Before you tell us how uneducated and idiotic these people are you should look into it.
The Scientific Case Against Evolution
I know you know these peoople and don't believe a thing they have to say. If you did you would have to completely ditch you thinking.
Using ANYTHING from the Institute of Creation Research defeats any intelligent discourse on science and evolution, entirely because these articles are written by people who do not understand evolution and have no foundation in science. They seem to believe if they don't understand (or choose not to understand) something, it is therefore not valid. The arguments they use to defend their positions show a profound lack of understanding in science as they set up flimsy straw men to make their case, assuming they can convert others who also failed basic science class.
Using arguments from the site you gave:
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe.
We have drug-resistant bacteria and viruses, entirely because of evolution and it's something we are observing everyday. Seriously, you can Google this. You cannot research "antibiotic resistance" without doing considerable reading about the evolutionary and micro-evolutionary process (unless you read some bible-thumping site which uses wishful thinking instead of proven and observable facts - like the site you just gave). To better understands this, we should first discuss what evolution is rather than what an ignorant few tries to pretend it is. In terms of biology, the definition of evolution (taken from
dictionary.com) is the
"change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."
This is exactly why we have drug-resistant bacteria and why, in our own lifetimes, we keep observing this evolution. The constant (and probable overuse) of antibiotics has forced the speedy evolution of bacteria as those which have not had mutations cannot survive and further produce other bacteria with these same mutations. In other words, this is the evolutionary process in action via natural selection - and it's why your doctor tells you to finish your antibiotics even if all symptoms of the illness are gone. Within viruses, we have even seen the evolutionary process take place within a few hours due to natural selection. We have also seen it happen within the reptile kingdom among a few months after witnessing the devastating affects of a hurricane on an island.
Many creationists get perturbed over the Darwin "walking fish" symbol, insisting that this is hooey because "fish don't walk" - which would be correct except for all the times they do walk. There are types of ambulatory fish that can travel over land for extended periods of time and are often referred to as "amphibious fish." Again, please Google this. It is also an example of a "missing link" creationists love to pretend doesn't exist. Google "Tiktaalik roseae" which appears to be a link between fish and tetrapods (four-legged animals).
Going on to the next point in your article:
Evolution Never Happened in the Past
Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
This is, of course, complete bullshit. (Sorry, Gene, for my use of a naughty word.) First, I just gave an example of this happening today (drug-resistant bacteria and viruses, reptiles on a devastated island) and how it's being observed. There's also plenty of evidence in the fossil record. Just Google the whole "ambulatory fish" thing and "Tiktaalik roseae" . We see evolution in fossils all the time, linking dinosaurs to birds and fish to amphibians - and in the case of Tiktaalik roseae, eventually to tetrapods. From the fossil record, we can see that animals without backbones predate vertebrates. Fish appear prior to amphibians, which in turn appear prior to tetrapods. All of these show how the evolution happened and what traits appeared when, eventually evolving into new species.
All other arguments he makes are based upon his already provably faulty notions. He goes onto explain how badly he understands genetics and founds his logic on his statement that, "There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution."
Really? That's his idea of a "fact"? This man's brain is a slave and it's unfortunate that he's enslaving yours rather than asking for objective proof rather than wishful thinking. We see evolution in action every single day. We see it throughout the fossil record. He chooses to ignore this rather than challenge his belief in an invisible super-being.
Let me ask you this: Why even ask questions if all you need to do for an answer is say that "God is responsible"?
One final note: You may believe an article claiming it's a "Scientific Case Against Evolution" written by a man with a PhD after his name is somehow founded in solid science rather than a deliberate lack thereof. The late Henry M. Morris, PhD, got his doctorate in hydraulic engineering back in 1950 and later was a professor of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana in 1951.
Those are solid credentials - in engineering. It no more gives him the credibility to discuss evolutionary biology (or any biology) than someone with a doctorate in art history has credentials to operate on your hemorrhoids. The man got himself tied up with a Seventh Day Adventist who neither understood nor liked modern science and the rest, they say, is history. Morris continued to exploit the uneducated by insisting that the King James Bible should serve as a sort of ultimate authority in pretty much anything and everything. This should offer you a Pretty Big Clue about how he tries to explain science and why you shouldn't offer your intellectual validation to such a person.
One final thing you need to understand: Science is not about accepting things on faith without question. No scientist ever kicks back and says, "Well, my work here is done. There's nothing left to discover." Information is always being found and added to scientific debate. This does not mean that scientific debate is wrong. Most new knowledge only builds and expands on old knowledge. This is a far cry from saying "God did it because some old book says so."
