Argument 1 Evolution is a fact
When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.” That’s exactly why we cannot trust mere human understanding to explain the unobservable past—emotion and pride get in the way. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is. It’s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof.
Evolution is a fact as well as a theory. The objection to it as based on assumptions that are no observed has two problems. First it is based on a assumption that can make predictions. If assumptions makes a science bad, then you might as well drop science all together. Assumptions are fine as long as accurate predictions and evidence can be found for it. The second one is because they would rather speak a non-defined english then a defined one. Let me beat a dead horse some more now. Here is the definition of observation:
The action or process of observingsomething or someone carefully or in order to gain information
The key word there is observing. To get to this we must define observe:
Notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant
Watch (someone or something) carefully and attentively
Take note of or detect (something) in the course of a scientific study
So as we can see watching something is only one way you can observe. So if we find a fossils that has traits of two animals and is in a time before its decedents and after its ancestors, we have used observation to find a transitional fossil. So evolution is observational weather it be by fossil evidence or someone watching it.
Argument 2 Only the uneducated reject evolution
Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background (e.g., if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated). There are many lists of well-educated scholars who look to the Bible for answers (here’s one)—and we could point out Darwin’s own deficit of formal education (he earned a bachelor’s in theology). But the bigger issue is that education—or lack—does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position
Well seeing as america is complaining about its education but has a 40% creationist population, while a country like japan has a low creationist count but a good education seems to show why this argument stands. It seems creationism does not in fact help education. To add many creationist go science is stupid and can not be trusted until atheist and fence sitters show up, then all of a sudden science is okay. The general creationist population tends to be less educated then the science community. Isaac Newton is a bad example because for one he was not around when natural selection was discovered, and he was under the rule of the church so even if he did he would get what all those who challenged the church would get,
being exiled. I can argue a persons position tends to go with beliefs on education. I.E those who accept evolution tend to be smarter then creationist. However to be fair this only goes to science and maybe history(depending on weather the creationist is a old earth or a young earth creationist). Politics, business, and sports for example is places creationist can be educated as much as those who accept science.
Argument 3 Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution
The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word). Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point; everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking (i.e., worldview).
Remember when I said creationist may not be great in history, this will show you that is the young earth variant. Through out the years people tried to prove a young earth, yet even before darwin they just could not come to that conclusion.
Here are some quote proving it what I mean
D. Swan 1796 – Jany 5th (Page 2) Fossils have been long studdied as great Curiosities collected with great pains treasured up with great Care and at a great Expence and shown and admired with as much pleasure as a Childs rattle or his Hobby horse is shown and admired by himself and his playfellows - because it is pretty. And this has been done by Thousands who have never paid the least regard to that wonderful order & regularity with which Nature has disposed of these singular productions and assigned to each Class its peculiar Stratum"
"Humans in the Linnaeus system
The human species in a modern Linnaean system of classification.
Linnaeus organized life with an almost geometrical precision, and was so impressed by his own system that he used it to organize rocks and other non-living matter. Although his classification of minerals may now be long forgotten, within the biological world, at any rate, Linnaeus’ system proved to be useful. It was clear and straightforward, making the challenge of classifying new species far easier than previous systems. It became the standard way to organize life’s diversity.
Biologists still use Linnaeus’ conventions today when they name a new species. But Darwin rendered the ideas behind those conventions obsolete. Darwin recognized that evolution could produce the hierarchy of similarities that so impressed Linnaeus, as old species gave rise to new species. Biologists still place pigs, porcupines, and people in Mammalia, but they do so because all the evidence—comparisons of fossils, anatomy, and genes— confirms that they descend from a common ancestor."
As shown humans were considered apes and we have already notice that geology has an organized strata. This means all the evidence for evolution has been found before darwin was even born. The evidence for evolution today is overwhelming as you can go and see all of it in a museum. The idea of evolution and all science that conflicts creationism was found before darwin was born and even some christians had notice evidence for evolution and science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...ry_thought
Argument 4 Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
Why does this argument fail? We’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.
