What Can We Learn from Creationists’ 22 Questions/Messages?

After the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Matt Stopera, of BuzzFeed, had self-proclaimed creationists write a question or message for the other side. The article featured images of the people holding their question or message.^[1] Several people have written articles, responding directly to each of these 22 questions and statements.^[2][3] Although I would have answered some of the questions with different examples or with more information, I feel that they have been answered adequately enough that anyone wanting to know the facts, can find them in these responses, or others on the Internet. If these answer don’t cause them to modify their thinking, then there is no sense in adding my responses to the mix. Perhaps it would be a better service, to examine the questions and messages, to see what it can tell us about how creationists think.

The twenty-two questions and statements fall into a couple of categories, some had to do with evolution and science, while others were straw man arguments for the existence of God. Some others may seem to have been rudimentary science questions, but were actually arguing for more aesthetic reasons for the existence God.

The science related questions were all too revealing of the severity of the lack of understanding of the evolutionary processes or even basic science, among creationists. These questions, also, showed no forethought or research, on their part, before asking any of theses questions, as if they were repeating these questions by rote, from a list. Answers to all of these questions can easily be googled. In fact, I was originally tempted to answer the questions with “Let Me Google That For You” links (www.lmgtfy.com).

Among the questions and statements were two that I hear quite often, “If evolution is a theory (like creationism or the Bible), why then is evolution taught as fact?” and, “If we came from monkeys, then why are monkeys still here?”

Among Christians, there is a widely held misconception of the scientific meaning of the word “theory,” that theories are just ideas. I constantly remind people that there is a difference between the common usage and the scientific usage of the word “theory.”^[4]

Gravity is a theory, also. We know enough about gravitational theory to make testable predictions, a cornerstone of a theory, based on observations and calculations of how gravity behaves. Evolution can also make testable predictions. We may not know everything about gravity or evolution, but there are still known facts relating to either of them.

Young earth creationism, on the other hand, is not supported by scientific evidence. There is not one bit of evidence that even suggests that the universe is six thousand years old, or that the earth’s strata layers were laid down, all at once, four thousand years ago. There is so much regarding creationism, that science has disproved, which makes it not even a good hypothesis.

Relentlessly, creationists seem to hold onto this incorrect definition of theory, even after being enlightened to its correct meaning. It is their way of attempting to incorrectly cast doubt on evolution, the big bang, or any other science that they find unpalatable.

Asking why monkeys are still around, if we evolved from them, is another nonsensical question that belies their ignorance of evolutionary theory. There are two misconceptions in this question.

First of all, evolution is not a linear process where one species transforms, in its entirety, into another species. This would be like asking why your distant cousin’s family still exists. Small mutations and changes happen over vastly long periods of time. Isolation, enhances the deviation, by creating an environment where changes in the separate groups can happen in different ways without having an influence on the other. In an isolated area in Kentucky, there was a group of people, who had blue skin (Blue People of Troublesome Creek), caused by a rare genetic defect. Since they were isolated, inbreeding with others, who also had the genetic defect, caused it to be prevalent. Other non-blue-skinned people didn’t cease to exist because there was an emergence of blue-skinned people. Mutations and other factors determine the survivability of each of the diverging groups. Given enough time, repeated mutations can give rise to a different species.

Secondly, this question implies that humans had evolved from modern monkeys. This is not the case and no biologist would ever say that we had. Both modern monkeys and humans have a common ancestor, that was unlike either of them. Evolution is not linear, but has many branches. The branches for monkeys and humans diverged roughly seven million years ago, from a common ancestor.^[5]

I see these two misconceptions being explained many times on the Internet and yet these two questions keep arising among creationists. Why is it that they constantly put forward the same questions, even after they have been answered?

I commented on a blog entry, where a Christian pastor was criticizing Christian biologist Francis Collins, for asking his fellow Christians to accept the facts of evolution. We had a back-and-forth exchange and he finally admitted that he did not know enough about the science of evolution to debate its veracity. It all boiled down to that Collins was asking Christians to give up a core precept of their beliefs. It didn’t matter whether evolution was scientifically sound, or even true—all that mattered was that it went against a literal translation of the Bible, and that was unacceptable.

This is also what Ken Ham let slip, at the end of the debate, when a question from the audience was asked of both Ham and Nye, “What, if anything, would ever change your mind?” Nye said, “Just one piece of evidence,” and Ham said that no amount of evidence would change his mind, and as a Christian, the word of God was all that he would need.^[6] There lies the rub, Ham and other creationists will accept no evidence that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. Assuming you know something, without putting it to the test, leads down the road to ignorance.

Asking these two questions underlines the fact that most creationists don’t even care to know the scientific facts of evolutionary theory. They have already made up their minds and have rejected it, without even knowing what it is.

Another set of questions gave us insight into how creationists look at truth. These questions had nothing to do with science, but dealt with the feelings that were evoked by observing the world around them, which leads them feel that God undoubtedly created them.  Some were philosophical in nature. A few asked indirectly about the beauty of a sunset or the earth, as evidence of God’s existence. Other asked about a meaning of life without a God, or that consciousness was placed in humans by God.

Admittedly, there are things that science currently cannot answer, such as consciousness, but that doesn’t mean that it had to have come from a god.

For believers, it is not the facts that sway them, but the feelings or emotions that are evoked that sway them. I hear it quite often, “I have a profound feeling that such and such is true.” For them evolution does not feel right. What feels right, for them, is that a loving, caring god created them, through special creation. So, this becomes their truth, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Each of these type questions have nothing directly to do with evolution, and they also underscore that creationists are not interested in the facts of evolution.

Although the first question posed, by the creationists in the article, had nothing to with evolution or creationism, it is a good question to examine, here, “Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?”

I imagine that this question was posed, in order, to cast the impression that science is godless and, therefore, evil, and blinding children from the truth, but let’s take a look at each, to see which would have a positive influence on children. There is a basic philosophical difference between evolution and creationism. Science thrives on falsifiability, everything must be testable and attempted to be proven false. Creationism, on the other hand, does not operate under the same falsifiability. The universe and the earth has been proven to be more than six thousand years old and yet creationism does not remove it as one of its precepts. For creationists, it is in the Bible, not tests, that is the basis for their truth, and therefore, their principles are indisputable facts. When scientists find something that is proven to be incorrect, it is rejected. Cold Fusion is a good example of this. When others could not replicate the claimed results, it was not adopted. When aspects of known theories are show to breakdown under certain conditions, adjustments are made, An example of this is Newton’s Gravitational Law, which was modified by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, when gravitational forces are very strong. Creationism does not go through this same process or refinement. Information is never refined, it is assumed to be correct, for them it came from God.

Which of these two would have a more positive influence on children? Let’s put it another way. During the debate, Bill Nye attempted to make a comparison between the biologist or cosmologist and a forensic specialist, investigating a crime. Both sift through the available data, searching to get at the truth, utilizing all the scientific methods available to test their hypotheses.

Let’s take this a little further and say that you are on trial for murder. There is strong circumstantial evidence of motive and even a witness that overheard you quarreling on the day of the murder. Would it be in your best interest for your defense team to read the circumstantial evidence and stop there conceding that you are guilty? Or would it be in your best interest to use forensic science, and search the evidence at the crime scene, fingerprints, DNA from blood samples, etc?

Creationists would have us go against science and look only at what God has said in the Bible. Ham several times made blanket claims about the past based solely on the Bible, the fossil layers were laid down by the Flood, all animals were vegetarian before the Flood, the continents were all together and the cataclysmic event of the Flood caused them to be where they are today, the universe is six thousand years old, etc. These are all wild claims that contradict scientific evidence.

Other questions show just how far people were willing to accept the Bible over science, “Is it completely illogical that the Earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings, Adam created as an adult.” It is not only the earth that would have been made “mature,” with rock layers, organized with fossils, to make the earth appear to be older than six thousand years, but the universe would have been created “mature,” too.

There was a recent supernova of a star that is 12 million light years away, which means that the supernova actually occurred 12 million years ago, and we are just now seeing the light from that supernova. Since the Bible states that the heavens and earth were created together, this would mean that the supernova would have to occurred before the universe was created. The only way to fit this into the “created mature” idea, would be that God created the light from these very distant stars already reaching the earth. Not only that, he would have embedded in that light stream the appearance of changes to make it look like the event occurred millions of years. God would have to do this for all the billions of billions of objects in the universe. Yes, this is very hard to believe. Instead of making up all these fantastical manipulations by God, why not accept the universe is billions of years old? Which is more harmful, to teach children to look at the available evidence, or concoct some wild explanation to fit what you believe to be true?

Bill Nye, as a public figure, has excited children to search out knowledge, find new discoveries and enjoy science. During the debate, Ken Ham, on several occasions, smugly told Bill Nye that he needn’t look any further, that the Bible already had the answer for him. This would be telling our children to ignore science, to not put things to the test, and, in doing so, he is promoting ignorance.

One person asked, “Are you scared of a Divine Creator?” What scientists, like Bill Nye, fear most is ignorance and its effects on our ability to perform in the sciences. Christian biologist, Frances Collins has stated that one cannot understand biology without evolution, “Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics.” Therefore, a creationist biologist would be at a great disadvantage in making any significant discoveries in biology. An astrophysicist, believing that the universe is only six thousand years old would be greatly hampered in making any discovery based on that unproven assumption of truth, that, for creationists, can never be challenged, or proven false. Science does not work that way. There are no assumptions of truth, and everything can and will be challenged.

For me, science and religion are not mutually exclusive, as they encompass different realms. Creationists attempt to create a false dichotomy between science and religion, by adhering to a very rigid, literal interpretation of the Bible that contradicts known scientific facts. One can accept science and still believe that there is a god. Science would then explain the creations of God. This was why I was so interested in cosmology, as a teenager. As Bill Nye pointed out in the debate, there are a great number of Christians, who do accept science, including evolution, and manage to keep their faith. There are biologists, who understand the facts of evolution and keep their religious beliefs. Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller are two of them.

Even Pat Robertson, of all people, said, referring to Ken Ham and young earth creationism, “Let’s not make a joke of ourselves.“^[7] After the debate, many Christians came to the defense of science, posting comments of dismay towards the views of young earth creationists. A Christian Today poll also showed that 92% of the people polled felt that Bill Nye won the debate.^[8] Benjamin Corey on patheos.com wrote that Ken Ham has set the Christian movement backwards, by putting a fringe view of science as the face of Christianity.^[9]

Even if a theory is discarded. What will replace it will be something closer to the truth. This is the beauty of science. Whereas, science from religion would have us forever stuck in the era, in which the religious documents were written.