Spagheti monster

Two arguments creationists should stop using

I love debates with creationists. Really love them. A good talk with creationists is the best source for good delicacies for thought.


Often creationists use such pointless arguments that a proper debate cannot even start. I am not talking about particular ones, like “there are no intermediates” or “carbon dating is wrong”. I am talking about more generalised assertions that are intrinsically false, no matter where they’re applied: for evolution, for astrophysics, for mathematics. And today, I list the top two such arguments.

1) Chances are too small that we came into existence through evolution.

Okay, for starters: what does it have to do with chance again? There is a plenty of evidence that evolution is the process that happens for a reason (which is selection criteria). Most adapted animals give more offspring not because they are luckier, but because can survive better. Where is the blind luck in more adapted individuals surviving over less adapted ones?

But that is not why I complain against this argument. Truth is, when you say that chances of evolution are small, you are agreeing that it happened (surprise). Imagine a dice with a million of sides. How many times do I have to throw it to get a ten? A million? Wrong. Just one time. Sounds counter-intuitive, yet that’s the way it is. True, odds of getting a ten with such a dice are one out of a million. But it can happen instantly: chances of getting either number are small, but… some number must be on the top, mustn’t it? Why wouldn’t it be the ten?

So, even if the odds are against evolution, it’s still happening now – there are heaps of evidence. Chances can never be too small. Think about it: the odds of me being alive are infinitesimal – one particular sperm out of millions had to fuse with one particular ovum. So what, are you going to deny that I exist because odds are too small of that happening?

When you say that odds of evolution are too small and thus it never happened, it only indicates that you do not understand what both odds and evolution are. I advise these reads:

The analysis of biological data by M.C. Whitlock and D. Schluter
Evolutionary analysis by J.C. Herron and S. Freeman


2) Humans can’t originate from unicellulars because such a change would be too complicated.

Okay, now. There are things that are statistically improbable (read previous paragraph about odds). There are things that are impossible because this and that. There are things that are impossible unless this and that. But when you say “I think it’s too complicated…”, I recall how I used to say the same about logarithms in high school. “Oh, I think it’s too complicated, they cannot be solved.” You think evolution is impossible? Okay, explain. Show us the exact structures that cannot be developed through evolution, show us a border that evolution cannot pass, and explain why. Just don’t say “I think it’s just too complicated”, or I’ll just answer you “No, it’s not.” So, who’s right and who’s wrong?

When you say that evolution “is just too complicated”, you throw your groundless personal opinion told by your gut, that is all. Evolution is a scientific topic: you are not expected to be a top scientist to discuss it, but at least you are expected not to go personal. “I think that a gift I found under my Christmas tree was too big and complicated. Indeed, a Spaghetti Monster has put it there, not my parents.” It’s a great story, but a lousy way to prove that Spaghetti Monster exists.

Looking forward to constructive and interesting debates.


Further reads

Articles on evolution

Leave a Reply

Notify of