Confused Creationist Student Wrong on Evolution

Confused creationist article

Creationism is the belief that life appeared abruptly on Earth with most of their typical features already present and that species have not evolved from a common ancestor. There are many different kinds of creationism, but all of them include a rejection of most parts of modern evolutionary biology. Because the evidence for common ancestry is massive, creationism is a pseudoscience akin to anti-vaccine activism, astrology, climate denial and HIV/AIDS denialism.

In fact, creationism uses the same kinds of rhetorical techniques, including quoting scientists out of context, false balance, butchering simple scientific facts, conspiracy theories, logical fallacies and so on. Because creationism in its modern forms stem from the early and middle of the 1900s, the arguments used by creationists have been around for a long time and keeps getting recycled over and over. In many cases, creationists themselves do not understand their arguments because they spread and mutate over time.

A recent article (cache) written by a creationist student recently appeared as an online feature on The Cauldron website, which is the student newspaper of Cleveland State University. Flynn Burchfield describes himself as a “sophomore Accounting major at CSU” wrote about the evolution versus creationism struggle from his perspective as a Christian student. Unfortunately, it is an article that mostly contain poorly constructed variants of creationist claims that have already been refuted thousands of times and a strong dose of logical fallacies (such as appeal to consequences).

Scientific facts cannot rob us of our humanity

[…] I believe the theory of evolution takes away the humanity of humans. If we are descended from apes and amoebas, then we are creatures, animals, just as they are. We do not truly have consciences or morality — these things would be human constructs created by our instinct.

This clearly highlights that the major problem that Burchfield sees with evolution is not related to the scientific evidence, but to alleged social and psychological consequences. However, these are not true. Evolution is merely a well-supported explanatory model for the origins of the diversity of life. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not about philosophical issues regarding conscience or morality. Does Burchfield think that atomic theory of matter, that states that all matter (including humans and their brains) is made up out of atoms, “take away the humanity of humans” and that we must insist that atoms are not real unless we risk loosing our conscience and morality? Probably not.

Follow Debunking Denialism on Facebook or Twitter for new updates.

Many scientists who laid the foundation of evolution were devout Christians

As a human race, some of us are so arrogant that we’d rather deny our spirituality and morality than to accept that we are created, because really, that’s why the theory of evolution was postulated as an alternative to creation in the first place.

This is a standard creationist trick: try to claim that evolution was just invented to explain away the creator deity of the Bible and thereby scare people away from understanding the science. In reality, many of the researchers who laid the foundations for evolution (including taxonomist Carl Linnaeus, naturalist and mathematician Comte de Buffon, and zoologist and paleontologist Georges Cuvier) were Christian and often even creationists. Although none of them saw the entire picture of the evolution of life, they made the scientific discoveries and developments necessary for the science of evolutionary biology to emergence.

Not all creationists believe in a young Earth

Creationists believe in a young earth, anywhere from 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

Not true. Creationism is an umbrella term for people who reject evolution for some religious ideology. However, they can have very different stances on issues such as the age of the Earth. Some, called young Earth creationists, think the Earth is around 6000 years old. Others, called old Earth creationists, accepts the modern scientific dating of the Earth (~4.5-4.6 billion years old), but usually do not accept evolution. These different groups can be subdivided further, but this is the largest division among creationists.

This is another common creationist trick: try to make it look like there are only two positions (young Earth creationism and modern evolutionary biology) and then make various arguments against evolution thinking that it demonstrates young Earth creationism. This is a logical fallacy called false dilemma (or sometimes false dichotomy), because there are, as we saw above, more positions than these two.

Carbon dating is not used to date the Earth

This is commonly objected to by evolutionists, as they reference carbon dating “proving” the earth is billions of years old. Long-term carbon dating has serious problems with the assumptions it makes. It assumes that lead and carbon, which affect decay rates, weren’t present early in the earth’s history.

