Creation Science Rebuttals

Stasis

     From the most simplistic approach, Malone is right.  Fossils do indicate statis.  However, stasis is not proof against evolution.  Evolutionary theory accounts for the possibility of an organism to not evolve further.  Evolution does not equal constant change.  It lives by the old adage, "Don't fix it if it ain't broke."

     Malone goes on to discuss several theories, such as slow change through mutation, and fast change via punctuated equilibrium.  I don't know which is right, nor does it matter.  Since stasis is a normal part of evolution, the slow change is OK.  Since transitional fossils are missing from the rapid change (punctuated equilibrium) this is OK too.  Although there may be problems with both, there remains the possibility that either could be right.

     (As a progressive creationist, I do not believe in evolution.  However, since you can believe in evolution, and accept the Bible literally, and as inerrant, there is no problem if one wants to believe in theistic evolution.)

     Finally, Malone uses the now famous quote (at least in young earth creation science circles) of their being no transitional forms.  It should be noted that there are indeed transitional form candidates, as Answers in Genesis points out.  That is why Answers in Genesis lists the argument of transitional fossils as one that creationists should not use.

   Want to learn more about creation science?  Are the claims of young earth creation science ministries truthful?  Visit the young earth creation science ministry rebuttal home page for more truth in creation science.