If evolution was really a scientific fact, why so much uncertainty about their certainty?

Fuzzy Words

We believe, we think
Given enough time, it will happen
Might work
Must have formed
“Those life forms must have evolved in the absence of oxygen,…”
Could possibly have been
My guess is
Seems like

Use of “fuzzy words” demonstrates that evolutionists do not have the evidence to support their claims. Yet, they will then turn around and contradict themselves by making bold statements such as - "evolution is a fact". "We have truck-loads of evidence for evolution". Or similar "GREAT" claims, as though if repeated enough, even in the light of their otherwise "fuzzy statements" and "uncertainties/contradictions", we might just be convinced, intimidated or at least confused.


Half Truth

Half true and half false
Often more effective than the complete lie

Example: The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it is not relevant to evolution, because the earth is an open system.


Bandwagon

The appeal to “everyone agrees”
Example: All scientists accept evolution
No real scientist accepts creation
To see a list of scientists that believe in a literal 6-day creation go to: www.AnswersInGenesis.org


Glittering Generalities

A broad oversimplification of an explanation
Example: Scientists may disagree about the mechanism of evolution, but all agree that evolution is a fact.
It is simply the best idea we have for our origins (again, an idea, even if you think it best explains it (in your eyes), does not = fact).


Loaded Words

Using emotionally-charged words to influence a reaction
Example: Creationism is a tactic by the “Christian right” to force their religious agenda on our children.
Example: Is it just me, or coincidentally are all creationists Christians?


Association

Associating something you want to criticize with something people dislike
Example: Associating creation in the same sentence with astrology or known myths. Cloaked ridicule by deliberate silly association.



Circumstantial Evidence

Assuming physical evidences are related
Example: We are here therefore we must have evolved (this is often the best evidence used to support evolution)
Example: Fossil horses arranged into an evolutionary sequence


Either-Or Fallacy

Presenting only one possible solution when others are justified
Example: If we teach creation then we will have to teach every other creation myth


Analogy

Improperly drawing parallels while ignoring pertinent differences
Example: Evolution is a fact like digestion or gravity


Authority

Relying on authority rather than logic and evidence
Example: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”
Example: Citing one scholar who claims the days of Genesis could have been long ages


Extrapolation

Assuming a trend beyond what the data permits
Example: Radioactive dating methods prove the earth is 4.6 billion years old
Example: Mutations are the mechanism for evolution


Best-in-Field Fallacy

An appeal to overlook discrepancies in a theory
Example: We don’t have all the answers, but evolution is the best model we have.


Shifting the Burden of Proof

Forgetting that it is your responsibility to prove a claim, not your opponents to disprove it
Example: Claiming that creation has no proof and therefore should not be taught, when evolution has never been proven or is even capable of proof.


Ad Hominem

Attacking the person instead of the argument

Example: Asserting that creationists are ultra-conservative, do not have real degrees, etc

Example: Accusing creationists of quoting out of context when they did not.

Example: Putting words in the mouth of the opponent, or making baseless, exaggerated accusations.

Example: Constant criticism about the critique of the debator's debating methods.


Equivocation

Confusing the issue by using vague terms or changing the definitions of words
Example: Changing the definition of science to support only evolution
Example: Not clearly defining terms such as natural selection or macroevolution


Card Stacking

Listing all the points in your favor while ignoring the serious points against it
Example: Pouncing on one item by your opponent but ignoring the major points of his/her argument
Example: Trying to prove evolution using finch beaks or antibiotic resistant bacteria but ignoring all the problems


Bluffing

Appearing to know more than you do
Example: Making the claim that the fossil record is full of transitional fossils
Example: Dinosaurs evolved into birds
Example: Taking refuge in complexity/intellectualism as a smoke-screen and means to either intimidate or confuse.


Appeasement

The appeal that we're not really so different

Example: Most religions don’t have a problem with evolution
Example: I don't see why religion can't reconcile with evolution, the two can exist side by side.


Visualization

Using imagery to mislead or to substitute for evidence
Example: The evolutionary tree of life
Example: The geologic column
Example: Reconstruction of alleged “apemen”

The link above does not show the correct page for the biblical creation scientists. Here they are:

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

The theory of gravity also uses some of your fuzzy words.
Check here and this place for some scientists ideas concerning gravity. Does this mean that gravity does not exist?



How is this a half truth? The earth receives energy from the sun so it is an open system.


Agreed that appeal to authority is an invalid argument in favor of evolution.


So, when scientist disagree about the mechanism of a particular phenomenon, then that phenomenon does not exist? See my example of gravity above.

BTW: When do you plan on providing a hypothesis for our origin that fits the available data better than evolution? If you don't have one then the statement about evolution being the best hypothesis is true.


The second example is incorrect it should read "fundamentalist Christians and Muslims".

Of course the creationists don't use any emotional rhetoric. They never mention racism, Hitler, Stalin, moral decline, abortion, or eugenics in reference to evolution. Or maybe they do....
abortion
Hitler and eugenics
moral decline


You mean you have more proof of 7-day creation than there is proof of the existence of Shiva or that astrology can predict your future proclivities?

See racism Pot, Kettle, Black



And you have a reason for not putting these fossils in some sort of order based on physiological relatedness to each other and their location within the geological strata?


