Here's a good answer to Creationists: "dogs!"
Why? They clearly evolved from a common ancestor, we did it ourselves through artificial selection, and it was fast.
Here's a rebuttal. When I was studying psychology - an Open University module back in the 1970s at the University of Sussex - we had a lecturer who got pretty emotional about Freud. "This is not science!" she growled: she was one of the dying breed of behaviourists.
Like the creationists, I didn't buy her argument at all. Why? Because her scientific model was rubbish. It didn't even account for the phenomena ... denied that emotions, consciousness and inate psychological capabilities were real.
So you don't have to believe in scientific theories which don't account for the phenomena. Doesn't mean you have to believe anything else ... sometimes 'we just don't know' is the best answer. In fact, if you do believe in scientific theories which are not deep enough to account for the phenomena, you risk terrible mistakes. Behaviourism entailed scary child development practices.
However, the converse does apply. When theories do explain the phenomena, and make successful and counter-intuitive predictions, then you should believe the science and disbelieve contrary prejudices.
Sorry creationists, that's where your juggernaut leaves the road!
