Creationist arguments often work by using a word in a different way than scientists do, asking for something evolution never predicted, or quoting something out of context. Each claim below is answered in a few sentences, with a place to check.
Creationism is not the same as Christianity. Most of the world's Christians accept evolution. The Catholic Church (Pope John Paul II, 1996: "more than a hypothesis"), the Church of England, and many Protestant scientists such as Francis Collins and Ken Miller all do. More than 16,000 American clergy have signed the Clergy Letter Project in support of teaching evolution. The claims below come mostly from young-earth creationism and "intelligent design". In a 2022 Gallup poll, 37% of Americans said they believed God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.1
1. "Evolution is just a theory"
In everyday speech "theory" means a hunch. In science it means a large body of tested explanation. The theory of gravity, germ theory and the theory of plate tectonics are theories too. A hunch is a hypothesis. Evolution is both a fact (living things change over generations, and we see it happen) and a theory (the explanation of how, by mutation, selection and inheritance). See the science page.
2. "There are no transitional fossils"
There are many, and some were predicted before they were found.
- Whales. A run of fossils from about 50 to 35 million years ago shows land animals becoming whales: Pakicetus (a wolf-sized land walker), Ambulocetus ("walking whale"), Rodhocetus, then Basilosaurus, with tiny leftover hind legs.2
- Fish to land animals. Biologists knew fish came ashore around 375 million years ago, so they went looking in rocks of that age in the Arctic. They found Tiktaalik in 2004: a fish with a neck, wrist bones and shoulders.3
- Dinosaurs to birds. Archaeopteryx (1861) has feathers and a tail with bones. Since 1996, dozens of feathered dinosaurs have been found in China.
- Reptiles to mammals. Fossils show jaw bones gradually shrinking and moving into the ear.
The demand for "a half-this, half-that" like a crocoduck is a strawman. Evolution predicts that species are descended from earlier species, not that one animal turns into an unrelated one. And every new fossil creates two new gaps either side of it, so the demand never ends.
3. "Mutations only destroy; they never add new information"
Mutations can add as well as break things. In Richard Lenski's long-running experiment, one population of E. coli bacteria evolved the ability to eat citrate, a trick that species normally can't do, after about 31,000 generations.4 Antarctic fish evolved antifreeze proteins from a copied digestive gene. Gene duplication, which makes spare copies that can change, is well documented. Even the word "information" is slippery: creationists rarely define how they measure it.
4. "It breaks the second law of thermodynamics"
The second law says disorder increases in an isolated system, one with no energy coming in or out. Earth isn't isolated: it receives about 174 petawatts of energy from the Sun. The same "loophole" lets a seed grow into a tree, water freeze into a snowflake and a fridge cool its inside. If the creationist version of the law were right, babies couldn't grow up.
5. "The eye is too complex" (irreducible complexity)
Animals alive today show the steps: a light-sensitive patch (some jellyfish and flatworms), a cup (limpets), a pinhole (nautilus), then a lens. Each is useful on its own. In 1994 Dan-Eric Nilsson and Susanne Pelger modelled it and estimated a camera eye could evolve from a flat patch in fewer than 400,000 generations, a short time in geology.5 The bacterial flagellum, another favourite, has parts that do other jobs in other cells (a syringe-like pump, for example).
The idea was tested in court. In Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), a federal judge, a churchgoing Republican appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that intelligent design is not science. Biochemist Michael Behe agreed under oath that his definition of science would also include astrology.6
6. "The odds are astronomically small" (the tornado in a junkyard)
That argument pictures everything happening by chance in one go. Evolution isn't one big dice roll. It's mutation (random) followed by selection (not random), repeated millions of times, with each small improvement kept. It's the difference between shuffling a deck and getting all 52 in order in one try, versus keeping each card that's in the right place. Richard Dawkins' "weasel" program shows the principle, though real evolution has no target sentence.
