Atheist Armaments

There are some arguments that you will encounter time and time again. They are generally levied by Creationists that are either not well-read, or are new to the Young Earth/Old Earth debate. There are also some more complicated arguments that require more finesse (and more sources) to properly defend. This particularly post will address the former (categorically), and later posts will address the later (individually). Some of these arguments are so weak that even Creationist Supergroup Answers In Genesis advises against using them.

These are listed in no particular order, and there are likely some that I have not yet thought of, as well (But will add later!)

(something) is “just a theory”

That something is most often “Evolution,” although you might see it used in any context really. This statement is a fallacy of equivocation: “theory” in scientific context is different from “theory” in lay-person usage. A scientific theory is well-supported explanation for a substantial number of facts. The word “fact” in a scientific context simply refers to “an observed phenomenon.” “Fact” implies that the observer is simply reporting what is seen: “There are green frogs here,” or “Many people who live here carry umbrellas.” It’s a tiny nugget of information that merely establishes the existence of something in nature.

The correct rebuttal here is simply that the person is misunderstanding exactly what scientific theory means. Expect a counter (if they are better-read than you expected) of something to the effect of “But there is no support for evolution!” If that counter is given, check source #3 below.

Sources for reference. With the Wikipedia articles, check out the original sources they cite for more info:

1. Wikipedia: Scientific Theory
2. Wikipedia : Evolution as a theory and a fact
3. Wikipedia: Creation vs. Evolution controversy
4. Wikipedia: Evidence of Evolution
5. TalkOrigins: CA201: Only a Theory
6. Berkeley: Is Evolution Just a Theory? (Video #2, although I suggest watching all of them, they’re quite good)
7. wilstar.com: Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories (good article explaining the differences)

Anything regarding Entropy or the Second law of thermodynamics

There are plenty of areas where they appeal to Entropy or the Second law of Thermodynamics; I’ve seen it as an argument against Evolution, against the Big Bang, and pretty much anywhere else they can stick it. It’s often heavily distilled down to a form similar to: “Entropy requires that everything breaks down over time”, or “The second law of thermodynamics says that an increase in complexity is impossible since everything slowly degenerates”.

The real deal, the actual 2nd law of thermodynamics, is this:

the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

So concise. And yet so complicated. To understand this, it’s important to specifically define those three terms (each one links to the appropriate wikipedia article).

“Entropy”, or ΔS in chemistry, is the change in disorder. It’s easiest to see the EFFECTS of entropy. A simple example: put an ice cube (highly ordered) onto a counter top of a room that is at normal temperature (20 C / 68 F). As expected, it will slowly melt. As it is melting, disorder is increasing, since the crystalline structure of the cube is deteriorating into an amorphous liquid splotch. Equilibrium, in this case, is when the cube is completely melted (it does not turn into gas, for example, nor does it turn back into a cube).

The last and arguably most important, aspect is that first part about it requiring an “isolated system.” Now, there’s a lot of technical details about the overall Entropy of the universe and whatnot; I’m not going to get into that. All you have to know is this: The sun, our mediocre sized-star, is constantly shining solar energy onto our planet. This energy, as commonplace as it may seem, enables life on this planet to overcome Entropy.

Sources for reference:

1. Wikipedia: Second law of thermodynamics
2. Wikipedia: Entropy
3. SecondLawOfThermoDynamics.com: (I couldn’t believe it either)
4. EntropySite: A Student’s approach (quick reference)
5. TalkOrigins: Entropy, Disorder, and Life

Darwin recanted on his deathbed

This is just plain wrong. It’s informally referred to as the “Lady Hope story” and has been debunked by a number of institutions, including Internet-renowned debunkers, snopes.com. Darwin never recanted on his deathbed. In fact, his last words were, according to some sources “I am not in the least afraid to die,” according to others, including Wikipedia, “[to his wife Emma:] Remember what a good wife you have been.” Regardless, his last words could have been a full confession to the Catholic Church and it wouldn’t have had any effect on any of his scientific work. He was a self-confessed agnostic: he believed it was impossible for man to know the nature of the Supernatural.

Sources for reference:

1. Wikipedia: Charles Darwin
2. COE College: Darwin
3. TalkOrigins: Did Darwin Recant?

Mixing the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and the Theory of Evolution together

You’ll often see YEC’s stating that they don’t believe in Evolution because they don’t think the universe was created by a big bang, or that they don’t think we evolved from rocks. This is a pretty easy argument to refute as it merely implies a misunderstanding about the terminology:

The Big Bang is a cosmological model used to explain the origin of matter. It has been independently supported by background radiation, among other things.

Abiogenesis is the notion that the first living organisms were byproducts of chemical reactions that caused life to appear ex nihilo (out of nothing). The Miller-Urey Experiment, and others since then, are done with this in mind.

The Theory of Evolution simply asserts that all species in existence of a single common ancestor, and that over time, genetic drift and isolation has caused new varieties of organisms to arise.

If someone is using these three things interchangeably, be sure to assert their differences to clarify the argument. A common tactic used by YEC’s is to muddy the issue by tangling things together so that we are left to disentangle them rather than attack the ridiculousness of their own arguments.

Sources for reference:

1. Wikipedia: Big Bang
2. Wikipedia: Abiogenesis
3. Wikipedia: Evolution

(something science) is an unproven idea.

This is another instance where YEC’s like to slam Evolution. “Evolution isn’t proven!” they cry, “It’s an unproven hypothesis and yet it’s taught in our schools as fact!” This shows a fundamental flaw in their understanding of how science works.

Science is not in the business of proving things at all. To prove something absolutely is quite difficult, nigh-impossible in some cases. So technically, this YEC claim is correct! Science works on a basis of falsifiability and disproving claims. It works like this:

Adam, a scientist, states something about the natural world. For example: “Flamingoes are pink because of their diet.” He then states how this claim could be falsified: “If the diet were changed dramatically and they remained pink, or their diet was unchanged and they were no longer pink” (This is extremely generic and a real theory would be a lot more detailed and have more ways of falsifying)

Experimentally, scientists can now test this hypothesis by attempting to falsify (disprove) it. Should they get a bulls-eye and falsify it, then the hypothesis must be re-written or scrapped entirely. Experimentation that COULD falsify it but does NOT is said to support the hypothesis. The more support a hypothesis accumulates, the further along the hypothesis-theory continuum it moves. I don’t believe there is a specific number of verifications that must be made, but there must be at least a general scientific consensus before a hypothesis is adopted a scientific theory that can then be published into textbooks and encyclopedias.

So when someone uses this claim, they are absolutely correct, but more than likely mis-guided.

Sources for reference:

1. TalkOrigins: Evolution cannot be proved (Creationist Claim #202)
2. EvolutionVsCreationism: Videos (Watch numbers 4, 7,

Next: We’ll delve into some more specific claims