I often mention that the biogeography of life on Earth confirms evolution while falsifying the Bible at the same time. I keep hoping that some creationist will challenge me.
Alas, they lack the intellectual curiosity (or integrity) to do so. I need to raise that specific topic myself.
First of all it is important to note that this subject does NOT involve fossils. Neither does it involve the dating of rocks. All it takes is the form of evidence most highly favored by creationists - eyewitness accounts.
Consider my favorite example - Gila Monsters. Eyewitnesses have observed that they exist in one place only - the deserts of North America.
Gila Monsters are slow moving and cold blooded. They are also very poisonous. They are not very aggressive so they rarely attack humans, but their venom is as toxic as that of a coral snake. That means it is very toxic indeed.
The obvious question that comes up for Biblical literalists is:
How and why are Gila Monsters ONLY found in the deserts of North America?
The Bible says that the only living land animals were on the Ark immediately after the flood. The Ark came to rest in the area around Mt. Ararat which is in Turkey.
That raises the first question about Gila Monsters. The area around Mt. Ararat is a desert. Why would Gila Monsters – or any desert animal - migrate anywhere else? It you get off the Ark and see an ideal climate, why wouldn't an animal stay RIGHT THERE? How would a dumb animal even know that there were other places that had an ideal climate for them?
**IF** they did decide to migrate, why would they go all the way to North America? There are many deserts much closer. The Sahara Desert, for example, is just a hop, skip and a jump away, relatively speaking.
**IF** they did decide to migrate to North America (and clearly the questions are becoming outrageously absurd and even funny), how did they get to North America? They can't swim. There is no land bridge.
Some creationists say that there was an Ice Age immediately after the flood. That opened a bridge to the Western Hemisphere. While such a bridge would work quite well for animals like Mammoths, how would an animal like the Gila Monster use it? The Gila Monster is cold blooded. It couldn't possibly survive a trip of thousands of miles through ice and snow where none of its food was around.
Other creationists say that humans brought such animals with them as they travelled. But that is clearly preposterous as well. Humans might bring animals that benefit them when they travel - such as cattle, horses, chickens, dogs, etc. But Gila Monsters provide no such benefit. They are also potentially quite dangerous since they are poisonous. It makes absolutely NO sense for humans to haul them around.
Most importantly, Gila Monsters are FAR from the only problem for the Bible account created by the biogeography of life.
In fact there are an estimated 12 million species of animals on Earth. Nearly every one presents a biogeographical problem for the Bible account. There are even some 650,000 species of beetles. Nearly every one lives in a small ecological niche.
How did that happen?
Even the biogeography of freshwater fish is unexplainable. With a bit more than a year to swim wherever they wanted, why is nearly all species of freshwater fish confined to very small geographical areas? Over a year, piranhas could have swum to Africa. Certainly they could have swum to Central America. Why did they decide to stay only in the Amazon River basin?
There are ALL of these questions. Literally MILLIONS of them. Yet no creationists can present even hypothetical answers that aren't completely ludicrous.
Contrast that with the Easter Bunny. Rational people don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Why not? Because the hypothesis raises so many questions for which there are not even hypothetical answers.
How does the Easter Bunny visit so many homes in a short time period? How does the Easter Bunny carry so many eggs? I'm sure that we could all come up with other questions.
Those questions don't have even hypothetical answers. But the questions about the Easter Bunny, as numerous as they are, still are MUCH smaller than the questions without even hypothetical answers that the biogeography of life on Earth raises and that the Flood account cannot hope to answer.
Therefore, it is easier to believe in the Easter Bunny than it is to believe in the Bible.