an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Can You Expose the Top 3 Lies in this Creationist Article?

 Bob Sorensen’s latest tweeted idiocy included a link to this article on the ‘Creation Resources’ website. Entitled ‘Can You Expose the Top 3 Absurd Assumptions of Evolution’, it builds an entirely fallacious strawman version of what science teaches us about our origins, before supplying facile ‘answers’ that are, in fact, worse than useless.

Let’s go through it point by point.

You have probably seen evolutionary charts like this… but you might not have seen how to expose the faulty arguments behind them. Those arguments have deceived many students into thinking the Genesis record is unscientific. In reality, all a person has to do is ask some logical questions to reveal the utter foolishness of evolutionary assumptions.

‘Faulty arguments’, ‘deceived’….you can see where this is going already, can’t you?

You’ve heard educated evolutionists insist that it took a loooooong time… and that it was undirected by a Designer or God so it all happened by random chance… and of course, simple things got more complex – that’s evolution in a nutshell isn’t it?

No, it isn’t actually. Yes, it took a long time, but ‘random chance’ has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution by means of natural selection. I agree that simple things have become complex, but only because the evidence of the fossil record confirms this.

Did you get that? The 3 absurd assumptions of evolution we’re talking about here are:

Extraordinary Time

Random Chance

Increasing complexity

Saying it again doesn’t make your second ‘assumption’ correct. The writer, one Dennis Petersen, is either woefully ignorant of the Theory of Evolution, or is deliberately lying to further his religious ends – this is not a man who is interested in truth either way. 

Don’t forget this key piece of the discussion.

The two major evolutionary fallacies that are required to get us to this point are covered in another chapter or article. What are they? They are the absurd answers given by evolutionists to the questions: “how did the universe get here?” and “where did life come from?” You’ve heard those answers I’m sure. Here they are:

The Big Bang

Spontaneous Generation

Woah there, hang on a second – ‘Spontaneous Generation’?? Spontaneous Generation was debunked a long time ago, a quick glance at Wikipedia gives the following information –

Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). The theory was synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory.

Now, I can only assume that Petersen is well aware of this, but that he’s chosen to deliberately confuse Spontaneous Generation with Abiogenesis. By doing so he’s going to get his readers looking up information on Spontaneous Genereation, finding that it’s nonsense, and thinking that those who accept evolution are idiots as a result. It’s a neat trick, and avoids him having to confront the growing evidence in support of Abiogenesis.

And don’t forget the simple questions you can use to reveal the ‘emptiness’ of those two supposed ‘scientific’ causes for the two most significant ‘effects’ that can lead anyone to a realization that there has to be a Creator.

I’m not holding out any hope that these will be any good….

#1 – Did you ever see an explosion cause an increase in the orderliness and complexity of anything?

Again, Petersen is confusing one thing for something else entirely. The Big Bang is NOT an explosion in the way we would think of one here on Earth, and to claim it is commits a profound category error.

#2 – Can you even imagine how to put life into chemicals, even if they are cleverly arranged into all the organs and systems of a now-dead corpse?

No, but evolution doesn’t claim to be able to reanimate the dead. This is yet another strawman from the writer,

What’s really at the bottom of evolution teaching?

What is seldom mentioned to unwary and impressionable young students today is that evolutionists believe in bigger miracles than Christians ever dreamed of. They even admit it on occasion. And the reason their misguided faith is really nothing less than sheer gullibility is because their miracles had no adequate cause to perform them. Nature and common sense demonstrate scientifically that any result or ‘effect’ requires an adequate cause. By definition, the Creator of the universe that exists independent of natural substances is the only adequate “cause” for the universe and life.

More emotive language, this time accusing the ‘evolutionists’ of ‘gullibility’, and being ‘misguided’, before making an appeal to ‘common sense’ telling us that you can’t have effect without cause. Unfortunately for Petersen, this is also untrue, as you can discover here. Most interesting in this section is the way Petersen talks about ‘faith’ and believing in ‘miracles’ in such a way as to give the impression that only the gullible would fall victim to these things. Now, last time I checked, Christianity was pretty big on faith and miracles – what’s suddenly made them ‘bad’ for the writer?

