A major reason why creationists arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.  Creationists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of divine knowledge and revelation on their part. But they haven't come close to demonstrating creationism to be more than a ever-rigid doctrine with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of creationism, and few have the time [or the interest] to question its scientific invalidity.)

There are five propositions that are among the least troublesome for evolutionary theory.  Creationists have worked hard to promote them, but with no genuine success, because evolution is based on empirical scientific data and scientific laws.  In “Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution” FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive, Mark Isaak says concerning these five arguments, “If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don’t know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.” We will see how Timothy Wallace (ostensibly a spokesperson for creationism belief) shows this misunderstanding in his rebuttal "Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions About Evolution" in the True.Origin Archive by attempting to support each of them with excessive verbiage, misquotes and fallacious arguments (and not surprisingly, no data).

Below are the propositions linked to explanations of why Mr. Wallace's speculation in each of these five statements are quite wrong - and why Mr. Issak's are much more scientifically accurate for the same. For the objective reader, these explanations should help put to rest the popular myth that the postulates of creationist thought in modern thinking are based on scientific knowledge.  In reality, and in spite of all the much-parroted clams of creationists, the facts of science (i.e., the empirical data and natural laws known to man), when examined without the prejudice of a supernaturalistic, ritualistic, fundamentalistic philosphy/belief system, do not support creationism propaganda.

• Evolution has never been observed.
• Evolution violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
• There are no transitional fossils.
• The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
• Evolution is only a theory, it hasn't been proven.
• Conclusion