First, gravity is much more complicated then that. In fact things falling is not even good evidence for gravity. Gravity is the attraction of two physical bodies. Things falling does not show how to bodies attract. In fact newton did not even discovery how gravity work because the apple feel, but because it fell in a certain way. So if one does not see anything fall in a certain way the won't see gravity by falling.
The amoeba to goat example is a strawman. Not only would that disprove evolution, but no where does it say ameobas became goats. If you said let us see land animals to aquatic animals we can show you cetacean evolution. Yes creationist it would count as I already shown observe does not equal eye witness.
Argument 5 Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space—long before this could have been directly observed (Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22). The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise (which wasn’t the case—only a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat). But even if this were true (it’s not), direct, repeatable observation shows us the earth is round and orbiting the sun. Evolutionary stories about fossils are not direct observations; they’re assumption-based beliefs.
The point of this argument is to show that doubting evolution is unscientific. There are more scientist named steve then scientist that say evolution is false. Ignoring the fact that the english bible it says circle instead of sphere(which even then would be wrong) the bible is not the problem in this argument, it is the anti-scientific stand point of AiG. Creationist also tend to be in the past, however this is only when they are around other creationist, seeing as how they can say those things and get a nod instead of actually have to learn science. And in the end we go back to observations, in which creationist do not ever want to define. Let us show and observation using a fossil. Sphecomyrma is a primitive ant. Scientist have NOTICED this ant is dated older then any other ant found so far. Scientist have also NOTICED it has primtive wasp traits like a jaw with only two teeth and double tibial spurs on its hind and middle legs, and derived ant traits like being wingless and having a metapleural gland. Using observations we have found out this animal is a transitional fossil further proving the relationship between ants and wasp. So evolution is based on observations. Oh and many sciences we accept are not direct observations. For example we have never seen pluto and neptune orbit the sun, however evidence has been shown that they do.
Argument 6 It’s here, so it must have evolved
A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless. The Bible offers another (and more sound) framework for how those traits and species came to be.
However the thing is that you can not reach the number 4 by any other way but by numbers. This ends up going to misunderstanding evolution. Let me set up the analogy in a better way, but first how evolution works. Evolution is the mechanism in which describes a change in organisms through reproduction and population mechanics. Evolution has many different mechanics in which it works. Natural selection and mutations for example. Now for the analogy:
Evolution=numbers
Natural selection=2+2
Mutations=5-1
As you can see no matter how evolution works, it is still the end result of biodiversity. Creationism has no evidence to explain biodiversity. In fact comparing the scientific papers and evidence for evolutionary biology vs creationism, it would seem that creationism is anti-science.
Argument 7 Natural selection is evolution
This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it’s an important component of the biblical worldview.
This is the most dishonest argument yet. For years creationist sat down mocking natural selection ever since darwin discovered it, and now creationist want to sit down and claim it was never part of evolution. Natural selection does explain all of evolution, even through fossils. In fact most objections creationist make towards evolution(i.e the crocoduck or dogs from cats) disproves natural selection. So at the same time you are saying natural selection is not evolution, you object to evolution by try to disprove natural selection. Also evolution is not molecules to man. Evolution starts when life starts, because molecules are not biological organisms, they could not evolve. Also no scientist says natural selection can not produce anything new in a population, seeing as many use natural selection to describe ring species or when an animal inherits and new behavior or structure.
Argument 8 Common design means common ancestry
Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans (homology), for example, do not prove common descent—that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.
Again as shown with my sphecomyrma example, we have confirmed predictions through fossils by observation, and I have also shown all science uses assumptions and that assumptions are alright as long as it can make valid predictions and be supported by evidence. Homology makes no sense in creationism. Why? Because creationism never predicted it. Homology was discovered by those who studied evolution, but now creationist try to take it and claim it as their own. Also it seems sad how without evolution creatures like tiktaalik have some homological structures in its fins however it is not complete. Seems like at that moment tiktaalik was made with half a limb(ironic isn't it).
Argument 9 Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers. In other words, we can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes.
