Argument against Intelligent Design Creationism

What are some good arguments against Intelligent Design creationism?

My cousin has recently joined this fundamentalist group and she is reading their magazines with pseudo science e.g. the earth is 6000years old etc

Our conversations on this topic usually end in her storming out.

She has a real problem with the Catholic Church because it holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution.

I don’t think you’re going to find us Lutherans giving you good ammunition - for we feel that in God all things are possible.

God hasn’t revealed to us any mechanism of His creative acts, so we really couldn’t discount any plausible theory - though we would always have to acknowledge that fundamentally it is God who controls our reality.

Hi. I have a history book upstairs. In the book it says that the area of Britain, before a tectonic plate shift that separated Britain from the rest of Europe, and before Neanderthal man, were Homo Sapiens, and they inhabited this area for a while dating back 840,000 years.

Does this cousin mean 60,000 or 600,000 perhaps? I think she meant 6,000,000!

Hi SAVINGRACE :slight_smile:

I think I understand a little bit how she may be feeling, especially when it comes to Neo-Darwinian evolution, I believe the church may be trying to avoid another ‘Galilean Affair’ but in so doing is creating quite a bit of confusion in regards to theistic evolution when it comes to ‘Ensoulment’ and trying to imagine ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ with animals as parents.

I’m not a young Earth creationist, nor am I completely opposed to evolution (Just Neo-Darwinian evolution that suggests animals gave birth to Adam and Eve) I believe in Evolution only within species and as for the creation of Adam and Eve, I don’t think it took billions of years, but I don’t know, however I believe it certainly wasn’t through Neo-Darwinian evolution.

I believe the following book may be very helpful -

And I also liked this short answer from William Lane Craig - Why is Evolution so widely believed?

I would also like to share the following -

**Eucharistic Miracle of Poland, Sokólka, October 12, 2008 **

Sokólka, October 12, 2008 (Part 1) – (PDF: 1.41M)
Sokólka, October 12, 2008 (Part 2) – (PDF: 1.31M)
Sokólka, October 12, 2008 (Part 3) – (PDF: 1.41M)

**Eucharistic Miracles of Argentina, Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 **

(Note: The scientific investigations into this Eucharistic Miracle were instigated and approved of by Pope Francis, then known as the Argentina Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio)

Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 (part 1) - (PDF: 1.46M)
Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 (part 2) - (PDF: 1.42M)
Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 (part 3) - (PDF: 1.25M)

Eucharistic Miracle of Italy, Lanciano, 750 A.D.

Lanciano, 750 A.D. (part 1) – (PDF: 186k)
Lanciano, 750 A.D. (part 2) – (PDF: 194k)

Please continue to next post -

The Sacred Heart Image (St Margaret-Mary Alacoque) -

The revelation which took place in June 1675 when St Margaret Mary was before the Blessed Sacrament: "Behold this Heart, Which has loved men so much, that It has spared nothing, even to exhausting (Crucifixion) and consuming Itself, (Last Supper, Eucharist)** in order to testify to them Its love; and in return I receive from the greater number nothing but ingratitude by reason of their irreverence and sacrileges, and by the coldness and contempt which they show Me in this Sacrament of Love. **(how people treat His real presence in the Holy Eucharist). But what I feel the most keenly is that it is hearts which are consecrated to Me that treat Me thus. Therefore, I ask of thee that the Friday after the Octave of Corpus Christi be set apart for a special feast to honour My Heart, by communicating on that day and making reparation to It by a solemn act, in order to make amends for the indignities which It has received during the time It has been exposed on the altars. I promise thee that My Heart shall expand Itself to shed in abundance the influence of Its divine love upon those who shall thus honour It, and cause It to be honoured." (Please note the results of the Eucharistic miracles above).

I hope the following has helped, please feel free to reply/refute anything. :slight_smile:

God Bless

Thank you for reading

Their is so much evidence in mainstream science. The problem is she is going to reject that for what her church teaches.

