The Logical Flaws of Creationism: A Darwin Day Special

Charles Darwin photograph by Julia Margaret Cameron 1968

Charles Darwin photograph by Julia Margaret Cameron

(article by Austin Young Michaels)

There are only two types of creationists: the dishonest, and the ignorant.

This statement may seem like a vicious attack on over 40% of the American population; however, the argument stands. This is not a cheap atheist stunt in order to inflame believers. It is barely an opinion. It is simply impossible to understand genetic, biological, geological, chemical, and medical sciences while asserting that things like Noah’s flood story are facts. There is simply no rational basis for creation “science”. As a hypothesis, it fails on almost all accounts. It violates physical principles such as the first law of thermodynamics, better known as energy conservation, to denying physical evidence such as the fossil record, strata layers, phylogenic trees, genetic webs, and radiometric dating.

Biblical creation has been disproven on almost every testable level. Dinosaurs never lived with humans. Noah’s flood never happened and is impossible (where did all the water go? And why doesn’t the geological record show any evidence of a world-wide flood?). The universe is well over the estimated 10,000 or so years old (around 13.9 billion is the current estimated age). Outside of these obvious flaws, creationism is simply not science. You cannot make untestable claims in the scientific world and expect them to be accepted, because such claims are not empirical (empiricism being the driving force behind scientific knowledge).

Furthermore, creationists seem to think that attacking the theory of evolution somehow legitimizes their own position. They do not seem to realize that even if they did somehow miraculously disprove one of the most well substantiated theories of biology, that they are still light-years away from legitimizing their own position. This is obviously an attempt in vain as evolution is an observable fact of nature (evolution, like gravity, is both a fact and a theory). Creationists often try to combat this by claiming microevolution is possible but not macroevolution. They do not seem to realize that macroevolution is just microevolution over a longer course of time, and that macroevolution is nothing but the continued subdivisions of species. The idea that no “kind” of species has ever become another “kind” is absurd (first off, what is a kind? Dp you mean from one species to another daughter species that has been observed.).  The evidence for “macroevolution” is apparent in the phylogenic tree of life as well as the genetic tree of life (and is observable in the fossil record, especially given things like the evolution of the reptilian to the mammalian jaw). The real problem stems from the fact that many creationists do not understand the theory of evolution (if you think evolution says that we should get a crocoduck, you do not understand evolution). Evolution is defined as the change of genetic variance over time, and is used to explain biodiversity. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the theory that all current species originated from a common ancestry. Evolution does not have anything to do with the origins of life (abiogenesis), the beginnings of the universe (the big bang), or anything other than an explanation of biodiversity.

Intelligent Design (the lovely rebranding of creationism) falls victim to the same critiques as above. It is simply not science. It cannot fight in the academic arena, and therefore, does not even try. And no, it’s not some conspiracy to silence the minority. No one is being “expelled”. Scientists can be elitists; however, this does not change nature. If the data supported intelligent design, scientists would have absolutely no choice but to accept it due to the nature of science (consistently verifiably data is not simply discarded, and even if it was, the tests could always be repeated).

If you want to believe the garbage that creationism offers, be my guest; however, you have absolutely no right to try to push your crap onto other rational people’s children in the classrooms. There is a reason that both creationism and intelligent design lost in the both courtrooms and the halls of the academics; it is an unverifiable belief system supported by absolutely no factual evidence and pushed by money grabbing liars (or idiots, such as Kirk and Ray “the banana man”) with no regards for truth or science (Kent Hovind being the shining example).

I know the first critique I will get will read close to the following, “You didn’t even PROVE evolution. You knock around creationism but you didn’t show any evidence for evolution”. Agreed, I am not a high school science teacher and have no intentions of becoming one. There is a plethora of evidence available online, in scientific journals, and in museums. I recommend everyone go take a look at the evidence. No one reading this has any reason to trust me; you do not know if my motives are pure (although they are). Good look for yourself. I do not have the time to list the thousands of fossil intermediates.  So to the creationist, I say go ahead, learning never hurt anyone. Go take a college course on evolution, or go talk to a biologist (who did not get their degree from a bible institute), go to the museums and see the fossil intermediates, or, hell, just surf the web and find some PEER REVIEWED scientific journals ( is a great website with fantastic information and links to many different scientific papers). Go and learn


Austin Young Michaels

(following link included by Ben Conover) – lovely creationism bit