15 Answers To Creationist Nonsene Analysis

Rennie, John. “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense” SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 1 July 2002, https://www.scientificamerican.com. Web. 26 Jan. 2017 Rennie starts the article by talking about how important evolution is. He also states that creationism is only supported by people who want it to be taught in schools so that kids can learn about it. These people don’t actually believe in creationism. The author then goes on to talk about all of the arguments of creationism, and then disproves all of it. The article is set up in a list of facts that support the author’s belief in evolution. Natural selection is used often as proof that evolution is true. One example of what the article is disproving is that since humans descend from monkeys, monkeys would

According to Rennie, creationists argue that evolution is only a theory, therefore it is not true. The proof that this is not completely true is that scientists consider evolution to be a fact. The author tells the definition of a theory, which has facts within it. Stating facts is a very effective strategy of persuasion. Another way the author uses facts to support his case is to disprove an idea referred to as survival of the fittest. Nature does not survive off of the fittest, but off of adaptations. This makes the reader look deeper into the facts of survival of the fittest versus adaptations. The author manipulates you to think outside of the box and really understand the evidence. Rennie mentions the study of macroevolution. This field requires DNA testing and fossil findings. Rennie shows that through testing of DNA and fossils, scientists can determine that humans really did come from apes. The author also states that creationists misinterpret the second law to think that systems have to become more disordered over time because of entropy. He proves that this is incorrect by using the definition of entropy. Overall, using only facts to get his point across is an extremely effective way to convince the reader that scientists are more knowledgeable on evolution versus creationism than creationists

This makes the reader turn against creationism and side with the “good guys”. In the article, another fact Rennie disproves is that scientists argue too much about evolution to consider it as having any solid ground. Rennie retorts that creationists take scientists words out of context and make it sound more argumentative when they are just debating. He compares this to any other field of science. Also according to Rennie, creationists state that mutations cannot create a new trait. Rennie then shows that this is untrue by talking about point mutations. He not only tells, but shows how point mutations lead to evolution by displaying evidence from scientific explorations. Rennie tells about the creationists belief on fossils as well. Creationists believe that there are no transitional fossils that prove evolution. Rennie tells that this is incorrect. The way Rennie makes it seem as though creationists are only changing facts in a way to convince people to be on their side makes a very good argument. This makes the reader want to side with