7. "Microevolution is fine; macroevolution never happens"
Macroevolution is micro-evolution over more time. Nobody has found a barrier that stops small changes adding up. We've also watched new species form: American goatsbeard plants (Tragopogon) that arose in the 20th century,7 apple-feeding fruit flies in the early stages of splitting off from hawthorn-feeding ones, and lizards on a Croatian island that grew a new gut structure within about 36 years. The word "kind" in "dogs only make dogs" is never defined; if it means anything, it's what taxonomists call a family or order, and those do change.
8. "The Cambrian explosion disproves evolution"
The Cambrian "explosion" lasted something like 13–25 million years. It was fast for geology and very slow for people. Simpler animals (the Ediacaran fauna) and trace fossils lived before it, and the first hard parts such as shells made fossils much easier to find after that. It is an interesting period, not a problem for the theory.
9. "Dating methods are unreliable"
Radiocarbon is only used for things under about 50,000 years old. Rocks of millions or billions of years are dated with other methods (uranium–lead, potassium–argon) that cross-check each other. See dating methods and the young Earth page.
10. "It's all fraud: Piltdown, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's drawings"
Each case was exposed or corrected by scientists. Piltdown (1912) was shown to be a forgery in 1953. "Nebraska Man", a single tooth, was retracted in 1927. Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings were criticised by other scientists even in his own time and have been corrected in textbooks. No conclusion in modern biology depends on any of them. The ability to find and fix mistakes is why we trust science.
11. "Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed"
It's a story from 1915 told by "Lady Hope", who claimed to have visited him. Darwin's family, including his daughter Henrietta, who was at his bedside, said it never happened. His son Francis called it false. No evidence supports it, and it wouldn't matter if it did, since the evidence doesn't depend on Darwin.
12. "Evolution can't explain how life began"
That's true, and it's not supposed to. Evolution is about what happens once there's life. It's like saying that the theory of gravity can't explain how the Sun formed. The origin of life is a separate research question, with real findings: see where life came from.
13. "Humans and dinosaurs lived together"
The last non-bird dinosaurs died about 66 million years ago; the earliest humans appeared less than 0.3 million years ago. The famous "man tracks" in the Paluxy River in Texas were studied on-site in the 1980s: some were eroded dinosaur prints and some were carved, and even some creationist groups stopped using them.
14. "Evolution is an atheist religion"
It's a branch of biology. Evolution makes testable predictions, such as which fossils will be found in which rocks, and it has been tested for 160 years. Plenty of its researchers are religious. Georges Lemaître, who proposed the Big Bang, was a Catholic priest. Believing in evolution doesn't require atheism, and atheism doesn't require evolution. (Atheists simply tend to find it the best explanation.)
15. How the arguments are built
- Moving goalposts. Show a transitional fossil, and the demand moves to the next gap.
- Quote-mining. A scientist saying "this is a puzzle" gets quoted without the next sentence, which gives the answer.
- The Gish gallop. Ten claims in a minute; each needs a page to answer.
- Redefined words. "Theory", "information", "kind", "evolution" shift meaning mid-argument.
A fair test, for any side: what evidence would change your mind? Scientists have an answer (J. B. S. Haldane's "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"). Ask a creationist the same, and see.
See also we didn't come from monkeys · how evolution works · the gotcha list
What does a good scientific claim need?
- To be impossible to test
- To be testable and able to be shown wrong
- To be popular
Sources
- Gallup, long-running poll on views of the origin of humans (2022 results). The Clergy Letter Project, theclergyletterproject.org.
- Thewissen et al., "Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India", Nature 450 (2007); Gingerich et al., Science 293 (2001).
- Daeschler, Shubin & Jenkins, "A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan", Nature 440 (2006).
- Blount, Borland & Lenski, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli", PNAS 105 (2008).
- Nilsson & Pelger, "A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve", Proceedings of the Royal Society B 256 (1994).
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).
- Soltis et al., "Recurrent polyploid formation and evolution in Tragopogon", American Journal of Botany (2004).