The Creation Museum Responds to Bill Nye the Science Guy

Bill Nye recently made a wonderful video for Big Think in which he talked about why it was so important to accept evolution:

That video has received over 2,400,000 views as of this writing.

Now, the Creation Museum has made a response video.

Ken Ham prefaces it like this:

We are [responding to Nye] today with a video rebuttal featuring our “science guys” — Dr. David Menton and Dr. Georgia Purdom of our AiG and Creation Museum staff. These two PhD scientists were asked to reply to Mr. Nye, whose academic credentials do not come close to Drs. Menton and Purdom.

Never has a PhD mattered less.

Bill Nye has obviously done more for science education than the Creation Museum staff ever will, but they’re going to do whatever they can to indoctrinate people with nonsense because questioning a literal interpretation of the Bible isn’t an option for them:

Their entire argument goes as follows:

Menton: Creationists have brainwashed people in other countries, so there must be something to it!

Purdom: I teach my daughter evolution so she can weigh the evidence for herself! And you know I present it accurately.

Menton: Bill Nye said the world gets complicated if you don’t accept science… But learning more science hurts my head! So it must be false.

Purdom: We can’t see evolution happening right in front of our eyes, so why trust scientists who think they know how we were created? Trust the Bible!

Menton: Bill Nye says evolution is fundamental to all branches of science, but not all scientists have to know evolution to work in their fields… so why should we bother with it?!

Of course, like Ken Ham’s post, they’ve disabled comments on the video so that no one can embarrass the Creationists by presenting so-called “facts” and “evidence”…

But that doesn’t mean you can’t rip up their arguments on this website and everywhere else.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • John Small Berries

    Purdom: We can’t see evolution happening right in front
    of our eyes, so why trust scientists who think they know how we were
    created? Trust the Bible!

    But we can’t see Creation happening right in front of our eyes either – so if that’s a reason to distrust scientists, it’s also reason to distrust the Bible. So I guess we’ll just have to go with evidence instead of ocular organs which any stage magician can easily demonstrate are quite fallible.

  • Martin

    Shouldn’t the word “science” in “science guys” be in quotes… : “Science” Guys… :D

  • Martin

    And the mother who says they should teach both… sorry, but why stop at just Biblical creationism, she is saying it is “good science” to teach both, but if teaching myths alongside science is good science, you have to teach all.

  • Michael S

    I don’t believe Bill Nye doesn’t have an honorary degree or two, Ph.D. or no.

  • The Captain

    They couldn’t even make an original video! They just copied the exact production design of the Nye video for their own. Right down to the logo placement and the font. They don’t even have video production integrity and they want you to believe they have intellectual integrity? 

    It should also be noted that they could copy all the basics just fine but apparently gradienting the font color was just a but too hard. So they couldn’t even get that right.

  • The Captain

    * bit too hard.

  • Martin

    Sorry for the multiple posts. but how the heck does human worldview weigh in on evidence based reality.  Human beliefs have nothing to do with facts.  She is basically saying “I want this to be the reason why the world is the way it is, so it must be”.  This is the worst kind of science, as any scientist knows you cannot will your hypothesis to be true.  Many “scientists” have been blacklisted for attempting to take that route. 

  • Aaron Schwab

    Fuckin’ ‘ell, this makes my brain, eyes, left knee, and three of my ribs hurt.

  • Sheryl

     He even has a real degree, not a Ph.D. but a quite valid degree in mechanical engineering and he worked for Boeing and consulted for NASA.

  • Pseudonym

    In turn, Dr. Perdom, I teach creation to my kids as well as evolution.

    No, not creation science. There’s no such thing as creation science. But I teach them the creation mythologies of many cultures, including their own Christian culture.

    Mythology is not to be shunned, as creationists do, relegated to a mere source of inconsequential factoids. It is to be embraced as one of the most successful ways that we have, as a species, tried to comprehend the human condition.

    Life is poorer without at least some mythology in it. That’s one of the many reasons why I could never be a creationist.

  • SwedishLore15

    “But we can’t see evolution” is literally one of the most moronic things I have ever heard, not to mention entirely untrue.  You make a good point in countering that, if what they say is true, it is equally true that we can’t see God or his “Creation” either.  Of course, tell someone who supports Creationism this and they will say that “But you can see God’s work!  Look around you!”, usually by pointing out a beautiful landscape.