And your alternative to teaching creation accounts from all religions is...? Maybe we should just teach the ones that have a certain amount of evidence in their favor. Wait...they all have the same amount of evidence...they are a story in a religious text or narrative. Let's just teach the popular ones...sorry Wind Talker...your Navaho creation story just doesn't rate high enough to be taught to all our Christian children.


I guess the other option is all those different kinds of animals and plants found in the fossil record lived on earth from the beginning in numbers high enough that they could maintain a population. Since none evolved into another kind then they either became extinct before Noah, Noah carried two of each of them on the ark, or Noah disobeyed God and didn't take some of them.
I wonder how many species of animals that would be? 500,000? A million? and thats just the large animals. You think the earth could support that many different species in the beginning?


How is saying that mutations acted upon by natural selection are the mechanism for evolution considered taking a trend beyond what the data permits. What data are you talking about in this case?
Radioactive dating is based on the rate of radioactive decay. There is ZERO data showing that radioactive decay rates have changed in the past. If you don't trust radioactive decay then you better not use GPS since the time clock used is based on the decay of Cesium.


You have one that explains the evidence better? Please share. Nobel prize winners get head-of-the-line privileges. I'm surprised that Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Steve Austin are not applying.


First of all, scientific theories are NEVER proven. They just have evidence in support...hypotheses have lots of evidence and theories have mountains of evidence. Additionally, theories remain theories as long as they are not disproved.
Second, no one says 7-day creationism has to be proved, just supply enough evidence to make it a theory and provide sensible rebuttals to the evidence against it (Stars that are more than 6000 light years away that can still be seen...for example).


Hovind's doctorate is from what accredited university? Ken Ham is a Doctor of ? Carl Baugh defended his PHD dissertation where?

Ken Ham, Jonathan Safarti, and Kent Hovind are notorious for quoting out of context. That has been shown. I agree that just saying a quote is out of context is not a good tactic. Any accusation should be backed up with evidence. In the case of those 3, it has.

Exaggeration is a tactic that can be used if you are trying to show that a particular statement implies a ridiculous conclusion.

Like this entire thread?


Macroevolution is a creationist term. Evolutionists are not required to define it.
You will have to point out where natural selection is miss- or vaguely defined.

Please provide a definition of science from scientists or a science book and show how evolutionists define it differently.


Pouncing on one item and ignoring the rest...talk to CTD about that one.
Again, changes within a species caused by outside influence (natural selection) is evidence for evolution, not proof. Thus far, no feasible mechanism has been identified that limits the amount of change that can occur (to my knowledge).


You have something that indicates the whale line is not accurate?
You have something that indicates the feathered dino's are fake or not transitionals?
If you want a full explanation on how the scientists came to the conclusions that they did regarding evolution, then it will get complicated. I am not a biologist and have to read those research papers with a dictionary and biology textbook at the ready because I don't understand some of the things they reference. Those are the easy research papers.
If an evolutionist presents a simpler explanation of an aspect of evolution, then a creationist rightfully asks questions like "What about....", "How do you know...", the conversation is going to get more complicated. It has to in order to fully explore why certain conclusions were reached.
Science is complicated business because all the "easy" stuff was done in the 17 and 18 hundreds. Scientists don't just reach up their butts and try to pull out gold. They have to provide evidence and show how the evidence supports their conclusions better than it supports any other conclusion.
Complexity in the explanations is not a smoke screen, it is just the way science is.


Sounds like your religion can't reconcile with evolution. I'm ok with that, just don't force my grandchildren to learn your version of creation in their public school classroom until you have more evidence for it than "my holy book says so...".


Please show how each one of these examples is inaccurate with respect to the knowledge of organisms/geology that was available at the time. I realize that these visuals have changed with time as new information/evidence is uncovered. Did you expect them to remain the same? Science acknowledges when it is shown to be wrong and theories are changed or abandoned in the light of new evidence. Do you think this is an incorrect stance for scientists to take?

Wow! Some list. Here's an alternate list that provides the names of scientists named Steve who agree with the following statement.

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

The name "Steve" and derivatives of that name constitute about 1% of the population of the US. Therefore, it is a reliable statistical relationship to conclude is that about 100 times the number of signatories on the Steve list is representative of the number of scientists in the US that agree with the above statement.

Your appeal to authority is not working out. Didn't you say earlier that an appeal to authority was a fallacy by evolutionists? Goose, gander.

Dentists, Plastic Surgeons, and Engineers are Scientists? Wow! I'm a scientist...I'll have to update my resume`.

Two more for the list:
Cover-up
Example: Records of the Huxley Memorial Debate have been revised and/or disappeared. The link to aaas now results in "File not found" - maybe they've been shamed into removing their misinformation? Nope. Just relocated it .

I don't think they'd listen, or I'd suggest they change their name to Association for the Stupification of Science. But I'm sure they detest accurate language.

A.E. Wilder-Smith caught my attention. Brilliant man. Best bio I found so far was at http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm
Searching you-tube yields a handful of good videos. I thought of LindaLou when I heard him vindicate the midwife toad (Lamarckist) experiment. That was on the "Environment or Genetics" talk I DL'd.

Never (permanently) abandon a lie
Example: Recap Theory
Example: Horse Evolution
Example: Lamarckism
Example: see above