As always this can only be true if you use science in a from lower then basic. Geological shows transitional fossils, and using dating methods all show how old they earth is. They also show what earth was like back then based on the elements found in said layers. Like before assumptions are okay if they can make predictions and have evidence. The flood does not help either. If the flood happen there should be fossils mixed up.
Argument 10 Mutations drive evolution
Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost.
Well this is well right besides one point, and this point is actually a misunderstanding. Evolution is not a being that can think and notice. Evolution works like trading, you must give one to obtain another. For example, tyrannosaurs had powerful jaws and legs to help it catch prey, however as tyrannosaurs began to get more powerful jaws there arms were used less and became near if not already useless. Mutations do have a cost, but that cost could give benefits to organism, and these benefits can accumulate and form new species, families, orders, and even classes.
Argument 11 The Scopes trial
Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this: Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common—though completely flawed—perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.
Well how? Evolution at that time was illegal, teaching it would get one fined. To add it was in the south, the garbage can of america where creationist and anti-science run rampant, especially back then. I have never heard this argument used by any one, but it seems like this author did not like the fact that creationism only had influence and was accepted when it had power over people instead of being scientific.
Argument 12 Science vs. religion
News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common theme presents science and religion as opposing forces—reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it’s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.
I have, in turn tried my best to avoid turning toward science vs religion but I have no choice. You see it is science vs religion. As shown, creationist try to tie the bible with science. However the bible is not a science book. The fact you said the bible is inerrant is false seeing as many stories have been shown false and many translations were added to the bible. Also science does not work well in a creationist world. Seeing as yahweh for example stopped the sun(which in turn already shows the bible as a non science book) and caused it to stay as day, yahweh can do what he wants with the universe and all science could be rendered wrong if yahweh wills it. One can argue he will not do that, but he clearly does when he preforms "miracles"(or so it is supposed to be).
Weather god exist or not does not negate whether science should happen. Humans are curious, and humans want to know all that they can, it is in our nature.
When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.” That’s exactly why we cannot trust mere human understanding to explain the unobservable past—emotion and pride get in the way. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is. It’s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof.
Evolution is a fact as well as a theory. The objection to it as based on assumptions that are no observed has two problems. First it is based on a assumption that can make predictions. If assumptions makes a science bad, then you might as well drop science all together. Assumptions are fine as long as accurate predictions and evidence can be found for it. The second one is because they would rather speak a non-defined english then a defined one. Let me beat a dead horse some more now. Here is the definition of observation:
The action or process of observingsomething or someone carefully or in order to gain information
The key word there is observing. To get to this we must define observe:
Notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant
Watch (someone or something) carefully and attentively
Take note of or detect (something) in the course of a scientific study
So as we can see watching something is only one way you can observe. So if we find a fossils that has traits of two animals and is in a time before its decedents and after its ancestors, we have used observation to find a transitional fossil. So evolution is observational weather it be by fossil evidence or someone watching it.
Argument 2 Only the uneducated reject evolution
Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background (e.g., if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated). There are many lists of well-educated scholars who look to the Bible for answers (here’s one)—and we could point out Darwin’s own deficit of formal education (he earned a bachelor’s in theology). But the bigger issue is that education—or lack—does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position
Well seeing as america is complaining about its education but has a 40% creationist population, while a country like japan has a low creationist count but a good education seems to show why this argument stands. It seems creationism does not in fact help education. To add many creationist go science is stupid and can not be trusted until atheist and fence sitters show up, then all of a sudden science is okay. The general creationist population tends to be less educated then the science community. Isaac Newton is a bad example because for one he was not around when natural selection was discovered, and he was under the rule of the church so even if he did he would get what all those who challenged the church would get,
being exiled. I can argue a persons position tends to go with beliefs on education. I.E those who accept evolution tend to be smarter then creationist. However to be fair this only goes to science and maybe history(depending on weather the creationist is a old earth or a young earth creationist). Politics, business, and sports for example is places creationist can be educated as much as those who accept science.
