Shortly before his retirement, David Catchpoole gave a presentation on creation. His audience included a group of smug evolutionists, who brought a ‘creationist bingo’ card with them. Evidently, the evolutionists were tongue-tied that night; Catchpoole didn’t need the tropes they were hoping for.
That evolutionist misfire led me to make an evolutionist bingo card, like so:
|Teaching creation in schools will impair scientific progress||If you believe in creation, you’ll believe in a flat earth as well2||It’s marvellous how evolution solved physical problems3||That rock/soft tissue sample must have been contaminated||Creation science makes no scientific predictions5|
|Formal debates with creationists would raise the credibility of creationism6||Teaching creation to children is child abuse||Before Darwin, scientists were creationists because they didn’t know any better||God doesn’t exist because of evil, death, suffering, or “bad” design||Evolution has been observed, just not while it’s happening|
|Religion was invented to help the survival of ancient (ignorant) societies||Mutations imparted survival value (except when they didn’t)||Creation scientists are only in it for the money13||Evidence for evolution is overwhelming (though scientific conclusions are provisional)||Equivocates between evolution and natural selection|
|Many Christians believe in evolution, and it doesn’t impair their faith16||Noah must have taken two of every species on the ark||Invokes the Galileo affair (but ignores Galileo’s theology and politics)18||Evolution is an objective and/or religiously neutral theory of origins||Given enough time, large-scale evolution will happen20|
|Mainstream science journals don’t publish papers on creation, hence it must be false||Equivocates between science and scientism||Evolution is true because most scientists accept it23||The Bible only makes claims on spiritual, not physical phenomena24||Downplays Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man25|
There could be others—maybe enough for a 6 × 6 bingo square:
- Creationists only cite scientific papers from other creationists
- Creationists cite the secular scientific literature (casting doubt on aspects of evolution), but the citation is always taken out of context (or a quote mine)
- Understanding evolution is necessary to cure disease
- Direct observation of the past isn’t normally possible, but inference and extrapolation might as well be good enough
- If speciation has been observed for this species, it must have happened for every other species as well
- Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution
- Any given species is our cousin
- We’ve answered that question on our website.
- Refers to Biblical “literalism” (as though a symbolic interpretation is meant to be the default)
- Flinches or gets defensive when someone mentions scientism
- Waits for Godwin’s Law to be fulfilled in a debate (and mentions it when it happens)
- Equivocates between the different meanings of the following terms: ‘law’, ‘myth’, ‘fact’, or ‘theory’ (i.e. the anthropological/scientific vs. popular understandings of the term)
- Insists that a hypothesis is strongly supported by the evidence—but when it’s discredited, recasts the hypothesis with euphemisms like “it was thought that…”
- Asks “who created God?” (i.e. presupposing that God must have been created)
- Injects emotional commentary: “that’s the beauty of science”
- Believes that the concept of historical science was invented by Ken Ham.