The next term I want to define is "literalistic". In his book, Is There Meaning in This Text?, Kevin J. Vanhoozer describes the difference between "literalistic" and "literal",
It is most important to distinguish literalistic from literal interpretation. The former generates an unlettered, ultimately illiterate reading—one that is incapable of recognizing less obvious uses of language such as metaphor, satire, and so forth. By contrast, the latter attends to what authors are doing in tending to their words in a certain way.
I have addressed some creation science claims in the past. If you want to read those posts, you can go here, here, and here. In this post, I will be addressing entirely different claims than the ones I addressed in the past.
Bogus Claim #1: Evolution is unscientific because it is neither testable nor observed.
First, let's address two distinctions that are normally made by YECs. Evolution can be divided into two broad categories- microevolution and macroevolution (Though in reality, these are one in the same, but for the sake of the discussion, I'll go with the distinction that is sometimes made by YECs). Microevolution studies the changes within species over time. It is these small changes which can lead to the emergence of a new species. Macroevolution looks at how anything above the taxonomic level of "species" has evolved. This field draws its evidence from DNA sequencing and fossil records.
Most Young Earth Creationists accept microevolution, yet deny macroevolution. They do not consider the fossil record and DNA sequencing to be adequate evidence. Macroevolution does involve making inferences from DNA and fossil records, but this doesn't mean that their hypothesis can't be tested by checking to see if it is in line with physical evidence, which can lead to verifiable, future predictions. For example, human evolution states that between the earliest known human ancestor (5 million years ago), and the appearance of homo-sapiens (100,000 years ago), there should be a succession of hominid mammals with features that are less and less ape-like and more and more human-like. This is what the fossil records show. For example, one does not find modern, human fossils in rocks from the Triassic period (206 million years ago). The truth is, evolutionary biology makes many more precise predictions, and researchers are constantly testing them. All these tests continue to mount more and more support for evolution, not less. This leads to the next bogus claim.
Bogus Claim #2: More and more, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
There is zero evidence for this claim. Furthermore, serious scientific studies that dispute evolution are all but non existent. Creationism articles and magazines do not count, since they are not submitted to the scientific community for peer review and critique- another HUGE problem with the validity of creation science. However, if you pick up an issue of a peer-reviewed journal or article, you will find more and more mounting evidence for evolution. You will also find that scientists are becoming more and more convinced (for lack of a better word) of the theory of evolution. In other words, creation science is not giving the scientific community good reasons to take them seriously.
Bogus Claim #3: If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This one is more of a question than a claim, but it is meant to try to show that acceptance of evolution is foolish. Before I answer this, I want to pose a few questions to YECs using this same logic, just to show how absurd it is: "If Adam was created with dust, why is there still dust?" "If Christianity came of Judaism, then why are there still Jews?" "If children descend from adults, then why are there still adults?" No sensible person ask such questions. However, since this constantly comes up, let me address it. The question is based on both an ignorance and misunderstanding of evolution. This is because many who try to refute evolution don't even understand it themselves. Evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it teaches that they had a common ancestor. Big difference. The reason evolution is often depicted as a tree is because new species are formed by "splintering" or "branching" off from existing ones. This happens when populations of organisms become isolated from their "branch family", and begin to acquire differences that help them adapt to their environment. These differences are sufficient to make them distinct from their "branch family". The parent species may die off, or it may remain.
Bogus Claim #4: No one has ever seen a new species evolve.
It must be stated up front that recognizing a new species in its early, formative stage can be difficult. This is because biologists sometimes disagree with how to define a species. The most widely accepted definition comes from what is called Mayr's Biological Species Concept. This concept defines a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations, which is basically sets of organism that normally will not or cannot breed outside their community. Because this standard can be difficult to apply at times, biologists usually use an organisms physical or behavioral traits as clues to what species they belong to.
With this being said, if you scan the scientific literature of today,. you will find that they are full of reports on speciation events that are found in plants, worms, and insects. In many of these experiments, organisms were subjected to various types of selections, namely anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences, etc. What happened was that these organisms created another population of organisms that did not breed with those outside their "family". For example, in one study, a group of fruit flies were sorted by their preference for a certain environment, and were then bred separately over 35 generations. The result was that the flies that were separated refused to breed with the flies from a different environment. This is how species evolve; one small change; one small preference at a time.
Bogus Claim #5: There are no transitional fossils.
This is not true. In fact, there are many transitional fossils that have been discovered. One of the most famous is the Archaeopteryx, which combines bird and dinosaur features. Many of these types of bird/dino hybrids have been found, with some being more avian than others. Then there is the Eohippus, and all the fossils that trace the evolution of modern horses. I could go on, but I will only mention a few more. There are the ancestors of whales, the Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus, which were four legged creatures that walked on land. There are also fossils in seashells that trace the evolution of various mollusks, as well as 20+ hominid fossils that fill the gaps between Lucy and modern humans.