Creationist claims are statements made for the ostensible purpose of providing evidence for creationism, but nearly always are in the form of evidence against the theory of evolution. While creationists' arguments in many cases at first appear to be verified intuitively, they without exception contain one or many logical fallacies and mistakes of fact.
An example of a creationist claim is that there is a lack of support for evolution among scientists. This claim has for example been articulated, "Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top evolutionary scientists." To counter this claim one need only note that scientists' disagreements are about details over the way that evolution functions - and not about the historical fact of it.
 Common "major" arguments
 "If man arose by chance, life would have no purpose or meaning."
- The goal of science is to explain the workings of the world. It makes statements about what happens and what causes those things to happen. Statements about what should happen and why those things should happen belong to the fields of philosophy and religion. Answering these types of questions is not a scientific endeavor.
- Science alone cannot provide a meaning to life. Criticizing a scientific theory for failing to provide ultimate meanings is to miss the point of science entirely. If this criticism was valid, then one could just as easily criticize the incompetence of Christianity because the Bible does not contain recipes for cheesecake or instructions on how to do physics homework.
- Evolution is not composed entirely of random causes, but also features selective processes. Exactly how many random causes in human history does the creationist imagine disproves ultimate meaning? What percentage of events must be random before our lives become purposeless? Could it happen tomorrow in the lottery?
- Even if evolution were composed entirely of random causes, how would that necessarily make life meaningless?
- Even if evolution were composed entirely of random causes, and even if this somehow did devalue human life and meaning, these negative consequences wouldn't disprove evolution. Luckily, neither situation is the case.
- Why does life need to be justified with a meaning? People might want their lives to have meaning, but this does not mean that they do.
- Even if man did not arise by chance, and even if life has some definite meaning, it is not necessarily the meaning you think it is, or the meaning you want it to be. It is impossible for you to deduce the honesty of your deity unless you catch Him in a lie, and if you never do, that might just mean He's a good liar.
- By this same train of logic, the cash prize of a lottery is worthless because the winning numbers are chosen at random.
- By this same train of logic, genetics must be false because the genetic makeup of an individual is a matter of chance mutations and chance mixing of the genes of the parents.
 Fallacies contained in this claim
- Argument from adverse consequences ("I want a purpose, so I don't want evolution to be true")
- Naturalistic fallacy (drawing conclusions about purpose or meaning from what exists)
- Straw man (evolution does not equal chance)
 "Evolution says humans are animals, but humans are moral, aesthetic, idealistic, and religious, and animals are not."
- Animals are defined as heterotrophic (eats food), motile (able to move), multicellular eukaryotes lacking cell-walls. Whether they have other characteristics (such as a concept of ethics, ability to fly, purple scales, fur etc) is completely irrelevant. Therefore, humans - because we meet the definition - are animals. It is true that a certain animal may have characteristics that are not found in any other animal, but that does not mean they are not in the same group - it simply means that animal is unique within that group.
- Following this, the fact that humans have evolved a linguistic capacity to label behaviors as moral, aesthetic, idealistic, or religious only makes them unique in comparison to other species which have not evolved this capacity. It does not make humans a separate group.
- Evolution does not, in fact, say that humans are animals—simple biology determined that. The fact that humans are animals was recognized (by creationists, such as Linnaeus) centuries before Darwin wrote a word. The closest thing the theory of evolution says to this is that humans are related to other species of animals, and indeed all other species of life.
- Animals do have social institutions, as can be witnessed in primates, canines, corvids, ceteceans, termites, wasps, and others.
- It's not possible to state animals do not have moral, esthetic, etc. traits. As many animal behaviors as might be considered otherwise, many others match what humans consider moral, esthetic, etc. Many birds (famously jackdaws, magpies and bowerbirds) place trinkets around their nests, making them "pretty", at least to potential mates. Many social animals display morals like "don't kill your neighbors" at least as much as humans do. I have no idea how you would define a behavior as "idealistic" in any way that conclusively eliminate non-human animals as displaying it. The same applies to religious traits, you'd almost have to be able to interview the animal as to its motivations to determine if something as simple as eating was religious or not (it is for some human cultures!). If you claim that these behaviors are "instinctive, not choices", as we have seen many creationists try, then you have to admit that many human morals have an instinctive element, and the whole argument boils down to the non-issue of humans having relatively high intelligence. (I.e., if having the choice makes morality etc., then animals couldn't have morality, etc. without higher intelligence, and the evolution of higher intelligence solves the supposed problem.)
- Many of the "morals" of humans are not natural or instinctual, for they are not born with them but are taught by religion and other various cultural influences.
- An influential scholar known as James Harrod, (Ph.D) has proposed that chimpanzees posses spiritual beliefs.
 Fallacies contained in this argument
- Cherry-picking (social institutions in animals are ignored)
- Equivocation (defines animals as amoral, defines humans as moral, then defines humans as animals)
 "Evolution says you are descended from a monkey. Do you want to be descended from a monkey?"
- Do you want to be descended from a pile of dust, as the creation story in Genesis 2 claims? Since Creationists don't seem to mind being modified dirt, it's not clear why they have a problem with being modified monkeys, especially when said monkey might just be modified dirt as well.
- Do you want to be descended from people who personally wrecked the entire Universe, as the Biblical creation story claims? Creationists pin the blame of The fall squarely on the shoulders of Humanity's legendary ancestors, Adam and Eve, and yet, somehow presume that these two troublemakers are more acceptable ancestors than monkeys.
- Science is not about what we want, it is about collecting, testing, and explaining data. Do you want deadly earthquakes to happen? Most people do not, but that does not prevent them from happening, nor should it prevent people from studying earthquakes.
