Creationists don't believe modern evolutionary theory. They say that there is no evidence for evolution, especially macroevolution. They claim that scientists have a conspiracy to keep information that contradicts modern evolutionary theory out of the classroom. They advocate "teaching the controversy". But there IS NO scientific controversy. The information that they claim contradicts modern evolutionary theory doesn't. The carpings of a few fringe scientists whose views no credible scientist accepts does not make a scientific controversy.
However, to explain why the examples they present doesn't contradict mainstream science requires understanding the basics of modern evolutionary theory, which no student would ever grasp if the creationist misrepresentations were presented seriously.
What I think is instructive is how creationists handle evidence that directly contradicts their own views.
A 66 year old woman in southwest China came across this snake:
The snake has a foot complete with clawed toes growing out of its side. Snakes are not supposed to have those. How did this snake get it? The modern evolutionary explanation is that snakes evolved from legged ancestors. During the course of evolution snakes lost their legs by having the genetic machinery for making legs suppressed. Something ... possibly a mutation but more likely an environmental factor ... affected the suppression mechanism such that innate genetic machinery for making legs was expressed in this individual.
It is elegant evidence for evolution. But Melinda at the STANDS TO REASON blog (an evangelical Christian blog with creationist leanings that I read) doesn't believe it.
If they haven't done so yet, I'm sure soon some Darwinists will be citing this freak of nature as evidence for evolution. A woman found a snake in her house - and it had one foot. Assuming this is not a hoax (which I think it likely is), there's no reason at all to take this as some kind of support for evolution.
I am an evolutionary biologist and I cite it as evidence for evolution. While the picture (which Melinda did not include with her blog) doesn't look like a hoax, I can't say with certainty that this is not a hoax. Fortunately, examples of snakes with legs are not all that rare. It has happened several times. Here are some pictures of other snakes with legs:
And just for the fun of it ... here is a picture of a snake fossil in which leg bones can be seen:
This shows a fossil record of snake ancestors with legs.
I think the number of cases where this kind of phenomenon occurs argues strongly that at least some of them are real.
First, I'm not sure what survival value one leg would confer. And mutations must have some survival value for them to be selected by nature and passed on. Useless mutations don't fit the criteria of natural selection. So if it is a foot on a snake, it could just be some random mutation. No creationist denies that odd mutations occur. I'll be imperssed when it reproduced a snake with a leg.
And this freakish foot doesn't even fit the evolutionary scenario since it has, supposedly, appeared fully formed on this snake. And, by the way, it's still a snake - not some halfbreed transitional species on it's way to becoming something new. It is, theoretically, a snake with a foot. Freakish, but not evolutionary.
Melinda seems to think evolutionary theory is saying this is the future of snake evolution. It isn't it is the past. This is a phenomenon that is well known. It even has its own name. It is called an ATAVISM. Atavistic features are ones that are not normally found in present-day organisms but were found in putative ancestors.
Melinda also seems to think that single mutation could bring a leg into being. That would not be likely. Many genes need to interact to direct the development of a leg. What the snake is showing is that it still has that genetic machinery. But such genetic machinery is not needed for a snake to be a snake. The question then is, "How did it get there?". Modern evolutionary theory says it is remnant of functional DNA passed down from the snake's legged ancestors. Contrary to Melinda's assertion, it fits GREAT with an "evolutionary scenario".
Creationists say ... well I'll let Melinda give you one answer.
Second, to interpret this as evolutionary proof is begging the question. To interpret this as evidence for evolution, past or present, is to tell a story, to impose a narrative on this. If evolution were true, then this could be construed to fit that theory. But it's not proof of the theory. I can interpret this according to my view, too, to support the Genesis curse. Snakes used to have legs, which became latent when God cursed them as a species, and that recessive feature just popped out on this snake. Things like this aren't proof of anything, and are equally open to alternative narratives
Yep, you read it right. The legs are there because they are a latent feature of God's Genesis curse on snakes. The thing is that she is right that the legs are a latent feature ... from the snakes ancestors. But her antipathy to all things evolutionary has prevented her from even considering this option. To her the only "latent feature" hypothesis is God's Genesis curse.
Again she has no concept of genetics. She thinks this is a single gene recessive trait. This is the level of biology that creationists want students to be exposed to. Well, she is not only wrong in her ideas about modern evolutionary theory's explanation for the feature, she is wrong about "[t]hings like this ... [being] ... equally open to alternative narratives". At least in a scientific sense. Because in a scientific sense the alternative narratives need to have the same are better supporting evidence.
The Genesis curse has the Adam and Eve story in Genesis going for it. It has geology, paleontology, astronomy, anthropology, biology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, and modern evolutionary theory going against it.
It is quite obvious that these people do not care about evidence. NOTHING can possibly be good enough to convince them. When they say "teach the controversy" what they are saying is "teach the student to find a way ... any way ... to dismiss the evidence if you don't like it". I don't think that is the proper way to teach a science class.
It is not possible that the world started with just Adam and Eve. Within I would say three generations incest would have rendered the population physical and mentally deformed. Their would be no viability of the species because their was not enough diversity in the DNA to make for a viable species.
Their is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the theory of evolution, but sadly the Creationist only read what is forced down their throats without looking at an objective out side source.
So, if the only exposure you get to evolution is through Creationists of course you are not going to have an objective base to stand on.