Must-Reads for Fence-sitters (however, nothing turns an irrational person).
Anti-evolution arguments are hardly a problem for evolution. If you feel differently, feel free to spend some time on these websites. If you are simply willing to buy into anti-evolution arguments without at least looking for answers, then you are not being intellectually honest.
Talk Origins - an impressive archive of responses to creationist claims, evidence for evolution, and the exposure of creationist hackery.
Talk Origins - Index to Creationist Claims - responses to most anti-evolution arguments.
Talk Origins Quote-mine project - If you're someone who loves to quote evolutionists 'expressing doubts' by regurgitating these one often single-sentence quotes (sometimes even one or two words), read these statements in their full context. Then ask yourself why creation sources would use such tactics if they had the truth on their side..
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
Creationism vs Evolution
No Answers in Genesis
Pandas Thumb
Talk Design
THE GCSSEPM FOUNDATION
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
The Logical Fallacies of Creationist Arguments
Science and Creationism
PBS Evolution Library - an EXCELLENT FAQ!
Understanding Evolution
Evolution Happens
Understanding Evolution
How to debate a Creationist
The Evolutionary Tree
Evolution is not a linear event nor is it a ladder. It does not mean upgrade and evolution does not "lead up to humans." Humans are simply a variation of the plethora of life that evolution has resulted in. Much of the creationist propaganda presupposes that humans are the end sum of existence and therefore we can't possibly be animals. "I find a nebula beautiful therefore it was designed" and "how can you possibly think we are animals" only shows the egocentric nature of creationist thought.
What Evolution IS, why it's a fact, and why Creationism is a farce
To put it simply (oversimplifying a bit), Evolution is the gradual change in species over time. Evolution tells us how life as we know it came to be, and this was accomplished via genetic changes (the successive change in alleles ) that occur each reproductive cycle (we know this happens, because none of us are identical to our parents nor our siblings, we can observe the change in real time when we see speciation in effect, not to mention what we've learned through the study of DNA ). In nature, where species must compete with each other for food and mating rights, only so many of them will be successful. In a given environment, species with certain traits will have certain advantages over others and therefore be much more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on the genetic traits that made them successful, while those without these traits will be less likely to survive and reproduce and therefore those traits that proved to be disadvantageous will be less likely to continually exist in a species. Read more about the various causes of evolution.
Sometimes species will spread out become isolated from each other, and the same species will exist in completely different environments. Sometimes the local ecology will change. This will result in a different set of traits to be naturally selected and over millions of years, will result in gradual large-scale changes ( macroevolution ).
So then, why do creationists claim that "evolution says everything is getting better" or " things are not evolving they are devolving ?" Simply put, these are straw man arguments (building up a weak version of an opponent's viewpoint and attacking it). Likewise with their attack on the phrase " survival of the fittest ." This is not how evolutionary scientists generally describe evolution, and the term was actually coined not by Charles Darwin, but by Herbert Spencer who was writing about his ideas of economics and likening them to Darwin's Natural Selection. "Fittest" in this manner is a misnomer because what's considered 'fit' in one environment may prove to be a serious disadvantage in another.
Creation Science as Pseudo Science - Rather than explaining why each Creation science arguments are pseudo science I will provide links to rebuttals for some of the more common garden variety arguments that Creationists seem bent on repeating.
Typical Creationist Claims
The Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution
There are no beneficial mutations
The Universe must be young because of the rate of the; 1- Receding Moon 2- Earth's Magnetic Field 3- Depletion of the Sun 4- Slowing of the Earth's Rotation
X amount of scientists reject evolution
Evolution cannot explain; 1- right and wrong , 2- emotions , 3- the eye , 4- the bomadier beetle ,5- Irreducilble Complexity
Evolution contradicts what the Bible tells us (the real 'problem'). There are plenty of Christians who accept Evolution
Long story short, Creationism is primarily grounded in pseudoscience and its only real purpose is to distort people's understanding of evolution in defense of certain religious beliefs. Real science gathers and investigates facts, produces hypotheses and theories which it continually tests with falsifiable means. This methodology has led to the theory of evolution, which is universally accepted in the science community (minus a religious scientists who can easily gain a large following in a nation with a religious majority.
