The creation of anti-evolutionists

I’m going to review an atrocious article I just read, and I think you’ll agree that deconstructing it will be like child’s play. And not just because it appeared in my daughter’s latest issue of Clubhouse Jr.

Featured in Focus on the Family’s magazine aimed at children aged 4 to 8, “From Goo to You?” is a two-page article authored by Barbara Owens. And boy, do those two pages pack a wallop: they’re positively jam-packed with inaccurate information, ranging from ostensibly genuine misunderstandings to obvious, indefensible misrepresentations. In the process, Owens (on behalf of Focus on the Family) throws key fellow evolution critics under the bus even while borrowing their terminology — but more on that later.

From the outset let me assure you that my comments about “creationists” and the boneheadedness (at best — dishonesty at worst) of the people behind this article are not meant to be applied to parents and kids who believe in creationism. As a former creationist, born of creationist parents, I understand how hard it is to reject the deafening roar of the evangelical Christian community, which has been lockstep in sync on the subject of how ridiculous and wicked evolution is. I read that there are 88,000 subscribers to this magazine, and if you consider multiple children in the household, you begin to see how wide a reach this article will get. I can’t help but be of the old fashioned opinion that people should know better before they set about trying to propagandize the whole evangelical population of children.

The article begins,

“Humans evolved from apes.”

You may have read those words in a science textbook or heard them spoken by a teacher as a fact. But the real fact is that scientists don’t know how life began.

And thus begins a common motif of this article. This is one of those instances in which no benefit of the doubt can be granted: no one who has the temerity to write or publish an article denying the scientific consensus on evolution may claim ignorance of the simple, foundational truth that the theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life, not the origin of life. One might believe wholeheartedly both that God placed the first cell on earth Himself and that the theory of evolution is solid, root and branch — and maintain no cognitive dissonance in doing so. Evolution is a description of how things already living are related.

To the contrary, Owen claims, “Basically, evolution says the universe once consisted of a few disorganized chemicals floating around in space. Those chemicals somehow combined to form living creatures.” So “evolution” says that, huh? Oh, my aching head.

But it doesn’t let up. At least half of the article is devoted to pushing this idea. The subsection entitled “Puzzle Problem” is organized around the following premise:

One of the major problems behind evolution is the spontaneous generation of life. Evolutionists say life formed from primordial goo.

Disjointedly, it continues, “After numerous mutational changes and billions of years, life became more complex.” From here an analogy unfolds: the chance of mutations creating complexity like we have now is akin to the chance that shaking a box of puzzle pieces and throwing them on the floor will assemble the puzzle correctly. This section ends with the snide remark that one would have to be at it for billions of years for it to happen. I’m sure multiple of my readers will see the problems with that analogy. Any takers?

The most dangerous and one of the least accurate presuppositions underlying this article is summed up in the first sentence of the second paragraph: “At its foundation, the theory of evolution starts with one basic premise: There is no God.” Despite numerous high profile counterexamples, creationist indoctrinators like FoF keep repeating the mantra that evolution is just a shroud thinly veiling atheism. “But by excluding God, evolution ultimately boils down to the religion of self-worship.”

“The religion of self-worship.” Yes, and the “evolution is a religion” argument continues. The final subsection is entitled “Faith of Evolution”, which contains the typical gem, “In reality, because of the holes and questions in evolution, it takes more faith to believe in that theory than it does to believe in a creator God.” Elsewhere, “And ultimately because both evolution and creation take faith to believe in, couldn’t the world really have been formed just like the Bible says?”

So evolution is an atheistic faith system locked up with a sign that informs passersby that “Evolution doesn’t allow for an intelligent Designer. It relies on chance mutation and the power of time to explain life.” So now even key Intelligent Design advocates such as Michael Behe who accept even human evolution are off their rocker, because foolish Creator-denying is the only reason anyone would accept common descent. Has anyone been kind enough to inform Behe of his apostasy?

One section attempts to address what school kids are to do when their teacher “says evolution is fact”. After encouraging them not to be too confrontational, it lists a few not-as-confrontational questions to be raised:

1. In all animals and humans evolved from other creatures, why don’t we find any fossils of transitional forms that are halfway between two creatures?

Oh, but we do. Far too many for someone purporting to be instructing children about science to ignore.

2. If the universe began as a bunch of disorganized elements, where did those elements come from?

Good question for atheists. But as I explained above, it has exactly bupkis to do with evolution.

3. Why aren’t fossils of the smallest organisms found in the “oldest,” deepest layers of the earth and more complex organisms found near the top?

A leading question that’s built on an out-and-out lie. Even if there weren’t enough evidence of this being the case (and it’s not even close), the question is posed in such a way as to deny that it happens at all! That’s a bald-faced misrepresentation of clear facts not denied even by serious creationist organizations (they even have to come up with crackpot theories to explain why complex organisms are on top and less complex ones are lower). Worse, what is Johnny going to say when teacher replies, showing the fossil record in the geological column?

4. Because fossils don’t hold little signs that say, “Hello, I am a fossil. I have been sitting here for ___ years. Have a nice day,” don’t scientists have to “date” fossils based on their beliefs?

This is a poorly phrased version of the circularity argument. Andrew McRae explains in the Talk Origins FAQ on Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale, “When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one’s understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.”

In another little section set off from the main text are listed a few of creationists’ favorite criticisms under the heading “Miracles of Darwinism“. The first is the rehashed “spontaneous generation of life” criticism of abiogenesis cloaked as criticism of evolutionary theory (yes, again). Next is the common argument that evolution depends too much on time; yes, an ancient universe as measured by astronomy, geology, and other independent disciplines is a necessary component of evolution, but time itself isn’t enough — mutations are an essential part. They must have realized this — the next cited “miracle” is the “persistence of the improbable”, which maintains that mutations are overwhelmingly harmful. Last is an obligatory dig at punctuated equilibrium.

The pervasiveness and unanimity of the anti-evolution teaching to Christian children is why I thought I’d even bother responding to this article. All my kids’ peers, especially in the homeschooling community we’re a part of, are firm YEC’s and their families probably welcomed this article as warmly as my sainted parents would have. However, my perceptive science geek young daughter will soon begin to notice how much at variance this article’s claims are with the information in the many science books she devours. So now I have to figure out how to explain to my daughter (before I am honestly ready to) why most of her Christian peers would consider her father an atheist in sheep’s clothing.

Maybe they’re just trying to force me to focus on my family. Gee, thanks!

Related posts:

1. Why Christian scientists are evolutionists, revisited When I posted the poll, “Why do Christian scientists often profess belief in human evolution?”, originally under this post and since then in my sidebar,...
2. Creationism, education, and the state All right, here’s a rant for you. There’s a news story circulating about the well-known fact that homeschooling texts are ignoring or even (the audacity!)...
3. Why are so many Christian scientists evolutionists? As a followup on my reason number two from Why the debate over creationism matters, wherein I state a couple sources underlying this question, I’d...
4. ID movie exploits overblown Cambrian controversy Have you heard about this yet? Intelligent Design Documentary to Premiere at Smithsonian Affiliated California Science Center Darwin’s Dilemma explores one of the great mysteries...
5. Missing link found? From Missing Link: Scientists In New York Unveil Fossil Of Lemur Monkey Hailed As Man’s Earliest Ancestor from Sky News: Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old...