Answers for Creationists

[cbayer]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html

FEB. 6 2014 7:45 AM

By Phil Plait
Phil Plait writes Slate’s Bad Astronomy blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer, and author of Death from the Skies!


You got questions? I got answers.
Photo by Phil Plait

After writing yesterday about the now-famous/infamous debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, I don’t want to make this blog all creationism all the time, but indulge me this one more time, if you will. On BuzzFeed, there is a clever listicle that is a collection of 22 photos showing creationists holding up questions they have for people who “believe” in evolution.

These questions are fairly typically asked when evolution is questioned by creationists. Some are philosophical, and fun to think about, while others show a profound misunderstanding of how science works, and specifically what evolution is. I have found that most creationists who attack evolution have been taught about it by other creationists, so they really don’t understand what it is or how it works, instead they have a straw-man idea of it.

Because of this, it’s worth exploring and answering the questions presented. Some could be simply answered yes or no, but I’m all about going a bit deeper. With 22 questions I won’t go too deep, but if you have these questions yourself, or have been asked them, I hope this helps.

I’ll repeat the question below, and give my answers.

1) “Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?”

I’m not Bill, but I’d say yes, he is. More than just giving them facts to memorize, he is showing them how science works. Not only that, his clear love and enthusiasm for science is infectious, and that to me is his greatest gift.

more at link

[Gothmog]

1. This is a great article

[cbayer]

2. I thought so, too.

I saw the little signs that he is responding to yesterday, and wanted to shake those people.

Glad he took a more rational approach.

[LostOne4Ever]

3. My responses :P

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 11:11 PM - Edit history (1)

My responses to the creationist

1.

Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?

Hopefully he is doing that.

2.

Are you afraid of a divine creator?

Can't be scared of something that does not exist.

3.

Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature? ie trees created with rings. Adam created as an adult.

For things with required stages of development? Yes....

4.

Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?

No. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does NOT disprove the theory of evolution. Earth is not a closed system.

5.

How do you explain a sunset if there is no god?

Seriously? The earth rotates and blocks our view of the sun.

6.

If the big bang theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?

See 4. The second law in no ways debunks said theories and only people who have no understanding of any of said laws would try and claim otherwise...

7.

What about Noetics?

What about it?

8.

Where do you derive objective meaning in life?

There is no meaning to life. We make our own.

9.

If God did not create everything, how did the first single cell organism originate? By Chance?

Some chemicals combined with other chemicals and created the first single cell organism. Does life resulting from chance scare you?

10.

I believe in the Big Bang theory...God said it and BANG it happened.

Good for you.

11.

Why do evolutionist/secularist/humanist/non-God believing people reject the idea of there being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?

We don't.

12.

There is no inbetween...the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an "official proof."

It does not takes "hundreds" for an "official proof" and there is far more than lucy...try looking stuff up occasionally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

13.

Does Metamorphosis help support evolution?

Metamorphosis was evolved just like everything else.

14.

If evolution is a theory (like creationism or the bible) why then is evolution taught as a fact?

Evolution is both a fact and theory. Neither Creationism or the bible are theories or facts.

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?

Science is not a theory, it is a method of acquiring knowledge and the collection of said knowledge. Further, it is testable, repeatable, and observable. Creationism is not a science. Also, see the first and 14'th amendments.

16.

What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any mutation or evolutionary process?

Mutation, crossing over, errors in replications, etc.

17.

What purpose do you think we are here for if you do not believe in salvation?

There is no purpose. We make up our own purpose.

18.

Why have we only found 1 "Lucy" when we have found more than one of everything else.

We have found more than 1. See 12.

19.

Can you believe in "the big bang theory" without "faith?"

Absolutely

20.

How can you look at the world and believe someone created/thought of it? IT'S AMAZING!!!

How can you look upon the world and see design? Thats like a puddle of water thinking the entire universe was made for it because it fits perfectly in a crack. Its even more amazing when you remove the creator.

21.

Relating to the big bang theory...Where did the exploding star come from?

The big bang did not originate from an exploding star...

22.

If we come from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

We evolved from a common ancestor. They don't need to go anywhere.


Man, these people are completely clueless.