But, evolutionists are religiously committed to their insane ‘faith’ because they don’t want to acknowledge the reality of their Creator. Don’t forget that. That’s why the apostle Paul says in his letter to the Roman Christians in the first century: “..just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind…” (Romans 1:28).

Again, Petersen attacks ‘faith’ and uses ‘religiously’ in a negative context, before going on to make a completely unsubstantiated claim that ‘evolutionists’ are only believing this supposed fairy tale because they have ‘depraved mind[s]’. His message to his fellow believers is clear – it doesn’t matter if the Theory of Evolution is true or not, because the Bible says it’s not, and to believe it means you’re rebelling against the Christian god. He’s left the world of evidence far behind, and it already making vague, Bible related, threats.

Answering the Evolutionist Arguments

So how do we expose the 3 absurd assumptions of evolution? And do it in a gracious and sensible way?

Well, not misrepresenting it to a grotesque extreme would be a good start, but you’ve already failed to do that.

We go into a lot of colorful and fascinating background detail in my book, “Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation,” but let’s keep this as simple as possible. Here’s the bottom line.


Does Time (millions and billions of years of it) provide a solution to evolution’s impossible dream? Even if there really had been millions of years of existence for all of creation, there’s one thing we absolutely know about the effects of time. Just ask the question: “have you ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics?” All processes in nature are bound by this law. What happens to any natural object or system as you watch it exist for a long time? It degrades. It wears out. It falls apart. It deteriorates. It follows the law of what is called “increasing Entropy.”

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Yes, he’s gone for the Second Law of Thermodynamics! Before we go any further, let’s see what Wikipedia has to say about it

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature. The second law declares the impossibility of machines that generate usable energy from the abundant internal energy of nature by processes called perpetual motion of the second kind.

The law ONLY applies in a closed system, where there’s no external source of energy. Petersen identifies this in his next sentence….

Evolutionists insist there ‘must be’ a natural way for the nagging problem of entropy to be overcome. They just don’t want to face the music that only a miracle-working Creator is capable of creating a perfect world or restoring a fallen one in a “new heaven and new earth.”

There ‘must be’ a natural way for entropy to be overcome! There must! If only there was a source of huge amounts of energy that could be directly beamed to the surface of the Earth! Oh, wait, there is, it’s called the Sun. Even a basic living being isn’t a true ‘closed system’, as we take energy from our surroundings by eating. Ultimately the source of all energy on Earth is the Sun, so the Second Law is irrelevant to Evolution. I’ve heard some Creationists (stand up, Joe Cienkowski) try to overcome the problem with this line of reasoning by claiming that the WHOLE UNIVERSE is a closed system – whilst this may well be the case (but, equally, might not be true at all), it is again irrelevant to what happens on our planet. As far we we’re concerned we need only consider the Earth and the Sun when debunking this particular argument. (read more about this here)

Nice plug for your book in there by the way, subtle.


What are the chances of producing orderly sequences of understandable information and systems randomly? In their assertion that random chance is capable of evolving higher forms of life (or any kind of first life for that matter) evolutionists ignore a mountain of evidence. It’s called “mathematical probability statistics.” With modern analytical equipment we now know how extraordinarily complex living systems really are. We now have no scientific excuse for believing in naturalistic evolution. Ask, “What are the chances of letting random accidental processes produce even a simple system of information?” Evidence of design should logically cause us to look for a designer. To the evolutionist’s shame, he refuses to “allow a Divine foot in the door” no matter how ridiculous are his ideas about how intricately designed living beings came to be.