Creation science does not follow such an objective methodology. Creation science collects whatever convenient information it can find in order argue for the belief in creation while using straw man arguments, quote mines, and in some case, outright lies to discredit evolution. Few creationists understand this because they in fact see it as a debate; one side says this, the other side says that. They generally fail to see that the 'evolution side' is virtually the entire science community, and that Creationist rebuttals are generally straw man arguments that supposedly 'refute' established science.
Evolution is a Theory AND a Fact
Entrusting your understanding of evolution from these sources is like entrusting your understanding of smoking's effects on your health to Tobacco Industry scientists. Many people do not realize that the word theory has a different application in science than it does in every day usage, where we use it interchangeably with words like 'hunch' or 'conjecture.' This is simply not the way the word theory is used in science, where the word theory and fact are not mutually exclusive. Read more here.
If you are going to insist on simply accepting what creation science has to say about Evolution, at least read the 'other side' of the story from sources like TalkOrigins , then do some of your own independent research and decide what to believe. Sadly, few literalist Christians will do this because generally speaking, their idea of research is limited to looking for more reasons to continue believing what they are already desperately trying to continue believing.
Transitional fossils
Nothing exposes Creationist hackery like their claim that Transitional fossils are nonexistent
'Dino-Birds'
Archaeopteryx
Confuciusornis
Feathered Dinosaurs
Creationists continue to claim that "Archaeopteryx is just a bird" and then start listing its birdlike qualities while completely leaving out the numerous reptilian features that no modern birds possess (long bony tail, teeth, pneumatic bones, free vertebrae, etc). This comes from a blatant misunderstanding of taxonomy. Archaeopteryx has to be classified in one group or another. If it were classified as a dinosaur, Creationists would use the same argument, only substituting the word 'dinosaur' for 'bird.' Dinosaurs and birds are so closely related that they are now being regarded as either the same, which leads to the argument that it is almost pointless to say that dinosaurs are extinct, given that we may regard birds as modern dinosaurs. This is no different than with what see with fish. There are numerous Devonian era fish that are now extinct. Even though THOSE fish are extinct, modern day fish are simply their modern day relatives. So it would make no sense to say that fish are extinct, even though modern fish are not identical to Deveonian era fish.
There is also the straw man arguments that ignore the very basic understanding of evolution as sort of a tree and make it out to be this linear event, whereby one species cannot lead to another without going extinct. The Institute for Creation Research is very well known for using arguments like these, which work like this; Evolutionists claim that Species Y evolved from Species X, yet they are often found in the same strata of the fossil record. This argument implies that EVERY member of Species X must evolve into Species Y if evolution is true. This is a blatant and, I have to assume, intentional skewing of speciation. Species give rise to other species for various reasons, including changing ecological conditions or isolation. There is nothing about speciation that would lead one to believe that Species Y and Species X can't possibly be contemporaries. This is just another straw man argument in the Creationist arsenal.
.. Then of course there is the faulty claim that Archaeopteryx is a fraud. This is one of the urban legends that Answers in Genesis advises Creationists not to use. There is also the "fall back" argument that there should be transitions in between Archaeopteryx and other reptiles of birds. Like virtually all other Creationist arguments, this is based on an assumption, and it completely ignores the study of taphonomy and what it says about the rarity of and requirements for fossil preservation.
Aside from the backtracking argument that claims "there aren't ENOUGH transitional forms," there is an equally disturbing and even more dishonest attack; quote mines . While there is no debate among Paleontologists as to whether or not transitional fossils exist, sometimes they will debate as to whether or not it is a direct precursor to the succeeding fauna. For example, Archaeopteryx could very well have been an evolutionary 'dead end,' and modern day birds are the descendants of a close relative of Archaeopteryx (as opposed to Archaeopteryx itself). What these Paleontologists are questioning is whether or not Archaeopteryx is in fact an ancestor to modern-day birds as opposed to simply being closely related to such. Creationists love discussions like these, as it gives them quote mines to use in their attempt to perpetuate the illusion that evolutionists themselves deny that Archaeopteryx is really a transitional fossil. This type of dishonest hackery is really the heart of 'Creationism.'
