This is an old claim from creationists who really don’t understand evolution… or apparently reproduction. I don’t consider it a ‘weakness’ of evolution, but it is an attack against it.
If humans evolved from monkeys, how come monkeys still exist?
This is an old claim from creationists who really don’t understand evolution… or apparently reproduction. I don’t consider it a ‘weakness’ of evolution, but it is an attack against it.
If humans evolved from monkeys, how come monkeys still exist?
Holy crap. I can’t believe this was said to me today. Creationism is the basis of all science. To which…
Information is a tricky word. Mainly because it is confused a lot of the time, by the majority of the…
Reading a recent creationist blog post and the ensuing thread, I found out that the goal of science is to replace real religion with a government/state religion. I know what I think the goal of science is. But I’m curious as to what others think the goal of science is.
In a previous thread, I asked for publications that support Intelligent Design. Of all the ones listed, only one actually seemed to provide supporting evidence for ID. The others were interesting ideas, but mainly dealt with how evolution can’t have done x (produce complex folding proteins or whatever).
But the paper I want to talk about today was different. The title suggested, in no uncertain terms, what to expect.
EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN BIRD FEATHERS AND AVIAN RESPIRATION
Most people probably haven’t heard of Mount Vernon ISD in Ohio, but it’s become a name in the circles of…
About a week ago, I took on the task of refuting the claims of Texas creationists. I used the so-called weaknesses of evolution from this page.
For your reference, I’ve included the complete list here. If I do anymore weaknesses of evolution, I’ll add them to this list.
The last section of the webpage “weaknesses of evolution” is some helpful tips from creationists about how to prevent misunderstandings.
Does not knowing exactly how something happened imply that it didn’t happen?
Creationists are constantly harping on the difference between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”. ‘Micro’ being the small changes within a population that is readily observable in nature and the lab. ‘Macro’ being the larger changes between higher taxonomic levels. Personally, I greatly dislike this artificial distinction. There is evolution.