Response to Creationist 22

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.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 21

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.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 20

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.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 19

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.”

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 18

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.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 17

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.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 16

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.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 15

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.

Continue reading

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