Among 'Dog-Whales' we have some impressive creatures like Ambulocetus , Basilosaurus , Pakicetus inachus , and others. I could go on and on about transitional fossils but there are other, more qualified sources where you can find this information.
These sites list Transitional Fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm
Hominids aka Ape-Men
My favorite Transitional of all however, would have to be our extinct cousins and ancestors, the Hominids. Most creationists seem to blow off the entire hominid line and bring up Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, along with urban legends of Lucy's (Australopithecus Afarensis) skull or knee cap being found far away from the rest of her body. They appear to ignore the rest of the Hominid line most of the time. As a Creationist (yes, I bought into it at one point), I had absolutely no idea just how extensive these findings were. I was basically sheltered by the Creationist Straw Man arguments. A simple Anthropology class basically blew the lid off of every Creationist attack I had ever heard/read, because these arguments simply ignore the large body of evidence that exists.
We see a clear gradation from 'ape to human' in the study of Hominid anatomy. Apes have large defined saggittal crests and jaws, small brains, and a spine and pelvis that clearly make them knuckle-walkers. Humans have virtually no sagittal crest, smaller jaws, much larger brains, and a pelvis and spine that's useful for walking. Within the various hominids, we clearly see several levels of transitions, not only in their anatomy, but in their abilities to use stone tools, fire, even rudimentary forms of art and we make our way to the anatomically modern homo sapiens. Hominid fossils are not limited to 'a few monkey skulls' as Creationists would have you believe. Numerous species have been identified.
Understanding the Hominid Line
I suggest watching these 2 documentaries for a basic understanding of the Hominid line. Then read the following links for more details on the various Hominids.
Ape to Human - History Channel Documentary explaining the various Hominid findings!
Becoming Human - Excellent interactive Documentary about the various Hominids!
Creation Scientist Confusion on Hominids - Creation 'scientists' are adamant that Hominids are not 'ape-men,' but they can't agree in which are ape and which are human!
Various Hominid Skulls
The evolution from ancient primates (NOT monkeys!) to humans
Read all about Hominids!
Overview of the Various Hominids
The truth about Piltdown Man
The truth about Nebraska Man
Fossil Hominids - Excellent FAQ AND responses to Creationist arguments
The Geologic Column and The Law of Faunal Succession
For quite some time now, Geologists have known that 'lower' stratigraphic layers predated 'upper' layers. Even prior to Darwin's Origin of Species (and therefore, prior to the word 'Evolutionist'), it was known that fauna 'showed up' at different times in the Geological record due to the obvious fact that different layers contain completely different fauna--not just in terms of species or genuses, but completely different classes and even phyla. The men who created the Geologic Time scale now known as the Geologic Column, were not only Christian, but would likely be considered Progressive Creationists (whereby God created Life on Earth in steps, over a very long period of time) by today's semantics. However, since their work predates Darwin's Origin of Species, it is my belief that they would have been Evolutionists had the foundation of knowledge been laid down. Darwin's Theory is in part, a result of this Geological fact (not the other way around). The fact that it was understood that different creatures have existed during different geological periods was known BEFORE evolution was introduced, and the fact that Christian scientists were already modifying their view of Creation to accomodate this fact should serve as a wake up call to creationists.
Understanding of the Geologic/Statigraphic Column is also used in commercial enterprises like Petroleum Geology. I would venture to say that in modern western society, one of the biggest 'validators' of a scientific theory is when we see it successfully used commercially--especially in the petroleum industry. Successful corporations do not throw money away on 2nd rate science.
Creationists tend to make the argument that the column must be more 'universally' present in order to be valid. This is simply untrue. Sediment formataion (which creates the foundation of the layers) and erosion (which 'chips away' from the layers) does not happen uniformly throughout the Earth, during the same Geological Periods. Furthermore, 200 years of Geology has only solidified this concept as we continue to only find creatures of the Jusrassic Era in the layers identified as belonging to the Jurassic era. What we don't find is modern animals (including humans) in the same bedrock formations as creatures such as dinosaurs. Creationists are basically stuck with having to call 200 years of Geology a big mistake or even a lie. Arguments about human artifacts and/or footprints being found alongside dinosaur tracks or inside fossilized coal always turn out to be urban legends. Things like trees cutting through statigrahic layers' can easily be explained by simple Geology 101 concepts like cross-cutting (the cutting of older, but still-soft sediments by newer, objects). These are by no means ad hoc explanations. The laws of Geophysics were known and understood before Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution.