Argument 3 Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution
The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word). Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point; everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking (i.e., worldview).
Remember when I said creationist may not be great in history, this will show you that is the young earth variant. Through out the years people tried to prove a young earth, yet even before darwin they just could not come to that conclusion.
Here are some quote proving it what I mean
D. Swan 1796 – Jany 5th (Page 2) Fossils have been long studdied as great Curiosities collected with great pains treasured up with great Care and at a great Expence and shown and admired with as much pleasure as a Childs rattle or his Hobby horse is shown and admired by himself and his playfellows - because it is pretty. And this has been done by Thousands who have never paid the least regard to that wonderful order & regularity with which Nature has disposed of these singular productions and assigned to each Class its peculiar Stratum"
"Humans in the Linnaeus system
The human species in a modern Linnaean system of classification.
Linnaeus organized life with an almost geometrical precision, and was so impressed by his own system that he used it to organize rocks and other non-living matter. Although his classification of minerals may now be long forgotten, within the biological world, at any rate, Linnaeus’ system proved to be useful. It was clear and straightforward, making the challenge of classifying new species far easier than previous systems. It became the standard way to organize life’s diversity.
Biologists still use Linnaeus’ conventions today when they name a new species. But Darwin rendered the ideas behind those conventions obsolete. Darwin recognized that evolution could produce the hierarchy of similarities that so impressed Linnaeus, as old species gave rise to new species. Biologists still place pigs, porcupines, and people in Mammalia, but they do so because all the evidence—comparisons of fossils, anatomy, and genes— confirms that they descend from a common ancestor."
As shown humans were considered apes and we have already notice that geology has an organized strata. This means all the evidence for evolution has been found before darwin was even born. The evidence for evolution today is overwhelming as you can go and see all of it in a museum. The idea of evolution and all science that conflicts creationism was found before darwin was born and even some christians had notice evidence for evolution and science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...ry_thought
Argument 4 Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
Why does this argument fail? We’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.
First, gravity is much more complicated then that. In fact things falling is not even good evidence for gravity. Gravity is the attraction of two physical bodies. Things falling does not show how to bodies attract. In fact newton did not even discovery how gravity work because the apple feel, but because it fell in a certain way. So if one does not see anything fall in a certain way the won't see gravity by falling.
The amoeba to goat example is a strawman. Not only would that disprove evolution, but no where does it say ameobas became goats. If you said let us see land animals to aquatic animals we can show you cetacean evolution. Yes creationist it would count as I already shown observe does not equal eye witness.
Argument 5 Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space—long before this could have been directly observed (Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22). The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise (which wasn’t the case—only a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat). But even if this were true (it’s not), direct, repeatable observation shows us the earth is round and orbiting the sun. Evolutionary stories about fossils are not direct observations; they’re assumption-based beliefs.
The point of this argument is to show that doubting evolution is unscientific. There are more scientist named steve then scientist that say evolution is false. Ignoring the fact that the english bible it says circle instead of sphere(which even then would be wrong) the bible is not the problem in this argument, it is the anti-scientific stand point of AiG. Creationist also tend to be in the past, however this is only when they are around other creationist, seeing as how they can say those things and get a nod instead of actually have to learn science. And in the end we go back to observations, in which creationist do not ever want to define. Let us show and observation using a fossil. Sphecomyrma is a primitive ant. Scientist have NOTICED this ant is dated older then any other ant found so far. Scientist have also NOTICED it has primtive wasp traits like a jaw with only two teeth and double tibial spurs on its hind and middle legs, and derived ant traits like being wingless and having a metapleural gland. Using observations we have found out this animal is a transitional fossil further proving the relationship between ants and wasp. So evolution is based on observations. Oh and many sciences we accept are not direct observations. For example we have never seen pluto and neptune orbit the sun, however evidence has been shown that they do.
Argument 6 It’s here, so it must have evolved
A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless. The Bible offers another (and more sound) framework for how those traits and species came to be.