    “Don’t trust the scientists who think they know how we were created, but trust us when we say how we were treated, because BIBLE” is even funnier, though.

  • SwedishLore15

    Why stop with evolution?  Why not “teach the (non-existent except in the minds of those whose understanding of science is severely limited) controversy” when it comes to other scientific theories as well?  Why not devote all school hours to accommodating religious alternatives to well-supported scientific theories and do away with all of those other useless classes?

  • Icaarus

    Consults, as in still does, actively. He ain’t dead yet. 

  • LesterBallard

    There is no point in discussing these issues with these people; no use trying to make an argument; no use in presenting the evidence. All they deserve is mockery and scorn. The only valid places to fight them are in the legal and political arenas. 

  • Bob Blaskiewicz

    I believe you mean “schmience.”

  • Icaarus

    I can’t believe that Menton went to Brown. Also, as a Ph.D. with an active teaching docket, why did his nameplate have his alma mater instead of his current institution? With Purdom it makes sense since she only taught for 6 years at Mount Vernon Nazarene University in Ohio, but for Menton he taught at a med school in St. Louis for years. I tried to confirm that he is currently faculty but couldn’t. 

  • Matthew Baker

    AIG working hard to keep your children scientifically illiterate so you don’t have to.   Come on down to the Creation “Museum”– where lying to children is perfectly ok if you do it for Jesus. Ride a dinosaur just like Adam and Jesus did. If you hurry you can get your own pair of biblical glasses–can’t see a rose colored reality with out them.

  • farnsworth

    Is Menton stupid, or is he a disingenuous liar?

    He says, “…you have to assume all of its parts have somehow come together by random purposeless change….”  Evolution doesn’t say that, or even imply that.  He is either willfully ignorant, or he doesn’t care that he is lying.  By the way, if he is lying, it is the special kind of lying, bearing false witness, that violates the “Ten Commandments.”The “observational” versus “historical” science canard is something you only hear from creationists.  Not even a nice try.

  • Michael Hawkins

    I’ve spoken with Dr. Menton. He is as much an idiot over the phone as he is over the Internet.

  • Rich Wilson

     Observational science confirms the literal history in Genesis

    Observational science confirms that we are all related.  God didn’t make man on a separate day from everything else.  And he didn’t make woman from a rib.  To think that, you really have to have your head in the sand.  Or somewhere.

  • kenneth

    Anyone who claims to be a molecular biologist who says something like that should have their degree revoked. That is an admission that she knows absolutely nothing about the work she supposedly did for her doctorate or any of the classes leading up to that. 

  • kenneth

    In any case, science is not settled by the weight of someone’s title, but by the weight of evidence. Menton and Purdom are living proof that any fool can acquire a title. Nye, and for that matter any 8th grader who pays attention to the scientific method is 10 times the scientist as these two. 

  • Aubrey

    One kid in my bio class said during lecture, “All this stuff just makes God more amazing. God is science.” The professor told him to get him a peer-reviewed article stating that. I lol’d.

  • Michael S

    My community college had a great “Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion” class (That was the actual class title). I always wondered how many students were hoping to stumble into Hogwarts or something, with a name like that. It was a great survey course of magical beliefs and mythologies and ultimately emphasized the redundancies in the title instead.

  • Pepe

    And as always comments and ratings are disabled on the video.

  • Namansingh210287

    Meanwhile in India: People don’t give a damn about creationism. Its limited to the religious texts only. In schools and colleges ” only Evolution” is taught.
     However we should congratulate Creationists on their smartness, when they disabled the comments. What science  ( creation) is this which does not even leaves scope for debate or comments?  

  • Namansingh210287

    Why not have our curriculum decided upon by the church (or whatever) and disband the school boards and regulatory bodies.
    The grades will be given on how many ridiculous ideas a pupil might believe or can have faith on.
    May be then the Messiah will be pleased kill us all and take us to hell (or may be heaven(or whatever))

  • Piet


    Is Menton stupid, or is he a disingenuous liar?

    Probably both.

  • Garren

    Took a class with the same title at Iowa State University. It was a major factor in coming to see my own fundamentalist Christianity as just another human religion.

    Same psychology; many different doctrines. OH HEY maybe religion is about human psychology rather than spirits?

  • Garren

    That may be true about the people making videos like this, but it’s not true about Young Earth Creationists in general. Some of them are capable of changing their mind if the evidence is presented in an accessible and non off-putting way.