Learn about the Geologic Column
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_timescale
http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/geology/strat_column_how_to.ht ml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_faunal_succession
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefMedia.aspx?refid=4 61517922
http://www.chipr.sunysb.edu/eserc/SummerEducationalInterns/L inda/Creatingastratigraphiccolumn.html
http://www.nps.gov/care/resources/admin%20history/images/fig 3.jpg
http://www.eadshome.com/images/geologic%20column%20big2.jpg
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/verde.html (includes pictures of the column =)
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/geology/
The Geologic Column as it's used in Petroleum Geology
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/gong03/index.htm
http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Resources/WBPetroleum_H.htm
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/natural/geology/historic.html
Responses to Creationist Arguments
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_10.htm
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
Response to creationist claims about human artifacts being found in older strata (all false)
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html
http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/footprints.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Isotope Dating
Certain Isotopes have stable decay rates, each of which can be used to date the strata they are found in. The different decay rates would not match up when dating both 50 MYO and 500MYO rocks if these decay rates were not stable. And the effect of so many isotopes decaying at a rate fast enough to have decayed to such a rate within 6,000 years (the Young Earth Creationist Time Scale), the build up of heat would make life on Earth impossible. Not all isotopes can be dated.
Learn about Radiometric Dating
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Responses to Creationist Arguments
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm
Carbon Dating
This can date most once living things (assuming they weren't exposed to factors that affected it's carbon levels, like petroleum) that lived between 150YA to 50,000YA. Anything that's lived within the last 150 years is subject to the levels of carbon produced by the Industrial Revolution and Nuclear Testing. Also, anything that's touched Petroleum (like Hovind's infamous snail example) will also have an affected carbon rate. Things that can be cross-checked historically always check out just fine—the dead sea scrolls and mummified people and bulls for example. There is no reason to doubt the validity of Carbon Dating. The 'examples' creation 'scientists' love to use are generally samples that can't be reasonable dated for one of the above reasons. In fact, once you read about and understand radiometric isotope dating, then read creationist arguments, it becomes clear that many if not most creationists confuse the two and don't understand the difference (that's a polite way of saying "they don't know what they're talking about").
Learn about Carbon Dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
Responses to Creationist Arguments
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
Tree Ring Dating
Using this method, dendrochronologists can date things as far back as 11,000 years. Creationists love to skew this concept by talking about 'extra rings' while not telling their readers that there are ways of weeding out these false rings by cross checking via multiple samples. As always, they will pull examples of situations where Tree Ring Dating could NOT be used for whatever reason, or some other anomalous condition occurred, and try and pass this off as proof of its inaccuracy. Tree Ring Dating can even be used to date wood used for buildings. So like Carbon Dating, it can be checked against historical records and thischecks out just fine. Here is an example of how this technique is used commercially.
Learn about Tree Ring Dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
http://www.dendrochronology.com/
Ice Core Dating
This can only be done on stable ice fields and can date things far older than the timescale allowed for Young Earth Creationism to have any merit. The typical creationist response is to talk about a plane that was buried in layers of snow. They never bother to mention that this snow is not a stable ice field, and therefore in no way affects the validity of ice core dating.
Learn about Ice Core Dating
http://instaar.colorado.edu/sil/research/research_detail.php ?research_project_ID=7
Egyptian History
I would have to say that the biggest Young Earth Creationism blunder is the fact that Egyptologists can trace Egyptian history as far back as 7,000 years ago, which is not only further back than Adam and Eve, but apparently, the Egyptians failed to record the 'fact' that they were wiped out by a flood 4,500 years ago...
History of Egypt
BBC - History - Egyptians
Ancient Egypt