- As the old truism goes, "we can pick our friends, but we can't pick our family." It would be very nice to be the son/daughter of (insert name of celebrity, potentate, pirate or historical figure), but, sadly, science is about what the evidence says about reality (in this case, the ancestry of humans), and not wishful thinking.
- First, evolution says both Homo sapiens and "monkeys" are descended from a common ancestor living 25 million years ago, during the Oligocene. Second, what may be particularly interesting, from recent molecular studies and other data, that common ancestor may be more like us than monkeys. Therefore, perhaps the more accurate questions is whether monkeys would want to be descended from us!
- Do you have a choice whether you want to be descended from a monkey? I don't think so.
- The classical response to this is the one supposedly given by Thomas Huxley to Bishop Samuel Wilberforce in the famous 1860 Oxford evolution debate.
- Would you rather be purposefully designed to be like monkeys? (Rather than the similarity being just a matter of purposeless physical laws, there is a Divine Reason for the similarity?)
- Being descended from monkeys is extremely helpful as far as testing goes -- countless medical, biological, and anthropological insights applicable to and improving the lives of humans have been made precisely because of this relationship. If we didn't have such a relationship, we'd either have to do such tests and experiments on humans or go without this knowledge. Do you want to be several decades behind the latest advances in vaccines? (Vaccine hysterics, don't answer that.)
- Biblical creationism maintains that the children of Adam and Eve must have procreated incestuously since there were no other people around. Do you want to be descended from incest? Even worse, since Eve is created from the body parts of Adam, do you want to be descended from masturbation?
- The only reason why a 'monkey' is so scandalous is because of the myths and tropes of Western culture, assigning a certain kind of ineffable unsavory quality to monkeys. Imagine if someone asked 'do you want to be descended from dinosaurs' or 'do you want to be descended from tigers?' -- it'd get a less instinctively negative reaction than implying ones' common ancestor was a cockroach or a squid even though the outcome from the perspective of the anthropomorphic principle would the same. Questions like this rather betray a narrow-minded cultural chauvinism.
 Fallacies contained in this argument
 "Without a literal Fall, there is no need for redemption, and thus no need for Jesus or Christianity."
- Christians can agree on the problem of sin's existence without tracing that sin all the way back to a specific historical origin. That is, it is only important that sin exists now; how sin first originated is irrelevant. One does not need a belief in a literal Fall to feel they have sinned and need redemption or a savior.
- Some Christians believe that the initial chapters of Genesis exist primarily to teach theological and moral lessons. On this view, the entire purpose of the story of the Fall is to convey the need for salvation, regardless of the historicity of the events.
- Evolution does not interfere with the idea of a literal Fall - both can be true simultaneously without a contradiction as Adam and Eve could have been real, albeit special, people that sinned against God regardless of whether their origin is a special creation or evolutionary.
- The statement is true. If a certain religious belief is at odds with what is known about reality, then such a belief should be abandoned rather than the knowledge of reality.
 Fallacies contained in this claim
- Argument from adverse consequences and false dilemma (if we accept evolution, we have to dismiss Jesus)
- Red herring (the Fall is irrelevant to evolution and to sin's existence)
 Inerrancy argument
"Evolution implies billions of years of animals suffering and dying before human beings appeared. This implies that God is not really a God of mercy and grace, because the suffering was not necessary to create human beings for fellowship with himself. This, in turn, implies that the loving God of the Bible does not exist."
- God has allowed uncounted billions of life-forms—humans and animals alike—to suffer and die in the years after He created Adam. If the benevolence of God is consistent with this post-Adamic carnage, why would God's benevolence not be consistent with any pre-Adamic carnage which might have occured?
- And how exactly does the destruction of all terrestrial life (animals, plants, people, or otherwise) that were not allowed onto the Ark imply a merciful God?
- This assumes that physical death is morally wrong. While physical death is an uncomfortable concept, it may be an intended part of creation. Remember, God created humanity with a spiritual component, so it's not clear at all that we necessarily were created to be physically immortal.
- If a theory does not fit the facts, it is not the facts that need to be adjusted.
- The Creationists assert that this "death and suffering" was not necessary. This contradicts the well-supported concept of selection pressure, and there is no evidence cited to discredit it.
- This claim, like many others, assumes the existence of God, which is a mighty assumption indeed.
- If animals did not die, then what did animals such as vultures, sharks, lions, and snakes eat? If not animals, then why are they so well-adapted to eating meat? Why would their diets have changed after the Fall?
- If no animals died, they would eventually overpopulate the planet unless they stopped reproducing. Why would they be given the ability to reproduce then, if God could simply start off with the right amount that could all live forever in the first place?
- The Creationists who make this claim seem to forget about the many instances in the Bible where God demands the slaughter of the various enemies of the Israelites, down to the last man, woman, child and beast.
- Yes. So what?
- Also there were no animals before 600-700Ma. The statement "animals dying for billions of years" is wrong.
- William Dembski, in "The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World" (B&H Publishing, Nashville, Tennessee, 2009) suggests that the effects of the Fall could have been retroactive.
 Fallacies contained in this claim
- Argument from adverse consequences (if evolution is true, God is not as one wants him to be)
 See also
- The exhaustive Index to Creationist Claims at talk.origins
- ↑ Life--How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. p 15.
- ↑ Talk Origins: Index of Creationist claims
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 p178. Morris, Henry M.. 1974. Scientific Creationism. Master Books. Arkansas.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Morris, Henry M., 1998 (Apr.). The Fall, the Curse, and Evolution. Back to Genesis 112: a. 
- ↑ Grant, Heber J., Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, n.d. Mormon view of evolution. 
- ↑ Deborah B. and Loren D. Haarsma, 2007. Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution 
- ↑ Morris, Henry M., 2000 (June). The vital importance of believing in recent creation. Back to Genesis 138: a-c.