In the video, which has been around for several years and has several million views (by which I mean to point out that this contribution is superfluous), Craven gives his analysis of the climate change debate. Using a simple logical tool, he seems to cut straight through all the controversy over whether and to what extent climate change is man-made and preventable, to an incontrovertible conclusion about what we must do: act now to prevent it.
22. “If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?”
The question I want to look at here is: is there any excuse for this level of ignorance?
It’s obvious 22 hasn’t thought about his objection at all. He’s just reciting a mantra, and one which creationist propaganda organisations have now repudiated as being too stupid even for them.
21. “Relating to the big bang theory…. Where did the exploding star come from?”
At first glance, 21 may look like the thickest of the whole bunch, and his question seems to reinforce that impression. But he has at least put a tiny bit of original thought into it.
20. “How can you look at the world and not believe someone created / thought of it? It’s Amazing!!!”
For me, 20 is the most sympathetic of the 22 creationists. As far as we can tell, she’s not a victim of paralysing fear like 2 or 3, a credulous automaton like 12 or 18, nor the sad product of a broken education system like 9 or 10.
All we know about her is two things:
1. She subscribes to the idea of unthinking wonder.
2. She’s a little cutie.
19. “Can you believe in “the big bang” without “faith”?”
In other words, “I believe in something with absolute certainty, despite evidence against it, and none in favour. So I assume that’s what everyone else does too.”
18. “Why have we found only 1 “Lucy”, when we have found more than 1 of everything else?”
Have you noticed how both 18 and 12, who makes essentially the same point about there being only one Lucy (ie, fossil hominid skeleton), both finish with a squiggle?
No-one else feels the need to bolster their argument with a graphical flourish. Perhaps it’s an unconscious attempt to compensate for its obvious weaknesses.
Scientists: ‘Our study showed a weak correlation between the presence of two particular sections of chromosome, and self-identification of homosexuality.’
Science journalists: ‘Scientists have proven a link between genes and homosexuality.’
Non-science journalists: ‘Scientists have found the gay gene.’
Non-science editorial writers: ‘This raises the possibility of “fixing” the gay gene.’
News website comment sections: ‘We should fix the gay gene.’
17. “What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?”
What’s that, dear? Salvation? No, I’m afraid this is about biology. Maybe you want the soteriology debate next door? No, that’s all right. Easy mistake to make. Run along now.
16. “What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?”
Oh dear. Someone’s been reading technical jargon they don’t understand.