In other words, it implies that simply given enough time (millions of years), such ‘micro’ changes will accumulate to amount to ‘macro’ changes. But this is not so; see The evolution train’s a-comin’: (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction). Interestingly, even high profile evolutionists (e.g. Mayr, Ayala) disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution.>
Now ... that's rather semantically empty except for the claim that Ernst Mayer and Francisco Ayala (both or whom I had pleasure of taking classes from), "... disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution." I know of no such statement by either, so I would assume this is just another creationist quote mining expedition.
But they reference a website: The evolution train’s a-comin’: (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction). Which details their thinking:
<Evolutionists teach that one-celled organisms (e.g. protozoa) have given rise to pelicans, pomegranates, people and ponies. In each case, the DNA ‘recipe’ has had to undergo a massive net increase of information during the alleged millions of years. A one-celled organism does not have the instructions for how to manufacture eyes, ears, blood, skin, hooves, brains, etc. which ponies need. So for protozoa to have given rise to ponies, there would have to be some mechanism that gives rise to new information.
Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite. To have a way to add information, the ‘only game in town’ for evolution’s true believers is genetic copying mistakes or accidents, i.e. random mutations (which can then be ‘filtered’ by selection). However, the problem is that if mutations were capable of adding the information required, we should see hundreds of examples all around us, considering that there are many thousands of mutations happening continually. But whenever we study mutations, they invariably turn out to have lost or degraded the information. This is so even in those rare instances when the mutational defect gives a survival advantage—e.g. the loss of wings on beetles on windy islands.
As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out. The more organisms adapt to their surroundings by selection, i.e. the more specialized they become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind. Thus, there is less information available on which natural selection can act in the future to ‘readapt’ the population should circumstances change. Less flexible, less adaptable populations are obviously heading closer to extinction, not evolving.>
Let us here note that protozoa went out of use a long time ago, and (in any case) never would have contained the ancestral form for pelicans, pomegranates, people and ponies, being three duterostomes and a plant and only serving to provide a fractured alliteration.
CMI is incorrect in their claim that, "selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite. To have a way to add information, the ‘only game in town’ for evolution’s true believers is genetic copying mistakes or accidents, i.e. random mutations (which can then be ‘filtered’ by selection)." Selection neither gets rid of information nor adds information, it just decides what information will be passed down to future generations. That may involve a deletion or an addition or both. We do see "hundreds of examples all around us," every genetic disease is just is such an example, every human feature and trait is such a feature, blue eyes are just such a feature and all blue-eyed people can be traced back to one ancestor who lived about 10,000 years ago near the Black Sea, I suppose we should tell Cameron Diaz that her eyes are just an example of lost or degraded information.
The increase of information requires two things, not just mutations to provide the new information, but also new places where that information will be written. Polyploidy and chromosome fusion are two ways that new pages in the book of life are created, ready to be written on by mutation and natural selection.
CMI's thesis that, "As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out. The more organisms adapt to their surroundings by selection, i.e. the more specialized they become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind. Thus, there is less information available on which natural selection can act in the future to ‘readapt’ the population should circumstances change. Less flexible, less adaptable populations are obviously heading closer to extinction, not evolving." is complete and utter hogwash, there is no scientific support for the baseless claim, a claim that is really trying to say that a cat and a dog would be less fit because their common ancestor sent all the dog genes north and all the cat genes south thus thinning out both gene pools (implied: by half). The reality is that cats and dogs are 82% identical (at least genetically). Most dogs have 78 chromosomes with 2.5 billion base pairs and most cats have 38 with 2.7 billion base pairs.
Wouldn't it be nice if the creationists would take their own advice:
"It is notable that some skeptics criticise creationists when they retract doubtful arguments, but these are also the same people who accuse creationists of being unwilling to change their minds!"
"Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is “the truth� (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the ‘doubtful’ arguments."
Especially when creditable arguments can be found with just a few clicks, no intellectual heavy lifting required.
Creationists warned by the Creation Ministries International
Moderator: Moderators