No, carbon dating is not used to date the Earth. This is because carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and thus decay too fast to measure the age of the Earth. To date the age of the Earth, one can use multiple methods, including argon-argon dating, rubidium-strontium dating and many others. These methods independently converge, within the margin of error, to the same general date of the Earth.

Burchfield even butchers some of the creationist objections to radiometric dating. The real creationist arguments is that these methods make assumptions, including amount of initial material, that rocks are closed systems and that the constant decay rates. In reality, these are not arbitrary assumptions, but can be tested by looking at the material and measuring supernovas. This is discussed in additional details in the article Refuting “Radiometric Dating Methods Makes Untenable Assumptions!” that include graphs and sources.

There was no global flood

According to the Genesis account, there was a worldwide flood shortly after the creation of the world as a punishment by God for the wickedness of man. Before this flood, there had been no precipitation and the atmosphere was essentially a canopy of water vapor.

No, the idea that there was no precipitation before the Genesis flood and that all water was collected as a canopy of water is not based on the Genesis text. It is an invented story by creationists during the 1900s. There are many problems with the notion that a global flood happened a few thousand years ago. For instance, if the geological record was deposited in a short period of time (such as on the order of a single year), all the radioactive decay and magma flow we have evidence would have had to happen during that single year, which would produce enough heat to boil off the atmosphere and all the oceans and make the temperature so hot that nothing can live on the planet. Because of this and many other problems, many creationists have opted for an old Earth and that it was merely a regional or local flood instead.

The Cambrian radiation is evidence for evolution

The “Cambrian explosion,” for example, refers to a sudden appearance of a large number of fossils on the archeological record. A worldwide flood would account for this sudden appearance of fossils, and evolutionists have no good explanation for this “explosion.”

This is only sudden in geological terms. The Cambrian radiation likely lasted for at least 20 million years and show a gradual transition from small shelled fossils, trilobites and echinoderms, to the full Cambrian fauna. Most common animal groups we think about today, from reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals did not arise during the Cambrian and most of it happened in the ocean. We also have a good idea of why the Cambrian radiation occurred. Oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere increased substantially to support larger animal bodies, exiting an ice age, origin of Hox genes that control body plans, and increased in skeletons. A great review paper on the Cambrian radiation is Marshall (2006). In particular, Figure 1 shows that the Cambrian radiation is more compatible with evolution than creation of life in its present form.

Whale bones in the Andes?

Also, scientists have found other unusual unexplainable phenomena to evolutionists that only creation and a worldwide flood can explain, such as whale bones that have been found in the Andes Mountains.

This can easily be explained by science. The Andes were formed due to plate tectonics because the Nazca Plate and Antarctic Plate subduct under the South American Plate. The mountain chain grew due to these processes and eroded due to other processes and so the whale fossils on the Andes come from the ocean originally.

Evolution is not random chance

Mathematically, creation is much more likely than evolution. As a creationist I look at the theories of evolution and they seem absurd. The odds that evolution could occur have been quoted as being “one in a billion trillion” according to the Institute of Creation Research.

This is not how math or evolution works. Mutations are one of the main originators of the biological diversity that natural selection and other mechanisms work on. These are approximately random in the sense that they occur without respect to whether they are beneficial or not in the future. However, most mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection, is decidedly non-random. Biological variation that contributes to reproduction gets accumulated over time, which lead to complex adaptations. Because evolution is not random, these probability calculations (which are arbitrary and false) do not apply.

Appeal to consequences is not a valid argument against a scientific model

Finally, as I referred earlier, morality is an extremely strong defense for creation, or more specifically for an intelligent creator.

Go ahead and believe in a creator deity if you want. There are many people, from scientists to the Catholic church, who accepts the existence of both a creator deity and evolution. Morality is not at all an argument against evolution, just like it is not an argument against the atomic theory of evolution.

We as humans innately have some concept of right and wrong. Yet, people want to believe that morality is a human construct, created for survival.

