‘Unless you show me proof of a baby turning into an 80-year-old, I will never believe aging exists.’

Have you ever had a young-earth creationist — like, I don’t know, this young-earth creationist — tell you that they refuse to accept “macro-evolution” (large-scale, species-level changes) because there is no “observable evidence” that it occurs?

Well, now you know what to tell them.

baby meme

That’s right. Requesting a live demonstration of a process that takes millions of years makes about as much sense as insisting to see a baby turn into an 80-year-old in the span of a few minutes. Now, just imagine how frustrating it would be to repeatedly encounter people who not only make this demand, but also use the fact that you can’t demonstrate such a feat as proof that humans don’t really age, and you’ll understand how my therapist was able to afford her new beach house.

The funny thing about this argument is that, because all the evidence for evolution points to large-scale changes only happening gradually over long periods of time, if “observable evidence” of these changes ever actually surfaced, it would not vindicate evolution, it would completely falsify the theory as we know it. So when Ray Comfort demands observable evidence of evolution, it’s essentially the same as asking to see an object float in mid-air above the surface of the earth to prove gravity exists.

As my friend James McGrath pointed out on Facebook, you can do more with this analogy as well. For example, young-earth creationists are like people who, when shown family photo albums, insist that there is no proof that the children in the older photographs are the same people as the adults in the more recent ones.

“I mean, there are some similarities, sure,” they might say. “But there are also some differences. Really, it’s just a matter of faith. I have to trust that what you are saying is true, because I wasn’t there.”

Tyler Francke is founder of God of Evolution and author of Reoriented. He can be reached at tyler@godofevolution.com.

  • I sometime use trees as a similar analogy.

    I see plenty of micro-tree-growth (sprouting of buds in the spring and thickening of twigs). But I never see macro-tree-growth (whole new branches forming).

    • That, too, is excellent. Thanks for sharing, Neil!

  • The micro-macro argument is a con trick from the outset. Define macroevolution has a degree of change greater than could occur over the timescale of observation, and then triumphantly proclaim that no one has ever observed it.

    • You got it. Same thing with the “no transitional fossils” nonsense.

  • Chris Mason

    There was an episode of Way of the Master where Ray Comfort used planes to “demonstrate” his argument. DonExodus2 did a trilogy of videos responding to that episode (the second part of which is linked below) and he specifically responded to his analogy right here:

    I went a bit further to demolish Comfort’s analogy, basically along the same lines as this article. Here’s what I wrote in the comments of the video:

    3:12

    That analogy is beyond ridiculous. Let me give you an example. I have a niece. I have younger cousins. They’re little, they’re adorable, they’re funny. There are times where I have trouble believing the fact that they will someday be as big as their parents are considering how small that they are. I know that to be true, I’m just saying that it’s one of those things that you have to marvel. I could go on to say that it’d be ridiculous to believe that the 747 jumbo jet used to be a biplane that simply grew and developed and use that as a justification for not believing that humans (along with most other life forms) can grow and develop from babies into adults. That’s basically how ridiculous Cameron’s analogy is. The obvious difference is that mechanical objects or virtually anything that isn’t alive lack the necessary mechanisms for that to happen.

    • Great response, Chris. Right on! Thanks for sharing!

      • Chris Mason

        Thank you!

  • ashleyhr

    Toddlers only turn each day into toddlers that are a day older. They are still the same kind of small infant.

    • Hey, that’s true! They are definitely still in the infant “kind.” And adults get older, but they’re still in the adult kind. Man, I can’t believe I never realized this before.

      • Jake Hughes

        “Still a child.”
        “But, uh… h-he can walk, and talk… and not poop his pa—”
        “STILL A CHILD!”

        • “But…he’s in a nursing home—”
          “STILL A CHILD!!!!”