Response to Creationist 14

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.”

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 13

13. “Does metamorphosis help support evolution?”

Other commentators have gone easy on 13, thinking that her question is a genuine and informed one. I think that assumption is a mistake.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 12

12. “There is no inbetween… the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds neccessary for an “official proof””

There are two things we can learn from 12’s claim, which is a variation on the old “missing link” objection.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 11

11. “Why do evolutionists/secularists/huminists/non-God believing people reject the idea of their being a creator God but embrace the concept of inteligent design from aliens or other extra-terestrial sources?”

I’m disappointed that the photo doesn’t show 11’s face, because I’d love to see what kind of deranged, delusional idiocy is beaming out of it. Except it probably isn’t, is it? He probably looks completely normal. It’s the banality of insanity.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 9

9. “If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?”

The poor framing of 9’s question reveals its rhetorical nature. If it were a genuine enquiry, it wouldn’t need the first clause. “How did the first single-celled organism originate?” is a perfectly good question, clearly and accurately stated, and easily googlable. If 9 really wanted an answer to it, she could have it in seconds. So either she doesn’t want the answer, or the answer is too hard. I’ve already accused 1-8 of not wanting the answers, so for a bit of variety, let’s be generous to 9 and suppose she does want the answer, she’s tried looking it up and she still doesn’t understand.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 6

6. “If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?”

If I were simply answering the questions, it would be tempting to simply refer back to 4, but I’m not, so I won’t.

Continue reading

22 Responses To Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

This is a response to Buzzfeed’s 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution. If you know the background to the post, you can skip the introduction and go straight to number 1.

On 4 February 2014, Bill Nye, a well-known US science advocate and TV personality, debated with Ken Ham, President of Answers in Genesis, a creationist propaganda organisation, at the latter’s “Creation Museum” in Kentucky. The full video of the debate can be watched here.

A Buzzfeed staffer called Matt Stopera went to the debate. While there, he asked creationist attendees to write questions and messages to Bill Nye and evolution/science supporters, and took photos of them with those messages. The full gallery is here.

The first time I read the creationists’ messages, I thought they were so stupid, I wanted to dismiss them all with rapid-fire answers. I imagined assembling all 22 people in a line, in order, and marching down it, pointing at each one, saying, “Yes, no, yes, no, the rotation of the earth relative to the sun…”

Later I realised it’s worth considering them in a bit more detail, though not because they have any validity, nor because a fuller response might persuade them. As Peter Boghossian argues in his book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, it’s no use arguing over facts and evidence with religious fundamentalists. They’ve already rejected ‘reasoning from evidence’ as a belief-forming mechanism. His approach is to try to understand humans as imperfectly rational, as suffering from psychological flaws which prevent them from understanding, or even trying to understand, the world around them – and then to find ways which pragmatically help to repair those flaws.

Therefore, in the spirit of trying to understand the reasons behind the 22 creationists’ messages, I’ve written 22 responses. They’re not short, and the whole thing was getting too long for a single post, so instead I’m going to post each one separately and link them from here as I progress.

Continue reading