It is certainly true that humans seem to have an innate sense of right and wrong, and so do other species, from chimpanzees to some birds. Yet this is not a perfect system. Irrational hostility towards strangers, for instance, might be innate or evolutionary beneficial, but that does not mean that it is moral. Burchfield is essentially confusing the evolutionary origins of moral psychology with the intentional act of moral reasoning. These are not the same.

The Bible says we are created in the image of God, this is what differentiates us from animals. If morality is just a higher form of survival instincts, what’s the point of living?

Again, evolution is a scientific explanation for the origin of biological diversity. It is not an answer to the meaning of life and does not pretend to be. It is like asking what is the point of living if all matter consists of atoms or diseases are caused by pathogens. It is just a red herring and a rhetorical device.

If we are really just animals, living an existence for 60, 70, 80 years or more if we are lucky, what difference does any of this make? But since I believe in a creator, life makes sense to me. I have a purpose. I know why I’m here, to glorify God, to be transformed into his image and to praise Him. I am an eternal being, my life has meaning.

That is not how it works. You are an animal just like a crocodile is a reptile, regardless of whether a deity exists or not. It is just a matter of taxonomy. Also, the consequences of a belief is not relevant for the truth or falsehood of said belief. There are many true beliefs that produce unfortunate consequences (such as the discovery that someone has cancer) and many false beliefs that produce beneficial outcomes (such as the belief that wars do not exist reducing some anxiety).

Emil Karlsson

Debunker of pseudoscience.

6 thoughts on “Confused Creationist Student Wrong on Evolution

  • April 28, 2017 at 22:00

    In the end, like with most creationist pleas, it comes down to “I don’t want to die, and I want to believe in personal salvation and that I’ll never die”. The fact that people try to construe this as some sort of scientific argument is truly sad. It’s simply a fear of personal demise.

  • April 29, 2017 at 17:02

    Emil Karlsson,
    “Not all creationists believe in a young Earth”

    Not true. Creationism is an umbrella term for people who reject evolution for some religious ideology. However, they can have very different stances on issues such as the age of the Earth. Some, called young Earth creationists, think the Earth is around 6000 years old. Others, called old Earth creationists, accepts the modern scientific dating of the Earth (~4.5-4.6 billion years old), but usually do not accept evolution. These different groups can be subdivided further, but this is the largest division among creationists.

    This is another common creationist trick: try to make it look like there are only two positions (young Earth creationism and modern evolutionary biology) and then make various arguments against evolution thinking that it demonstrates young Earth creationism. This is a logical fallacy called false dilemma (or sometimes false dichotomy), because there are, as we saw above, more positions than these two.

    Also not all creationists are even Christians. Many forms of creationism ignore or even contradict the Bible. Take Hindu creationism for example

    Hindu Creationism, Just Like Our Own

    Hindu views on evolution

  • April 30, 2017 at 00:08

    Thats’ the kind of mind developed by homeschooled children using AIG material. They teach the kids all of these ass backwards, factually wrong, multiple fallacied, ridiculous claims as fact. Then set them loose in the world.

    A tragedy in many ways.

    Great writeup sir. The more this kind of disservice to humanity is highlighted, the less dark places the deviously manipulative cockroaches who would do this to kids have to scurry around in.

