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.

Note that it’s even clearer from 6’s formulation of the question how non-existent his grasp is of the concepts he’s trying to juggle here. ‘If X is true, why is it debunked?’ isn’t logically coherent as a question. What’s the Big Bang got to do with the creationist claim that increasing entropy contradicts increasing complexity of life? He doesn’t even remember which of the laws of thermodynamics he’s supposed to be quoting.

Is 6 concerned about any of these problems? Probably not. After all, it doesn’t really matter to him whether the laws of thermodynamics debunk evolution or the big bang. Thermodynamics is just a “theory” too, based on evidence and rigorously tested by scientists and engineers every day – all of which is irrelevant to creationist thought. If the Bible said entropy tended to decrease, or heat was not a form of energy, there’d probably be an “alternative” theory of Christodynamics too, a well-funded movement lobbying for it to be taught in schools and a Christodynamics Museum.

By talking about the big bang and the laws of thermodynamics, 6 is trying to look like he’s playing the same game as you, but he’s not. He’s pretending to be rational, but he’s not. How do you combat irrationality? Not by rational argument. In non-religious contexts, we deal with it in two ways: if it’s harmless, we ignore it; if it’s dangerous to itself and others, we section it. Perhaps that’s how we should be dealing with it in religious contexts too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.