http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/gop-evolution.html
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by
tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up.
John Rennie is editor in chief of Scientific American.
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through
natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued
over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology,
genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually
established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that
battle has been won everywhere -- except in the public
imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically
advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still
persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution
is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist
ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to
evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the
Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a
change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law
professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of
Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design
theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to
discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on
the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments
that creationists use are typically specious and based on
misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the
number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed
people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the
most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It
also directs readers to further sources for information and
explains why creation science has no place in the
classroom
