Evolutionist bingo

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:


  1. Creationists only cite scientific papers from other creationists
  2. 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)
  3. Understanding evolution is necessary to cure disease
  4. Direct observation of the past isn’t normally possible, but inference and extrapolation might as well be good enough
  5. If speciation has been observed for this species, it must have happened for every other species as well
  6. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution
  7. Any given species is our cousin
  8. We’ve answered that question on our website.


  1. Refers to Biblical “literalism” (as though a symbolic interpretation is meant to be the default)
  2. Flinches or gets defensive when someone mentions scientism
  3. Waits for Godwin’s Law to be fulfilled in a debate (and mentions it when it happens)
  4. 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)
  5. 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…”
  6. Asks “who created God?” (i.e. presupposing that God must have been created)
  7. Injects emotional commentary: “that’s the beauty of science”
  8. Believes that the concept of historical science was invented by Ken Ham.