Reclaiming the Intellectual and Moral high ground

Don’t fall prey to logical traps, old arguments, or the emotional baiting of evolutionists.

Obi-wan to Anakin:

“It’s over Anakin, I have the high ground.”

 In my previous post I referenced an article titled “The Top 10 Signs that You Don’t Understand Evolution at All” which is really a  restatement of objections that evolutionists believe they have adequately answered, while at the same time lightly(?) mocking creationists – as evolutionists are wont to do. (Whether lightly or not I’ll leave to you.) As is typical in a list like this, the more important questions (for which they have no answer) are  not even mentioned much less given adequate answers to.  But since I couldn’t bear the thought of leaving you hanging without the answers having myself referenced the article, here are responses to show none of these issues are problems for rational thinking Christians. A word of warning before we begin: Since he couches many of these statements in broad universals (“never,” “always,”  etc. –  which is a dead give away that the statement is almost certainly untrue and a good candidate for the  “all or nothing” logical fallacy);  it follows that the position he’s trying to ridicule may be technically untrue, but the point beneath the ridicule that he’s trying to make  has been thoroughly refuted as I note below. Below in bold is Tyler Francke’s  list of “The top 10 signs that you don’t understand evolution at all”  with my explanations following immediately;  and so there is no mistake on who’s saying what, my comments are indicated by my initials.


1. You Think “it hasn’t been observed” is a good argument against it.”

DC>He makes a number of questionable statements here, I’ll just point out a couple. First he notes:

“Interestingly, evolution is observable “

DC>Evolution of the type we’re talking about – molecules to man is not observable. Like many evolutionists he is committing the logical error of equivocation – using the term evolution in more than one sense (which is commonly done to win arguments, though it’s logically fallacious). Natural selection (which is not evolution) is observable; molecules to man evolution is not. 

Second, he goes on to talk about an inference to the best explanation (which I drew upon in my last article) but intelligent design theorists and creationists alike, (not to mention scientists who dissent from evolutionary theory) would say given the evidence, such as the fossil evidence below, he has not drawn an inference to the best explanation by believing it points to evolution. He states:

Making viable conclusions based on inferences from the available evidence is not at all unscientific, and it is this reasoning that has compelled us toward the theory of evolution.

DC>I would challenge him that it is not the evidence that points him to evolution, it’s his a priori beliefs (science is authoritative over scripture) that lead him to the conclusion that evolution is true because judging by evidence alone, (such as the evidence from DNA, the young solar system, etc.)  the correct conclusion is that there was an intelligent designer.

2. You think we’ve never found a transitional fossil.

DC>This is frankly very misleading. A more precise statement would be they haven’t found an undisputed transitional fossil. Scientists work for consensus of agreement, but there is none here. More importantly:

  • -The result of the natural process of evolution is thousands, perhaps millions of intermediary steps for every species for every transition they go through out of which one would expect hundreds perhaps thousands of transitionary forms to be found. Yet they don’t have a single undisputed one. With regard to transitions from single cell to  complex organisms Dr. Duane Gish writes:

There are no intermediates available from the fossil record that link single-celled organisms to the complex invertebrates that supposedly arose from them.1

More recently, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (author of “The Greatest Hoax on Earth2” a response to Dawkins “The Greatest Show on Earth: The evidence for evolution“) supports the same position – that transitional fossils don’t exist  (Chapter 11 “The links are still missing.”)

  • – Ask an evolutionist why we don’t have more fossils. The reason: because normal processes don’t usually create them – carcasses are eaten by
    predators or they decay away. To make a fossil you need to cover a dead creature quickly, which might happen during a special event –  such as a flood that disturbs sediment and quickly  covers living creatures – producing fossils. Like what happened during Noah’s flood. But natural processes don’t normally leave fossils. So Creationists can tell you why  fossils are found world wide, and why you don’t see the thousands of transitional forms evolution requires. Evolutionists can’t adequately answer either – since most don’t believe in a world wide flood. Darwin acknowledged this to be a problem.


  • – Evolutionists have an insurmountable problem with the Cambrian explosion: The sudden appearance of complex living creations without any transitional forms. Even Darwin acknowledged this to be a problem.

“If my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods
elapsed, and during these periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earlier periods prior to the Cambrian, I can give no satisfactory answer.”3
Charles Darwin

There are no fossils of simple creatures prior to the Cambrian explosion, yet they are required by evolution; and there are no undisputed transitionary fossils.  Darwin knew it , and evolutionists today know it.

3. You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution.

DC>Don’t concern yourself with distinctions between macroevolution and microevolution. It’s a red herring. The real question for both is where did the information that’s stored in DNA and inherent in all life come from? Signature in the Cell author Stephen Meyer states: 

We know at present there is no naturalistic explanation, no natural cause that produces information. Not  natural selection, not self organizational processes, not pure chance. But we do know of a cause which is capable of producing  information and that is intelligence.”3
Dr. Stephen Meyer

As noted in my previous post evolutionists have no answer for this – whatever scale – micro or macro –  they use.

4. You think mutations are always negative.

DC> Another deceptive one. Technically he’s correct, mutations are not always negative. There’s a much bigger story here concerning genetics than we have space to cover, so let me just stick to the point at hand and reference a former Cornell University professor and author of Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome:

“It turns out that the good and bad mutations that are accumulating in our genome – now of course the good ones are extremely
John Sanford

“Extremely rare.” Enough said.

5. You think it has anything to do with the origin of life, let alone the origins of the universe.

DC> Here he is splitting hairs. Classical Darwinian evolution does not deal with the origin of life, it deals with the origin of species, as the title of his book by the same name implies; and his theory can not even begin to operate until you have two reproducing members of a species. And thus it has nothing to do with the origin of Life. But I’m not aware of any evolutionist today who espouses evolution in its classical form.  They all support a neo-Darwinian variant -which includes genetic mutations (unknown to Darwin) as a method of creating variation; and  chemical evolution.

It is through chemical evolution in “which almost every major university includes the origin of life as part of evolution in introductory biology courses”6 that they try to support a theory for the origin of life, but fail miserably. The narrator of the evolutionary oriented documentary “How Life Begins” starts the discussion with:

“Man continues to seek answers to this extraordinary mystery of ‘How Life Began’ “7

Why are they looking? Because evolution doesn’t explain origins, neither the classical Darwinian nor the Neo-Darwinist formation of evolution has any answer for the origin of life. (Obviously the Christian Faith has a complete, eye witness account of human origins.)

6. You use the phrase “it’s only a theory” and think you’ve made some kind of substantive statement.

DC>Since evolutionists take evolution as fact, they get highly offended when you say “it’s only a theory.” So much so that they write books about it (Kenneth Miller “Only A Theory8“); the high priest of evolution Richard Dawkins runs around talking about it being a fact, as does the current host of Cosmos, Neil deGrasse Tyson; and if you suggest it’s not, they want to rehearse with you the hierarchy of scientific theory, hypothesis, postulates, guesses, etc. My suggestion, don’t use this term around evolutionists especially in it’s diminutive form “only” a theory. It’s true, it’s theory, but in their minds, it’s confirmed theory – though as you can see, they have no good reason to believe that. But why incite them? There are certain things you just don’t mention – women’s age for example. Just add this item to the list, and make your case against evolution on other grounds – the youth of the solar system; information in DNA, etc.

7. You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith.

DC>He argues this comes from Ray Comfort, but Mr. Comfort isn’t the only one making the charge that atheism – especially under the “new atheists” – has been distilled  down to a religious faith.  Author Bo Jinn levels that charge at the New Atheists in  Illogical Atheism9 saying the new atheists approach atheism as “religious extremists” who “profess incessantly that what they believe is not a belief, but then react quite suspiciously like religious believers whenever those beliefs are questioned.” So at least with regard to the new atheists, that is an accurate assessment. Just be careful to differentiate  “atheism proper” (belief there is no God), from the religious zealotry of the new atheists.

8. You think our modern understanding of it rests on a long series of hoaxes perpetuated by scientists.

DC>Francke is clearly putting out a staw man argument here. The fact that false artifacts have been identified as hoaxes indicate that scientists know they aren’t true specimens. The hoax argument is generally presented as a way to deceive the un-informed public (not everyone – including scientists) into continuing to believe the lie based on false evidence even though some (if not most) scientists are aware of the fraud and are quite aware of the actual state of evolutionary understanding. Thus the hoax (whatever it may be) would not be a “modern understanding” of evolution.

