What most people think they know about science can be described as a comic-book understanding combined with Happy Hour gossip. A cursory review of talking points from Creationist websites exemplifies the ignorant and narrow-minded world view held by many. If you want to understand science then talk to scientists who conduct scientific research. Read their writings, listen to their lectures, and watch their presentations. Reification (anthropomorphic fallacy): Creationists reify God by ascribing human-like characteristics to natural phenomenon. They confuse order and complexity in man-made things with order and complexity in natural things. Without a scientific understanding of how things work in nature, it's easy to see why ignorance and superstition give way to inane notions. It isn't mere coincidence that believers conveniently attribute to God whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to account for unkowns. One could just as easily assert that the universe is a virtual-reality simulator controlled by beings in another dimension but such assertions explain nothing. They're show-stoppers. They end the conversation.
Abiogenesis vs. Evolution: People often assert that evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, and they're correct. Evolution explains how organisms grow in complexity over time from simpler forms. Abiogenesis is the correct word to use when talking about the formation of life from non-living matter. How do we know that abiogenesis happened? At one time there was no life on Earth and now there is life. Living organisms, themselves, are composed of non-living matter and are defined only by the sum total of their components. If one were to break down and separate their constituent components the result would be piles of non-living matter. Some non-living matter can self-organize and replicate. It is not known when or how non-living matter became sentient. The assertion that scientists believe that life just "popped" into existence is a straw man perpetuated by Creationists. Ironically, it is Creationists who believe that life just "popped" into existence.
The "Darwin discovered Evolution" Fallacy: Charles Darwin is often incorrectly credited with discovering evolution. Anaximander of Miletus is the first person known to have proposed the idea of evolution in any capacity. Several others proposed similar ideas between the time of Anaximander and Darwin. Darwin proposed the idea of evolution by natural selection, hence the title of his book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics vs. Evolution Fallacy: Evolution doesn't violate the 2nd Law unless bogus provisos are added. The claim that they're mutually exclusive was shown to be fallacious years ago in scientific journals. The 2nd Law applies only to a closed, isolated system which energy can neither enter nor exit. Earth isn't a closed, isolated system. It receives megajoules of energy from the sun every second.
The First Cause Fallacy: The First Cause claim attempts to offer a solution to the infinite regression paradox. The problem occurs if it's assumed that everything has a cause because you end up with an infinite regression of causes. Creationists simply decree by fiat that God is an uncaused cause. The argument essentially goes like this: Every event requires a cause. Everything except God has a cause. Therefore, the first cause is God. This is a fallacy of Circulus in Demonstrando (circular reasoning). The tactic here is to offer a solution exempt from the premise of the problem. One could simply ask, "If God doesn't require a cause then why does the universe require one?" It's because the intent isn't to offer a viable explanation for anything but rather to inject God into the discourse. It should also be noted that asserting that God is an uncaused cause is special pleading.
Hoyle's Fallacy: Hoyle's Fallacy is a type of false analogy similar to the example given of tossing a deck of cards into the air. The subsequent random arrangement of the cards, as they land, is supposed to represent the way Creationists interpret scientific explanations for evolution and the origin of life. The example given is either a straw man or the result of ignorance. Evolution is understood to be a cumulative process which takes place over time, rather than a random process which spontaneously generates life from a random chance mixture of components under random conditions.
Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution: Micro-evolution is defined as the changes within a species. Macro-evolution (aka speciation) is a culmination of micro-evolutionary changes in a temporal procession. In the field of evolutionary biology there is no significant difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Creationists have fabricated a difference for ontological reasons and resort to straw man tactics by redefining macro-evolution to mean the spontaneous creation of a new species like the "Crockaduck."
Atheism as the default position: Atheism is defined as either a disbelief or lack of belief in God. If atheism is defined only as a disbelief then what word is used to decribe people prior to the introduction of theism? The correct word to use is atheist. Theist and atheist are mutually exclusive terms. You're either one or the other. Therefore, atheism is the default position since nobody is born a theist. One might incorrectly argue that the correct word is non-theist but such an argument would be analagous to saying that there are three types of reproduction: sexual, asexual, and non-sexual.
The "Random Mutation" Fallacy: Mutation is defined simply as a process of change. The definition contains nothing about randomness. That isn't to say, however, that mutation can't occur randomly, but rather that mutation isn't exclusively random.
To assert that we can inductively infer an intelligent cause for order and complexity in the universe in a non-sequitur. So is the notion that "a causal intelligent intervention from whatever source" is the proven mechanism behind macroevolution. The appearance of intelligence is an illusion and the application of human-like characteristics to natural phenomenon is fallacious. Although intended as humor, The Onion's Intelligent Falling parody gives good insight into this type of world view.
To assert that Creation theory taken objectively simply implies the existence of a causal element is disingenuous. The underlying premise behind Creationism is the notion that God created the universe and life within it. Phrases such as "Intelligent Design" and "Creation Science" are nothing but religious dogmatism wrapped in a veneer of scientific nomenclature. Such notions are supernatural since they're inherently not natural. There is nothing scientific about them since they can't be observed, tested, or measured. They're nothing more than fanciful whim. The purpose of ID isn't to encourage critical thinking. It's to supplant it with wishful thinking. At best, ID is intellectual laziness. At worst, it's a canard. It breeds ignorance and irrationality which encourages the acceptance of quackery and pseudo-scientific claims (ie. faith healing, homeopathy, astrology, psychics).
