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.
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.”
Last year, I wrote an article Lego for girls about a 1981 Lego advert, and the stark difference it showed between the company’s marketing strategy and gendering of its products, then and now.
(Apparently another blogger call “HuffPost” just got round to doing this last month as well, but we can’t all be on the cutting edge in this fast-paced new media landscape.)
Another blog called Women You Should Know just posted a follow-up article by Lori Day who, it turned out, was a friend of a friend of the girl from the original advert.
That much-blogged and shared 1981 Lego advert
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.
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.
