The five best arguments for creationism ever!

Don’t you just love a challenge? I’m always looking for some splendid argument from a creationist that would make me think, but they always give me such silliness, instead. And then, I saw this: a mainstream newspaper (well, the Telegraph…but at least it’s not the Daily Mail) offers us an article with a tantalizing promise: they’re going to give us the the five very best arguments to support creationism. Whoa. Cool. I’m sure they also put their very best science reporter on the job to get some real stumpers for scientists.

Here goes. Brace yourselves. Prepare to be provoked and excited!

No evidence for evolution

There is no evidence that evolution has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils i.e. scientists cannot prove with fossils that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Perhaps becuase of this a surprising number of contemporary scientists support the Creation theory.




That’s, umm, pathetic. Of course we have lots of evidence for evolution! Read Darwin’s Origin; even in 1859 we had great rollicking piles of persuasive evidence, and it’s only grown since. Fossils show a pattern of change over geological time, and we also have molecular evidence to link all the diverse lineages of life on earth.

Very few scientists support creationism, so there’s nothing to be surprised about there.

Yes, the typo is there in the original text. You’d think one thing a journalist with a computer could do is handle the spelling correctly.

That argument is so stupid, it must be some kind of aberration. The next ones will be better, right? Right?

History is too short

Creationists argue that if the world is as old as evolution claims it is there would be

  • billions more stone age skeletons than have been found
  • many more historical records like cave paintings than have been found
  • a lot more sodium chloride in the sea
  • a lot more sea-floor sediment

Wait…their second best argument is that the Earth is only a few thousand years old? That’s just crazy talk. No one sane can think, in the face of all the evidence from geology and physics, that the Earth is young. And to dredge up such hoary and thoroughly refuted claims is simply sad.

Compound Eye

The eye that enables some organisms to see in the dark is so complex that no proven theories for its evolutionary development have yet been put forth. As the CreationWiki puts it, the Compound Eye “has all of the hallmarks of intelligent design and defies attempts to explain it through natural mechanisms”.

Weird. Why pluck out one seemingly random organ out of all the many to choose from? We know how the compound eye develops, we know many of the molecules involved — there are no miracles going on. It’s proteins and small diffusible molecules interacting to negotiate the construction of a repeating pattern of simple optical elements. We also know the similarities between different lineages that link them.

Come on, I’m not at all impressed. We must have hit bottom by now. I hope.

But noooooooo…


The Bible uses allegory to explain the creation of the earth. It is a story, so employs figures of speech and other literary devices to tell the story of how God created man e.g. Genesis “days” could also be read as “ages”.

This makes no sense at all. These are supposed to be the five best arguments for creation instead of evolution, and the author has trotted out the stale old excuses that evolution has no evidence and that the earth is young…and now he demurs, and suggests that maybe the book of Genesis is just some sloppy poetry, don’t take it literally, don’t take it too seriously? That’s an argument against creationism.

All right. He’s got one more chance to vindicate himself. Let’s see what he pulls out for his killer final argument.


For what purpose is all of this? Evolutionists have never offered a satisfactory explanation.

Flip a coin. Can you come up with a ‘satisfactory’ explanation for why it comes up on whatever side it does? This is a non-argument. There is no purpose. It’s that simple. He’s assuming his premise, that any explanation must disclose some cosmic intent, and rejecting evolution because it says there isn’t one.

That was no fun at all.

I’m going back to writing. Wake me up when a creationist says something intelligent.