However the thing is that you can not reach the number 4 by any other way but by numbers. This ends up going to misunderstanding evolution. Let me set up the analogy in a better way, but first how evolution works. Evolution is the mechanism in which describes a change in organisms through reproduction and population mechanics. Evolution has many different mechanics in which it works. Natural selection and mutations for example. Now for the analogy:
Evolution=numbers
Natural selection=2+2
Mutations=5-1
As you can see no matter how evolution works, it is still the end result of biodiversity. Creationism has no evidence to explain biodiversity. In fact comparing the scientific papers and evidence for evolutionary biology vs creationism, it would seem that creationism is anti-science.
Argument 7 Natural selection is evolution
This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it’s an important component of the biblical worldview.
This is the most dishonest argument yet. For years creationist sat down mocking natural selection ever since darwin discovered it, and now creationist want to sit down and claim it was never part of evolution. Natural selection does explain all of evolution, even through fossils. In fact most objections creationist make towards evolution(i.e the crocoduck or dogs from cats) disproves natural selection. So at the same time you are saying natural selection is not evolution, you object to evolution by try to disprove natural selection. Also evolution is not molecules to man. Evolution starts when life starts, because molecules are not biological organisms, they could not evolve. Also no scientist says natural selection can not produce anything new in a population, seeing as many use natural selection to describe ring species or when an animal inherits and new behavior or structure.
Argument 8 Common design means common ancestry
Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans (homology), for example, do not prove common descent—that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.
Again as shown with my sphecomyrma example, we have confirmed predictions through fossils by observation, and I have also shown all science uses assumptions and that assumptions are alright as long as it can make valid predictions and be supported by evidence. Homology makes no sense in creationism. Why? Because creationism never predicted it. Homology was discovered by those who studied evolution, but now creationist try to take it and claim it as their own. Also it seems sad how without evolution creatures like tiktaalik have some homological structures in its fins however it is not complete. Seems like at that moment tiktaalik was made with half a limb(ironic isn't it).
Argument 9 Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers. In other words, we can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes.
As always this can only be true if you use science in a from lower then basic. Geological shows transitional fossils, and using dating methods all show how old they earth is. They also show what earth was like back then based on the elements found in said layers. Like before assumptions are okay if they can make predictions and have evidence. The flood does not help either. If the flood happen there should be fossils mixed up.
Argument 10 Mutations drive evolution
Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost.
Well this is well right besides one point, and this point is actually a misunderstanding. Evolution is not a being that can think and notice. Evolution works like trading, you must give one to obtain another. For example, tyrannosaurs had powerful jaws and legs to help it catch prey, however as tyrannosaurs began to get more powerful jaws there arms were used less and became near if not already useless. Mutations do have a cost, but that cost could give benefits to organism, and these benefits can accumulate and form new species, families, orders, and even classes.
Argument 11 The Scopes trial
Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this: Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common—though completely flawed—perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.
Well how? Evolution at that time was illegal, teaching it would get one fined. To add it was in the south, the garbage can of america where creationist and anti-science run rampant, especially back then. I have never heard this argument used by any one, but it seems like this author did not like the fact that creationism only had influence and was accepted when it had power over people instead of being scientific.
Argument 12 Science vs. religion
News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common theme presents science and religion as opposing forces—reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it’s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.
I have, in turn tried my best to avoid turning toward science vs religion but I have no choice. You see it is science vs religion. As shown, creationist try to tie the bible with science. However the bible is not a science book. The fact you said the bible is inerrant is false seeing as many stories have been shown false and many translations were added to the bible. Also science does not work well in a creationist world. Seeing as yahweh for example stopped the sun(which in turn already shows the bible as a non science book) and caused it to stay as day, yahweh can do what he wants with the universe and all science could be rendered wrong if yahweh wills it. One can argue he will not do that, but he clearly does when he preforms "miracles"(or so it is supposed to be).
Weather god exist or not does not negate whether science should happen. Humans are curious, and humans want to know all that they can, it is in our nature.
![[Image: guilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=orig15.deviantart.net%2F1dbf%2Ff%2F2011%2F319%2F3%2F3%2Fguilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