Regardless, no group wants to be judged by the least favorable members of the group such as charlatans and liars. Just as  Christians don’t want to be judged by non-Christians claiming to be Christians (such as cults); likewise evolutionists don’t want to be judged by deceivers claiming to be scientists. There’s plenty of evidence against evolution without going after bottom of the  barrel hucksters who don’t properly represent evolutionary theory. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you  and don’t argue based on what some have done wrong – unless they are trying to use it as evidence of evolution. And in that case simply point out the falsification. If they react indignantly as above, you know you’re dealing with someone believing it with  religious conviction, not investigating with scientific objectivity.

9. You don’t like Pokémon because you think it “promotes” evolution.

DC> This is irrelevant. We may not like many things that promote evolution like school textbooks that uncritically promote evolution. What has that got to do with whether or not we  properly understand evolution? – Which is what he’s supposed to be discussing. Just trying to bait us with emotionalism. Disregard
emotional appeals that don’t actually deal with the issue at hand.

10. You think it’s inherently opposed to Christianity or the Bible.

DC> The statement he references “Evolution, as defined by Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes in their  textbook, ‘Biology,’ is ‘any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.’” once again
falls to the equivocation fallacy. For more on that see item 1 in the article
Arguments that Evolutionists should not use.
More importantly, evolution is opposed to Christianity and the Bible. Evolution requires death before sin, and thus it directly contradicts God’s statement that death would come as a result of sin by eating the forbidden fruit. (Gen 2.17)  And how do you reconcile  the existence of death in a creation what was supposed to be “very good” (Gen 1.31) Next, consider the following picture10:

 Evolution requires millions of years of death and suffering in a creation God calls "Very Good"

If there were millions of years of death and dying before sin – the cause of death – how could God call the creation “very good.”   And if God wanted to use death as part of the creation as theistic evolutionists believe, why is death called an enemy (the last  one) to be conquered? (1 Cor 15.26)

There are many more arguments against it, such as it is no secret that Darwin was trying to rid the world of a God of Judgment11.  So it is no surprise that he came up with a theory that not only excludes God, it directly contradicts what God has stated. There’s no escaping the fact that evolution is inherently anti-God and anti-Christian.

Let me close with a word to the wise for Mr. Francke, and others who state they’re a  Christian yet still believe in evolution. Surely it has not escaped your attention that evolution is merely a tool of atheists and other God deniers to beat Christians and other theists over the head with claims of being ignorant and unsophisticated. I assume as a Christian you believe in the Bible that Jesus believed in – which would have been the Old Testament. If so God himself testifies that he created the world in 6 days. (Ex 20.11). Obviously evolution – which requires millions of years – can not be true if everything was created in 6 days. Why are you willing to deny the clear testimony of God in order to maintain your belief in the godless naturalism of evolution?

…Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar…
1 John 5.10

That’s not an assessment I’d like made of me when I meet God.


Duane Caldwell | posted 3/23/2014 | print format

Related Article: Refining the Questions for Question Evolution Day


1 Gish, Duane Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Creation Life Publishers, 1985 p. 54

2 Sarfati, Jonathan The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution Creation Book Publishers, 2010

3 Darwin, Charles, referenced from Darwin’s Dilemma Documentary, Illustra Media 2009

4 Meyer, Stephen Unlocking the  Mystery of Life Documentary, Illustra Media 2002

5 Sanford, John The Mystery of our Declining Genes Presentation, Creation Ministries International, 2009

6. Arguments Evolutionists should not use Creation Ministries,

7. How Life Began  History TV documentary 2008

8. Miller, Ken Only a Theory Viking, 2008

9. Jinn, Bo Illogical Atheism Sattwa Publishing, 2014

10 From Did God Create over billions of years Lita Cosner and Gary Bates Creation Ministries

11 Darwin’s arguments against God Russell Grieg CMI

Top Picture: From Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith – Obi-wan Kenobi warns Anakin Skywalker to give up the battle because Obi-wan has secured the high ground.


4 thoughts on “Reclaiming the Intellectual and Moral high ground

  1. An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a colleague who had been conducting a little homework on this.
    And he actually bought me lunch simply because I stumbled upon it for him…
    lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thank YOU for the meal!!
    But yeah, thanx for spending time to discuss this topic here on your website.

  2. I constantly spent my half an hour to read this weblog’s articles
    everyday along with a cup of coffee.

  3. I like reading through a post that can make people think.
    Also, thank you for permitting me to comment!