&lt;div class=&quot;track&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;&quot; src=&quot;http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.22.2/51911?ns=guardian&amp;pageName=A+creationist%27s+%27scientific%27+disproof+of+Darwin%27s+theory+of+evolution+%7C+%3AArticle%3A1648024&amp;ch=Comment+is+free&amp;c3=GU.co.uk&amp;c4=Creationism+%28News%29%2CReligion+%28News%29%2CChristianity+%28News%29%2CAtheism+%28News%29%2CEvolution+%28Science%29%2CScience&amp;c5=Environment+Conservation%2CNot+commercially+useful&amp;c6=Andrew+Brown&amp;c7=11-Oct-15&amp;c8=1648024&amp;c9=Article&amp;c10=Blogpost&amp;c11=Comment+is+free&amp;c13=&amp;c25=Andrew+Brown%27s+blog%2CCif+belief%2CComment+is+free&amp;c30=content&amp;h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FAndrew+Brown%27s+blog&quot; width=&quot;1&quot; height=&quot;1&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;standfirst&quot;&gt;Dipping into my fan mail, I find a fundamentalist Christian&#039;s seven objections to evolution&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Something about the word &#039;creationism&#039; robs people of the capacity for rational thought. I had two notable responses to my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/sep/25/religion-creationism&quot; title=&quot;Andrew Brown&#039;s blog: Creationism explained&quot;&gt;last piece on the subject&lt;/a&gt;, one of which &ndash; from a fundamentalist Christian &ndash; contains arguments worth responding to. The other, from an atheist too stupid to work out that I have an email address at the Guardian, ended, &quot;you continue the 100% correlation between the character of writers and the ease with which they can be contacted. Honest and ethical writers provide contact information with their words and are not afraid of feedback. Cowards and liars post their drivel without providing a means of contact, or they make it difficult to reply. The fact that I had to search heavily to find one for you speaks volumes and matches the lack of quality in your propaganda.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But take the creationist, a presumably Penetecostal deacon from Lancashire, who lives in an alternate universe in which there is scientific disproof of evolution, suppressed by the wicked establishment. He lists seven objections, only two of which seem to me to bear any relevance to the theory of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/27/genetics.darwinbicentenary&quot; title=&quot;Guardian: Evolution and Darwin&quot;&gt;descent with modification&lt;/a&gt;; but this makes them more interesting. It&#039;s obvious that what he really objects to is a scientific account of the universe in general, which leaves no room for an intervening God. &#039;Evolution&#039; is just a shorthand for this much greater account.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The problems he lists, with their solutions below, are:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q1&lt;/strong&gt; How come something came from nothing?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A1&lt;/strong&gt; This is interesting, but nothing to do with evolution, which is an account of how some things came from preceding things.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q2&lt;/strong&gt; How to generate life from non-life?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A2&lt;/strong&gt; We&#039;re finding that out; and the essential point, which has been clear since the 19th century, is that life is simply a particular arrangement of non-living molecules. It&#039;s not made from qualitatively different stuff.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q3&lt;/strong&gt; How to create intelligence from non-intelligence?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A3&lt;/strong&gt; It&#039;s true that we find it easier to create stupidity. But given the extraordinary variety of intelligences on earth, it&#039;s clear that you can progress from simple forms to more complicated ones given enough time. And we have had enough time. It&#039;s one of the main difficulties when you&#039;re trying to grasp the fact of evolution that the time involved is so immense.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q4&lt;/strong&gt; Where did information come from?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A4&lt;/strong&gt; This is an interesting question. But it has nothing to do with proving or disproving the facts of evolution.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q5&lt;/strong&gt; How can you have &#039;design&#039; without a designer?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A5&lt;/strong&gt; By not being confused by language: you get design without a designer the same way the wind blows without a blower.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q6&lt;/strong&gt; How can you have an effect without a cause?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A6&lt;/strong&gt; I don&#039;t know how, but that you have them in &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_set&quot; title=&quot;Wikipedia: Uncountable set&quot;&gt;uncountable numbers&lt;/a&gt; seems perfectly clear at the quantum level. Completely random events do occur and we have to wrap our minds round this fact. In any case, the theory of evolution is all about the effects of particular causes, so this doesn&#039;t really come into it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Q7&lt;/strong&gt; How can you overcome the second law of thermodynamics?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;A7&lt;/strong&gt; You can&#039;t. But it doesn&#039;t apply to open systems, like life. Next!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is no next.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As I say, the interesting thing about all these objections is that hardly any of them bear directly on the theory of descent with modification. They are all variations of &quot;Why are we here?&quot; with different kinds of &quot;Why&quot; for an answer. Two of them do bear directly on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/22/darwinbicentenary.evolution&quot; title=&quot;Guardian: How Darwin won the evolution race&quot;&gt;Darwin&#039;s theory of evolution&lt;/a&gt; and have been conclusively answered by it: &quot;How can you have design without a designer?&quot; and &quot;How to create intelligence from non-intelligence?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Question seven is completely bogus.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The other four seem to operate in the disputed marshlands between science and philosophy. But his crucial argument seems to be &#039;The atheist sees design but refuses to accept that there can be a designer&#039;. If I wanted to refute that, I wouldn&#039;t send him to Richard Dawkins, but the American &lt;a href=&quot;http://carlzimmer.com/&quot; title=&quot;Carl Zimmer: Homepage&quot;&gt;Carl Zimmer&lt;/a&gt;, whose book &lt;em&gt;Parasite Rex&lt;/em&gt; is a glorious, terrifying, and intermittently disgusting romp through the roots, the intestines, and even the eyeballs of almost all living things to discover what else lives inside them. These parasites are unquestionably designed for their purpose, and designed with extraordinary ingenuity. They kill millions of children every year. I really cannot imagine that anyone, knowing the facts of their existence, could believe they were designed by a loving creator for a moral purpose. Evolution is not God&#039;s enemy but his greatest alibi.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;related&quot; style=&quot;float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;&quot;&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/creationism&quot;&gt;Creationism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/religion&quot;&gt;Religion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/christianity&quot;&gt;Christianity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/atheism&quot;&gt;Atheism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/evolution&quot;&gt;Evolution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;author&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/andrewbrown&quot;&gt;Andrew Brown&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;terms&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk&quot;&gt;guardian.co.uk&lt;/a&gt; &amp;copy; 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our &lt;a href=&quot;http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html&quot;&gt;Terms &amp; Conditions&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds&quot;&gt;More Feeds&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p style=&quot;clear:both&quot; /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/EZ-QX71R84woLlQWB-aMdSQuISU/0/da&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/EZ-QX71R84woLlQWB-aMdSQuISU/0/di&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; ismap=&quot;true&quot;&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/EZ-QX71R84woLlQWB-aMdSQuISU/1/da&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/EZ-QX71R84woLlQWB-aMdSQuISU/1/di&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; ismap=&quot;true&quot;&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;