  • 1243

    Why are ratings and comments disabled in the video? 

  • LesterBallard

    You mean kiss their asses.

  • Piet

     Because they are afraid to be confronted with facts.

  • Glasofruix

    Because they’re affraid that someone might point out their bullshit.

  • Andrew Skegg

    My face hurts.

  • Andrew Skegg

    Plus we can actually see evolution occur.  See the Lenski experiments, or examine ring species, or look at the nested sets within molecular genetic, or … etc

  • wmdkitty


  • Glasofruix

    What’s the right word? I’m not 100% fluent in english yet.

  • Aimee

    More nonsense coming out of the Mythsonian.  I dearly hope that Nye is right about this being a non-issue in generations to come.  

  • wmdkitty

    Ah, no, it’s not a language thing at all, it’s just that if they had commenting enabled, the chances of someone pointing out the bullshit is nearly 100%.

  • 7mononoke

    Rip, rip, rip, chomp. Idiots.

  • Seb Jowett

    “Learning more science makes my head hurt!”


    “So keep your brain free of pain like I do by being ignorant and not asking questions!”

    Good grief!

  • Sandy Kokch

    You could always try what I have done.

    After seeing a few “debates” posted by the religious side that ALL have the comments sections disabled I wrote to YouTube and set out an argument for how this was a sort of abuse of their system, and said that when someone puts up a controversial video that by its very content invites if not demands comments, they should not be able to disable commenting on that video. I pointed out that this was a common practice with these religious videos, and that allowing it just turned YouTube into a propaganda outlet rather than a free forum of information, education and debate. I also pointed out that in some cases the video description below was potentially slanderous to the non religious participant in the debate, and gave examples where William Lane Craig had called his opponent “cranks” etc in the description.

    In the end I asked that the policy of allowing commenting to be disabled was ended and that all videos posted to the system should be equally open to comment.

    Although I got the standard “your comments have been noted and we may reply in more detail at a later date response”, which I doubt, if enough people follow suit and petition YouTube to end the comment disabling maybe they will cave in.

    Give it a try my mateys.

  • Holytape

    I got to the point to were the geneticist said “there was a complete lack of a genetic mechanism  for organisms to gain genetic information to go from simple to complex.”

    It’s called Deoxyribonucleic acid! (Normally I don’t want to shout on the interwebs, but she’s a geneticist who’s apparently never heard of DNA. ) 

  • Adam Patrick

    How the hell do these people get PhD’s while not knowing a damn thing about science?

  • observer

    No, let them disable comments on their videos if they wish. The only way we can show what kind of people they are: people who claim to know everything, yet don’t want to be challenged. It’s a similar principle of how the Bible can make you and atheist if you read between the lines.

    The most effective way to make the extremes of religion look unappealing is to let them do what they do, and show it; any censorship they make speaks more volume of what kind of people they are.

  • The Other Weirdo

     The word you’re looking for is will.  As in:

    Because they’re afraid someone will point out their bullshit.

  • Glasofruix

    Oh yeah, only one “f” in afraid. I know the difference between will and might, my intention was to convey some sarcasm :p

  • Glasofruix

    The key words are “real” and “museum” in that order and in the same sentence ;-)

  • LesterBallard

    Well, Judaism and Christianity borrowed (stole) heavily from other traditions. Why stop now?

  • Jeff P

    The creationists don’t believe in science.  they believe that the infallible word of God (explaining everything) was handed to mankind via holy scripture and it can’t be questioned and there is no need to discuss or critique it.  There is only a need to believe it and present it for all others to read, accept, and believe.  Yes, they hate the very essence of science.

    I hope the misguided (or fooled) professors that signed Purdom’s and Menton’s Ph.D. diplomas are quite embarrassed.

  • JudyV

    My fundamentalist brother posted this on my wall this morning.  I don’t know, am I supposed to be impressed?

  • Mandocommando23

    She says vaccines are “here and now” science, by they PROVE EVOLUTION!

  • onamission5

    “Observational science confirms the literal history in Genesis”

    Which is why men are mostly made of silica and women are mostly calcium.

    Oh, wait…

  • Maria

    Dr. Purdom: “I want my daughter to be educated about evolution, so she can see the inherent problems with it, such as the complete lack of a genetic mechanism that allows organisms to gain information to go from simple to complex over time” 
    Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm…..DNA MAYBE?!?!?!?! Her saying this is completely dangerous, as people will ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT!  I’m very afraid. Very.

