The fitness of creationists

 

Can a bear become a roller? 

Creationists often complain that "survival of the fittest" is a "meaningsless tautology", that it´s "arbitrary", und so weiter. Why is the white fur of a polar bear fit in the Arctic but unfit in the temperate forests, while the opposite is the case with the brown fur of the grizzly?

But most creationists also claim to believe in micro-evolution. *So what is the mechanism of micro-evolution?* Is it natural selection working on random mutations? But if so, creationists must accept the "arbitrary" character of the "survival of the fittest". At least within the same "created kind". For instance, bears. 

So why did Duane Gish sperge about the polar bear being some kind of evidence against evolution all the time?

Exactly.

Creationism isn´t a serious alternative theory to evolution, but a series of evasive manoeuvres. A propos absolutely nothing.