Joined: Nov. 2005
By John Derbyshire
I seem to have got myself elected to the post of NRís designated point man against Creationists.* Indignant anti-Creationist readers have urged me to make a response to George Gilderís long essay ďEvolution and MeĒ in the current (7/17/06) National Review.
Well, Iíll give it a shot. I had better say up front that I am only familiar with Georgeís work ó he has written several books, none of which I have read, I am ashamed to say, since I know he has read one of mine ó in a sketchy and secondhand way, so what follows is only a response to the aforementioned article ďEvolution and Me.Ē It is possible that George has already dealt with my points in some other of his writings. If so, I hope readers will direct me to the right place.
Iíll also say that I write the following with some reluctance. Itís a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just canít be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isnít actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. Itís boring.
It would be less boring if theyíd come up with a new argument once in a while, but they never do. Iíve been engaging with Creationists for a couple of years now, and I have yet to hear an argument younger than I am. (I am not young.) All Creationist arguments have been whacked down a thousand times, but they keep popping up again. Nowadays I just refer argumentative e-mailers to the TalkOrigins website, where any argument you are ever going to hear from a Creationist is whacked down several times over. Donít think itíll stop íem, though.**
Read it here.