[cbayer]

4. To the point, that's for sure.

But I tend to agree with this author's point in the other article (Creating the Debate).

If we really want to try and turn the terrifying tide on the statistics about what americans believe, it needs to be done in a way that does not threaten their religion.

It can't be a "This is science and what you believe is stupid" basis.

Evolution is not inconsistent with religious beliefs and can be presented in a way that is not threatening to believers. He suggests this is best done by other religionists who have embraced science.

[LostOne4Ever]

5. When I was catholic

I had no issue separating the two. The one about believing in both god & the big bang i had no problem w/ and just said "good for you" The thing about the other of the 22 comments is that THEY are the ones trying to associate evolution w/ atheism.

What i do have a problem w/ is the shear lack of scientific literacy these people show, while believing they know better than actual scientists. Some of their claims are out right ignorant of science. There is more than just one Lucy and the claim that evolution violates the 2nd law shows an extreme lack of understanding of both evolution and physics.

Not to mention the intentional distorting of the word theory, and I have a hard time taking "these" creationist seriously. I do not believe for a moment that they represent the average believer. Rather they are the FAR right distorting facts to fit the way they want things to be.

[cbayer]

6. The association of evolution with atheism is bogus, I agree,

but how do we best address that and change the meme that creationism=christianity?

I liked your post a lot, by the way, and didn't mean to indicate otherwise. Was just making another point. You might want to edit to include the questions just for ease of readability.

Scientific illiteracy is a problem for lots of reasons, including this one. I talk to intelligent, even well educated people, who can not evaluate an on-line article enough to see if it has any validity at all. I see it on DU all the time. If the "findings" fit their agenda, they just swallow it whole, even it's is really bad science.

[LostOne4Ever]

8. I didn't take your post badly

But I am on my phone at the hospital and it might be me who is coming asross poorly because of that.

I will add in the questions when I get home tonight.

[cbayer]

10. Sorry to hear that.

Hope everything (everyone?) is ok.

[LostOne4Ever]

15. I will PM you later if u want (nt)

[cbayer]

16. I'll be off and on.

PM me at your convenience if you are up to it.

[skepticscott]

18. You truly don't get it, do you?

Evolution is completely incompatible with the religious beliefs of some people. The plain and undiluted truth is going to threaten the religion of those people, no matter how nicely and deferentially it is presented, and not matter how much accommodationists suck up to their ignorance. Unless you are advocating that more than half of American Christians abandon what they believe for something else. Is that what you're saying they should do? Or are you saying that the truth should be changed?

[goldent]

7. It was a very good article except

for the [sic] put in after extremely common grammatical errors. I lost a little respect for him because of that.

[cbayer]

9. In the answers or just the questions?

He didn't write the questions.

[goldent]

11. In the questions

I don't know who added the 'sic' in the questions. If it was him, it was shameful, and if the questions came with the 'sic' in them, he should have removed the 'sic', and if he wanted to be gracious he could have just corrected the grammar while he was at it.

Most scientific/engineering papers are written in English, and some of them have horrible grammar (especially in conference papers). But it is never mentioned. Frankly, the grammar is nothing compared to all of the missing assumption and key technical omissions

Edited because putting sic in square brackets causes it not to display!

[cbayer]

12. These were questions that Ham followers had presented by

holding up pieces of paper similar to the one he is holding up in the article. Here is a Buzzfeed article that shows the images.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

I think he added the 'sic" to indicate that that was the way they were presented.

[pinto]

13. I love this one -

But “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer in science. It leads to asking more questions, which leads to more exploration, which leads to more understanding. Just being given an answer is like using the answer key to fill in a crossword puzzle. It’s no fun.

[cbayer]

14. My favorite:

22) “If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?”

Let me ask you this: If you came from parents, why are there still parents?

[Coyotl]

17. Ask Philosoraptor

[trotsky]

19. I guess I really don't understand your selective hypocrisy on this, cbayer.

On the one hand, you're intensely opposed to anyone saying any religious belief is wrong.

But yet you freely post against and even mock creationists beliefs.

If you're going to extend yourself the privilege of criticizing and/or mocking beliefs (which aren't directly harming anyone), then why won't you let others do so?