Creationists are the ultimate skeptics. They will believe in men being raised from the dead and talking ghosts that can impregnate virgins without even a shred of evidence, but when confronted with the evidence for biological evolution they transform into staunch deniers upholding the highest burdens of proof ever constructed.

The theory of evolution is actually supported with a wide array of evidence. Evolution is right up there with basic principles of elementary physics in terms of observational support. In the face of such overwhelming evidence, creationists can only adopt epistemological standards of such unreasonableness that virtually nothing could be considered true if we applied such standards across all areas of inquiry and knowledge. The creationist’s argument is based on selectively raising standards. If other proposed ideas were supported by evidence to the degree that biological evolution is, creationists would certainly not doubt these ideas, like, for example, the theory of gravity and the atomic theory. However, the theory of evolution is fair game for doubt, because creationists selectively demand implausible degrees of evidence for its truth, and won’t accept anything less.

In essence, creationists demand an almost complete and total mathematical proof for biological evolution. The problem, of course, is that empirical sciences do not deal with formal proofs of absolute certainty, and must instead rely on evidence and probability, like much of our everyday knowledge.

In normal scenarios, creationists do not have such high standards of proof. If, for instance, they found a half-eaten deer carcass surrounded by wolf paw prints, the reasonable conclusion is that the wolves who made the prints ate the deer. If subsequently they found wolves nearby, covered in deer blood that matched the blood types of the slain deer, found that the jaw imprints in the carcasses matched several of the wolves, and analyzed the vomit of one wolf and found that it contained deer meat, that would be further evidence in support of the rather obvious conclusion that wolves ate the deer in question.

Now, if some wolf-loving skeptic wanted to protect the wolves from this charge of murder, he could adopt the creationist strategy and utilize unreasonably high standards of proof to shield him from criticism. He could argue, for instance, that because no one “observed” the wolves eating the deer, we could doubt the conclusion.

For this skeptic, all the evidence pointing toward the wolves means nothing to him if we cannot directly observe the event in question. He could also remark that the wolf theory leaves out certain details. For instance, it doesn’t tell us exactly how many wolves were involved, or whether the wolves first attacked from the right or left side, or whether the deer happened to be looking down at its feet when the attack occurred. They could argue that deer are faster than wolves so it is impossible. The skeptic could argue that these “gaps” in the theory rule out the wolf hypothesis.

Of course, any reasonable person can see that the wolf skeptic sets his standards of proof way too high. We need not directly observe the event, nor explain every trite and inane detail in order to know that the wolves did indeed eat the deer. The evidence of the eaten deer carcass, the wolf paw prints, the blood spattered wolves, the deer meat in the vomit, and so on, all show that the deer were eaten by the wolves.

Creationists use almost the exact same sorts of arguments against evolution. When they argue that huge biological changes resulting from evolution have never been observed, they do not realize that scientists need not directly observe single-celled organisms becoming primates in order to reasonably conclude that such an event occurred, just as those who believe that the wolves ate the deer need not directly observe the event to know that it truly happened, given the abundance of evidence supporting the claim.

When creationists argue that there are gaps in the fossil record, they fail to realize that geology predicts such gaps, and it’s hardly reasonable to expect every species that ever lived to become fossilized. They also fail to realize that those transitional forms that have been found are still solid evidence for evolution. Going back to my analogy, if one could not find the paw prints of one particular blood-covered wolf, this wouldn’t necessarily indicate that the other wolves whose paw prints were found didn’t eat the deer. The missing paw print of one wolf is not evidence that it did not eat; the more plausible explanation, given the evidence of its blood-covered fur, is that it ate the deer but did not leave any prints or had its prints destroyed by the other wolves walking over them.

The creationist criticism that science cannot explain a very specific and complex event, like the evolution of sex with absolute accuracy, and then remarking that this is evidence against evolution, is like saying that because we cannot explain in exact detail how the wolves caught the deer, the wolf scenario must be false. Clearly, such an argument would only be convincing to those with unreasonable epistemic standards, who for some reason believe that we must prove everything with complete certainty, even though this sort of accuracy is impossible outside of formal systems like mathematics.

Ironically, if one were to apply this stance of irrational doubt to any holy book, it’s clear that these books also fall far short of this unreasonable kind of proof, just as pretty much any claim would, whether it be about wolves, evolution, or religion. Indeed, one of the most interesting thing about creationists is their ability to have such high standards for evolution while at the same time having virtually no standards for claims about religion, often justifying those beliefs with faith. One would think the creationist would be consistent with his standards of proof. But he sets up a ridiculously high standard of proof for evolution simply because he knows it conflicts with his religious worldview. If only the theory of evolution had proven that men were created from dirt by an omnipotent being, perhaps scientists would have had an easier time getting creationists to accept the science. Unfortunately, the beliefs of creationists very rarely accord with reality. The only way to truly gain knowledge is through evidence-gathering, much to the chagrin of those who support the value of faith.

Basic reasoning and skepticism will suffice in debunking most religious claims. One can only imagine how quickly religious beliefs would be debunked if one approached them with the extreme skepticism that creationists brandish against a legitimate scientific fact like evolution.