Since young earth creationism is not a salvific issue, I would just let it go.

But in an indirect way you can argue it and her whole belief system by challenging her belief in the Bible as sole authority and her rejection of the church from which the bible came.

Why does she give authority to the church she is going to to interpret the Bible?

Maybe go down that path.

Where does the Bible say genesis is literal?
Where does the Bible say it is a science book?

It is treated like a science book here all the time, yet there are no peer reviewed papers about the Book of Genesis. A careful reading of the Bible, combined with what the Catholic Church teaches, will reveal the truth.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”


The 6000 year argument can be dismantled by there being trees that have rings that are almost 9000 years old.

Also when you say God did this and that in science equations, you now have a god that can be disproved. This happened with Issac Newton, he would say that God did this, but then 100 years later someone would discover the god part and say I guess there is no god after all.

Some of my young earth creation family said to such arguments, “God made it look old”. You can’t argue with that I guess. Some people just choose to completely dismiss evidence in that way.


Well what about dinosaurs? The only place I’ve seen dinosaurs and humans coexisting is in Jurassic Park and Ken Ham’s creation museum.


What about dinosaurs? There is evidence that men created images of dinosaurs.


:mad: Well your cousin, and all of us, for that matter, shouldn’t believe everything we hear or read. No matter who you’re listening to, take his/her words with a grain of salt.

This is because the Church views evolution and creationism as two possible ways which God has designed this universe. Direct your cousin to Pope Francis’s words regarding evolution and the big bang.

Here’s an exhaustive article which I found today.

Which has nothing to do with the age of the earth. Man has created images of sharks, and sharks go a long way back before dinosaurs. Sponges and jellyfish go back even earlier.

As to dinosaurs specifically, there are a great many dinosaurs alive today. Here is one:

Finding another species of living dinosaur in some remote region would be interesting, but would not have any impact on the scientific estimates of the age of the earth or of the universe. Like when they found a living Coelacanth, which was previously thought extinct, age estimates would not have to be revised.


I am not sure why ID has got to do with the young earth theory. All ID says is that there is an Intelligent Mind behind the creation of the universe and not through random events . (We know that of course!) ID doesn’t claim young earth creation, although one can postulate a scenario.

Our faith is so simple. God created everything. Timeline of creation not important in salvation of our souls. Do spend time on spiritual health, not on creation history. The Church doesn’t place a lot of importance on that. Why spent time on discerning how old earth is? Not going to help you much on salvation though. If someone insist on 6000 years, so be it +/- a few billion years to make it statistically relevant.

The official [evolution] position of the Catholic Church is that Catholic teachings directly deny the basic principle (cladistics classification of populations evolving from common ancestor populations) found in the current Science of Human Evolution. Please note that the Science of Human Evolution is different from the evolutionary science of plants and ants, etc.

You keep saying this around here; yet the position of the Church, as expressed by the past three popes, asserts that evolution (properly considered) does not conflict with Church teachings.

It seems to me that you’re saying that cladistics (which speaks to physical characteristics of species) is capable of addressing issues in Catholic teaching of the origin of humanity (which speaks to ensoulment). This doesn’t make any sense: science has no competence to address the human soul. Therefore, by definition, cladistics cannot address issues that the Church raises with respect to monogenism. Stated simply, scientific monogenism speaks to physical species; theological monogenism speaks to human ensoulment. The two are not (necessarily) identical (although, I have to admit, they may have been thought to have been identical, in much the same way that geocentrism was thought to be identical to the creation account in Genesis, until heliocentrism was accepted and those who asserted that it conflicted with Scripture were shown to be mistaken).

Properly considered evolution. That is an interesting thought since I maintain that Catholic doctrines deny the larger than two population principle for human origin. The language of CCC, 399 is interesting.

It seems to me that you’re saying that cladistics (which speaks to physical characteristics of species) is capable of addressing issues in Catholic teaching of the origin of humanity (which speaks to ensoulment).