No no no no NO! Chance is NOT the driving force behind evolution! To make this claim is, again, to deliberately misrepresent reality in an attempt to discredit solid science. Once more there can only be two explanations for Petersen’s error here – either he is genuinely ignorant of the basics of natural selection, or he is knowingly misleading his readers. I’m not going to go into great detail about why Petersen is utterly wrong, instead take a few minutes to read ‘Evolution and Chance’ over at

Increasing Complexity

When someone insists that random genetic mutations and natural selection are the process of evolving from ‘Goo’ to You by way of the zoo, you might want to ask them a question or two. Have you seen what mutations really produce? They are not pretty. Thankfully they are rare. In 5,000 years we’ve never scientifically seen what is agreed by everyone to be a single positive genetic mutation.

WRONG. How about bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics? That’s extremely beneficial to the bacteria! Or how about other bacteria that could eat nylon as a result of a mutation? That presented the bacteria with a whole new food source! I wonder if Petersen has drunk any milk today? If he has and didn’t get horribly ill as a result then he is benefiting from the mutation that caused lactose tolerance. Again, TalkOrigins has an excellent article about this.

It’s clear there isn’t enough time for mutations to do their ‘magic’ even if you had billions of billions of years to arrive at a world full of amazing creatures. How do you produce a system like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly by way of random mutations? And when you consider that ‘natural selection’ is only capable of eliminating unfit offspring (the so-called “survival of the fittest”), it says nothing about the ‘arrival of the fittest’ in the first place. You can’t get “more information” from “less information.” Someone with intelligence and a high degree of technical skill has to ‘engineer’ biologically increasing complexity. To believe that bacteria evolved into worms and worms evolved into reptiles and reptiles evolved into birds (and eventually man) is not supported by ANY facts of science.

Setting aside the fact that NO-ONE believes that reptiles or birds evolved into humans, Petersen misrepresents ‘Survival of the Fittest’ horribly here – completely failing to understand that it means any advantage over your peers, that gives you an increased change of successfully mating, means your genes will be passed on, and stand more chance of subsequently being passed on. Once again, Petersen is either deliberately misleading his readers or is so ignorant of the very basics of the Theory of Evolution that he shouldn’t be writing about it.

Evolution is a belief system that is totally devoid of scientific support. Those who insist on it are doing so only because they choose to reject the Creator. Typically, they have distorted concepts about God and some kind of attitude that resists acknowledging their personal accountability for their actions.

More outright lies and appeals to fear. To claim evolution is ‘totally devoid of scientific support’ is beyond untrue, entering into a hitherto unknown realm of bullshittery as yet unexplored by man! Petersen should do himself a favour and click on this link, where he’ll find over 1.4 million scholarly papers on evidence for evolution.

Petersen is surely aware by now that he’s simply lying to his readers in an attempt to keep them trapped in the lie of religion. The only other possibility is that he’s incredibly stupid and doesn’t know how to research any topic he writes on.

So why do so many people choose to believe in evolution?

The overwhelming evidence, it’s predictive powers, the supporting fossil record, DNA evidence, and numerous other independent but harmonious lines of enquiry that all point to it being true? No? Oh, I know, you’re going to say it’s because accepters of evolution are deliberately rebelling against your god, aren’t you?

The apostle Paul spelled it out very plainly in a prophetic word about the future that applies very well to what we see going on right before our eyes today. In Paul’s second letter to the Christian believers in Thessalonica (2 Thes. 2:10-12)

“…because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

Yup, I called that one bang to rights.

Would you say that the belief in evolution qualifies for “a lie” that condemns them to their own just outcome if they choose to reject the truth of God?

No, I wouldn’t. I would say that your article is so riddled with error, deliberate distortions, and outright lies as to be useless as anything other than a means to get any Christian who relies on it in an argument laughed out of town. 

A final thought. Bob ‘Piltdown Superman’ Sorensen often claims that non-believers dismiss the articles he links to as rubbish without reading them, hopefully this will prove to him that we DO read what he links to, and we dismiss them due to their awfulness.

Single Post Navigation

2 thoughts on “Can You Expose the Top 3 Lies in this Creationist Article?

  1. Spontaneous Generation? Seriously? Anyone who thinks this person can have any credibility must be a moron. Yikes.

  2. Yeah, that's one of his many many failures.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: