Bill Nye recently debated Ken Ham at the Creation Museum on whether creationism provides a viable model for explaining reality. To spare you the 2.5 hours watching it would take, I can sum up Ham’s debate argument in 3 words: “Bible says so.”
Buzzfeed asked some of the creationist attendees to write down questions for Nye, and they are illustrative of the rot at the center of creationist thinking. The questions don’t just reveal the questioner’s profound scientific ignorance, they also reveal how cynically the Evangelical Christians behind the creationist movement misinform the movement’s followers. Seriously, see if you can avoid facepalming to death while reading over these:
Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?
Yes, absolutely. However, if you object to teaching kids critical thinking then maybe not. This is probably the only question of the bunch that isn’t based on a fundamental misunderstand of science or evolutionary theory.
Are you scared of a Divine Creator?
No. I’m also not mad at a Divine Creator, or jealous of one; I simply don’t believe in one at all. I don’t even understand the logic behind this question. Wouldn’t fear of a divine creator lead me to believe, or at least claim to believe, in him or her?
Is it completely illogical that the earth was created immature? Ie trees with rings, Adam created as an adult ….
No, it’s not completely illogical. The argument that the earth was created just seconds ago to appear as it does, ie trees with rings, people with past memories, isn’t completely illogical either, it’s just stupid.
Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?
No. The second law of thermodynamics would only disprove evolution if earth was a closed system. It isn’t. The guy asking this question has the worst smug expression on his face. I’d love to see that expression change when someone answered with, “does not the sun prove that the earth gains energy externally?”
How do you explain the sunset if their is no God?
I would actually love to have a conversation with this questioner to figure out how she managed to hear the debate over her own mouth breathing.
If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with Evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?
Well, the laws of thermodynamics don’t debunk evolution or the big bang theory. This is a question you can only ask if you’ve never exposed yourself to any information about either subject that didn’t come from a creationist source. Also, that is the worst written question I’ve ever seen.
Where do you derive objective meaning in life from?
Nowhere, there is no objective meaning in life. As people, we have to find meaning ourselves. We can choose to make the world a better place for our children and for ourselves, or we can make it worse. When I say better or worse, I mean from the subjective experience of human beings. The fact that the universe in its entirety doesn’t “care” whether I rape and kill, or whether the people around me are raped and killed, has no bearing on the fact that those outcomes certainly matter to the people involved. A lack of eternal significance to our actions does not lead to the conclusion that our actions are in fact meaningless.
If God did not create everything, then how did the first single cell organism originate? By chance?
Yes. Seriously, have you ever read a book on evolutionary biology written by an actual biologist?
Why do evolutionists/secularists/humanists/non-God believing people reject the idea of there being a creator God but embrace the idea of intelligent design from aliens or other extraterrestrial sources?
I don’t know anyone who embraces the idea life on earth was engineered by aliens or other extraterrestrial (thanks for the distinction?) sources. The idea is more accepted than the hypothesis of a creator God because it requires fewer assumptions. Thinking life evolved elsewhere and then seeded life on Earth doesn’t require positing an entity that exists outside the physical world. Occam’s Razor. Again, have you ever read a book against your own position?
There is no in between [intermediate fossils]…the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an”official proof.”
Wrong. There are countless intermediate fossils. Lucy is a specific skelton, not an intermediate species. There are thousands upon thousands of pieces of fossil evidence depicting man’s evolution. Why is “official proof” in quotations? Is it some kind of ironic proof? Is the wink implied?
If Evolution is a theory (like creation or the Bible) why then is Evolution taught as a fact?
Seriously, what is up with the wording of these questions? The questioner clearly doesn’t understand the distinction between a scientific theory and his theory about where he left his car keys.
Because science by definition is a “theory” – not testable, observable, or repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools?
Uh, that is actually precisely what science is. If the questioner mean Evolutionary Theory they should go read a book written by a real biologist on the topic. Once again, a question you can only ask if you have no idea what Evolutionary Theory actually is.
Can you believe in “the Big Bang” without “faith?”
Yes. The evidence for the Big Bang is plentiful. Faith =/= acceptance of evidence. Again, why are these terms in quotes?
Relating to the Big Bang….where did the exploding star come from?
Dude, what? That isn’t what the Big Bang even is!
If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
If you came from your parents, why do your parents still exist? If Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? Seriously guys, READ A BOOK.
In Which I Type About Things 