That is correct because God’s direct creation of the spiritual soul requires a physical anatomy.

My two cents (if it’s worth even that):

Creation is recorded in the Bible as six days. The Biblical timeline of creation isn’t terribly off the theorized order of creation scientifically (big bang = let there be light, etc.plant-type and fish in the seas coming before land animals, sea monsters = dinosaurs?, etc.).

Most likely, unless God had Moses or whomever recorded Genesis 1 as a stenographer, it was most likely revealed as a vision (neither is advanced, for Genesis just tells the story, it doesn’t say how the story was given, and since no human was around before day 6, it certainly wasn’t first-hand eyewitness). Well, if the visions were six distinct visions, they may have been interpreted as six days (besides, a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years like a day). Early man likely did not have a concept of millions or billions of years, so they interpreted as six days.

Also, the Bible is not a scientific textbook, it is a written account of humanity. It’s not there to describe the ‘how’, but rather the ‘why’.

I also see Adam as the first man as the point in creation of us where we became ‘self aware’, and for a little while, we lived in that idyllic state, but then Satan tempted the first man and he sinned. Again, is the fruit tree truly literal, or an allegory shown by God to the chronicler of creation that they would understand?

I think its easy enough to reconcile Genesis with an old-Earth viewpoint, that I just chuckle and shake my head at the fundies and their hyper-literal interpretation (which of course suddenly stops if the hyper-literal interpretation supports Catholic belief, a la John 6).

Fair enough. Just to make sure that we’re discussing the same thing, could you please define ‘human’ for me? In such a way that we distinguish both between human and pre-human ancestors and between ensoulment and physical humanity?

The language of CCC, 399 is interesting.

Are you referring to, “Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives”…?

Interesting – how so? The fact that it mentions an explicit ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’? I’m not following you here…

That is correct because God’s direct creation of the spiritual soul requires a physical anatomy.

Unfortunately, not only is this claim false, it also does not follow from my assertion about cladistics vis-a-vis ensoulment.

First off, it is false, on at least one count: God directly created angels, who are spiritual beings with spiritual souls, but without physical anatomy. Soul does not imply physical body, strictly speaking.

However, humans are indeed a body-soul composite. Yet, we do not claim – with respect to ensoulment – a particular timing about the creation of the soul (vis-a-vis the creation of the body). As Catholics, we assert that God creates each soul immediately (that is, without mediation). We do not claim a particular timing for this ensoulment, other than the vaguely worded “at the moment of conception.” Does this imply that the physical matter of a newly-conceived human exists first, and then the soul? Or that the soul exists as the conception takes place? Or that the two occur simultaneously? Both “body-then-soul” and “soul-then-body” lead to difficult consequences (especially when we consider the theology in play with questions of abortion – as an example, twinning presents a particular problem of ensoulment!). “Body-and-soul” might get you out of the woods… but it contradicts your statement about the physical requirement, it seems. So, on both counts, your assertion is problematic.

Second, your assertion does not follow from a discussion of ‘species’ and ‘ensoulment’: yes, in humans, there is a particular anatomy – in this case, a species. Yet, ensoulment does not require a particular species, does it? That is to say, “Adam and Eve” could have been homo sapiens or homo erectus; they could have been Neandertal or Cro-Magnon! There is not a particular species to which we must point and say “this one but not those ones” – strictly speaking, God’s prerogative of creating humanity in the Imago Dei is His prerogative, not ours, and does not depend on 21st century taxonomies. Scientists can look at tools that various populations created and used, or artwork that they developed, or burial customs that they practiced, and from these physical bits of evidence make claims about rational capacity. Yet, these physical signs do not handcuff God into a choice of which population He first ensouled. Therefore, whatever cladistics might have to say about genetic commonalities between our ancestors, it cannot make a claim about ensoulment. Therefore, it does not follow that biological claims of polygenesis directly contradict Christian theological claims of the monogenesis of ensoulment.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit