Now I’ve finished my responses to the 22 creationists, I thought I’d finish off with a few links to others I found during the whole nightmare ordeal.
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.
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.
15. “Because science by definition is a “theory” – not testable, observable nor repeatable” why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?”
My first reaction to 15 was an overwhelming urge to throw a dictionary in her face.
Now I’ve taken some time to consider the 22 creationists and the roots of their flawed beliefs, I think I’m able to formulate a more considered, effective response.
Make sure the dictionary is a hardback.
14. “If Evolution is a Theory (like creationism or the Bible) why then is Evolution taught as fact.”
The theory of evolution is a theory; evolution is a process, a thing which definitely exists and happens. The fact there’s a theory about it is not to say the whole thing is just a wild idea someone pulled out of their arse; it’s scientists’ way of saying “this stuff’s complicated, so we’re going to write it down properly.”