  • August 30, 2017 at 21:53

    Hi Emil,

    My name is Flynn Burchfield, I am the guy who wrote the article. My purpose in writing the article was to show Christians on campus who are “compromising” and believe in evolution and God that this is not right. I also wanted to expose those that aren’t Christians to the other side that they may have never heard, so they could ask questions. This article was in no means a comprehensive argument, I had a word limit that I actually exceeded, and it was not meant as a proof of creation, but a base defense of it. I was asked by the opinion editor to do the format I did for this article, I decidedly hostile stance toward evolution from a creationist perspective. I guess it stands out more. Anyway, my original article, which was not published, was about how creationism is dismissed too easily, not that it is greater than evolution from an academic perspective, but that it is at least comparable. The real focus of that article was on the consequences of evolution on human morality. My editor basically said “nope, I want controversy” so you get the article that was published. Look I am no scientist. I have done enough research to feel secure in my Christian faith, but I am by no means able to convince a large group of people based on my SCIENTIFIC knowledge. However, I do believe I have a strong case from a moral point of view. The last thing I will say about the scientific side is this. There are many former evolutionist scientists who have become Christian Creationists, even despite the perceived “mountain” of evidence against creationism. I have seen enough to be convinced that creationism is at least possible from a scientific point of view, just like you believe evolution was possible from your scientific point of view. Both of our theories have flaws (I’m sure you will say that I am trying to make evolution and creationism equal and they aren’t even close to equal scientifically. But frankly I don’t care).

    Now to address some of your criticisms. Maybe I did not make this clear, but my article was from a Biblical perspective on creation (dating the world at approximately 7,000 years old). Therefore I do not take into account other versions of creationism. I also do not believe that you understand Christianity. You seem to believe that someone could be a Christian and a believer in evolution but that is not the case. The Bible states explicitly what happened during Creation, and it wasn’t evolution. In order to believe in the inerrency of Scripture and therefore be able to have full assurance in the Scripture being the Word of God, you must believe in everything in the scripture. You can’t pick and choose. Now there are people who claim to be Christians that do not believe in the divinely inspired Word of God as evidenced by their belief in evolution. These people are by no means mature Christians, and in most cases I would say they are not even Christian (Jesus says in the end that many people will claim to be His followers and He will say “depart from me, for I never knew you”). Another criticism I have of your responses is that you claim evolution is an explanation of biodiversity, so therefore it cannot be used in an argument about the meaning of life, conscience, or morality. I take issue with this because our origin is tied to who we are and what we are. According to evolution we are simply animal, with no spirit. The consequences of this is that there is no part of us that is eternal. So, as I said in the article, because we aren’t eternal, we live here for a few years and then that’s it, no purpose to life. Evolution says we are not eternal (at least when considering the Christian view of eternity), so this lack of true purpose is a consequence of evolution.

    Christianity says that humanity has a body, soul, and spirit. Animals have bodies, but they do not contain a spirit, because they are not created in God’s image, unlike humanity. Humanity according to the Bible, have spirits, and these are eternal parts of us. According to Christianity, when we are baptized in the Holy Spirit, we are given the power to overcome sin and our spirits are awakened. Without the baptism of the Holy Spirit we are simply people trying to do right and wrong “in our own strength”. So because evolution says we were not created in the image of God, evolution says that we could not have spirits, and therefore we cannot be baptized in the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot overcome sin. You can see why this makes evolution incompatible with Christianity not only because it directly opposes the Bible, but also because it makes it impossible to practice Christianity.

    Basically my conclusion is this. If you are a Christian and have met God, and have a personal relationship with Him, and have seen supernaturally miraculous things like I have, then you cannot be a believer in evolution. Christianity and evolution are by nature incompatible. If you aren’t a Christian I leave you with these questions and challenges. Why do you place such faith in evolution and not creation? Both have difficulties from a scientific perspective. What made you choose evolution? Was it because the scientific community believes in it? Just because everybody believes a lie that doesn’t make it truth. Have you ever given Jesus a chance in your life? How can you claim to know that Christianity is false if you have not given Christian practice a chance?

    (quick side-note, I did not become a Christian because I was afraid of death, this is a common misconception about Christians, that we believe because we want to go to heaven and don’t want to die, that’s just false. I became a Christian because I heard that Jesus died for me and I was convicted to repent. What I have seen since then has confirmed that He is real. I have witnessed God evidently at work in my life, my churches life, and my families life. If you are interested to know more just comment on my comment.)


Got anything reasonable to contribute?

%d bloggers like this:

Hate email lists? Follow on Facebook and Twitter instead.