  • CelticWhisper

    “Is Menton stupid, or is he a disingenuous liar?”


  • BenofSoCal

    Gotta disagree with you, observer.  I like Sandy’s idea and I’m going to write to YouTube.  Frankly, I think too many people take what they see on a CRT (Ok, flat screen, nowadays) at face value and have to see both sides of an issue before they even realize that there’s another side.  Ken Ham and the rest of his goddamn creationist weasels know exactly what they’re doing when they disable comments.  They know it allows them to post disingenuous lies without the fear of being exposed.  Free speech is one thing.  Propaganda is quite another.

  • DocAZ

    Yes, usually by pointing out a beautiful landscape. Funny how creationists never point out a pile of dung, a rotting animal corpse, an “ugly” insect, etc., but science doesn’t ignore these things and helps us to understand them in interesting ways.

  • Maria

    Yes! Because Bill Nye is the only Science Guy(person) on this whole post!

  • MegaZeusThor

    Here’s Bill talking about the “controversy” after the fact: 

    Makes me a little sad about the egg shells he must walk on about religion, but I understand it.

    Dawkins would be more direct about the non-sense – and some people would be “turned off by it.” We need both approaches.

  • Octoberfurst

     I can’t believe those two idiots have PhD’s. It scares me that they are out there actually teaching kids this nonsense.  And it is so typical that comments and ratings have been disabled for that video.  Christians hate to be called out on their bullshit.

  • Rich Wilson

    Dawkins does point out that most non-US religious leaders fully accept evolution.

  • Garren

    I mean not be an ass while presenting the evidence.

  • Xeon2000

    I’m afraid if I watch the video I’ll start throwing things across the room. Hmm…

  • Mary Leinart

     My mom did, too. What can you do? *sigh*

  • Naseem Rayyan

    I don’t want to live on this planet anymore

  • Bob M

    “Ph.D.” Stands for “Doctor of Philosophy” and is typically awarded for ANY specialty that is not medicine, law, or theology. So, you can have a Ph.D. and not know much more about science than how to spell it.

  • Tainda

    Ignorance is bliss

  • Jeff P

    To add a little…

    DNA includes a transcription history of what has worked for the life form in past (sometimes distance past) generations. Mutation, crossover, and other mixing or changing of the genetic code provides an opportunity for natural selection to take place. The generations become more complex over time (vast amounts of time) as selection works out which changes are better suited for the changing environment with carrying along much of the “baggage” of the prior DNA information. Elaborate structures can then end up forming in finding new ways to utilize slightly altered DNA to better compete in the world. Thus we get more complex organisms over vast time. The creationists just can’t (or won’t) wrap their mind around this whole process. It really does explain going from simple to complex quite nicely.

    Saying “God did it” doesn’t explain anything at all. It is a statement with no informative value. Almost like saying “Things are”.

    I have no problem with people criticizing evolution theory but to assume that there is any legitimate automatic fallback position like creationism is ludicrous. There is no other theory out there to explain what we see in the fossil record besides evolution theory.

  • Joseph George

    “Mythsonian” Brilliant, and more important, hilarious. 

  • Jeff P

    A Ph.D. (I have one) simply means that one was able to do the following:

    1. perform well on the required course work

    2. do well on some qualification exams sometimes involving writing and defending a series of review papers within one’s field.

    3. writing and defending a dissertation containing new research

    4. getting from around 5 to 7 other Ph.D.s at your institution to sign that you did the work and deserve a Ph.D.   Of these one is your dissertation advisor, one the department chair, etc.

    It is quite possible for a sufficiently motivated young-earth creationist to do all these steps and get the Ph.D. with the ultimate goal of levering it to fight against science in the future and champion their creationist beliefs. It is sad but true. Abuses of science in this way are fortunately rare but it can happen.

  • Rich Wilson

    Don’t forget doing a bunch of work for little or not credit to support the work of those in step 4.

    (Speaking from hearsay not experience.  I don’t have one myself)

  • Gunstargreen

    Bill Nye used simple words to blow their entire argument out of the water. It’s no surprise that they were so incredibly cheesed off by how eloquent and truthful he was they actually had to respond.

    They blabber on about confusing, made up nonsense about a science they don’t understand and the bible as if it were a factual document.

    This is why Bill Nye is an amazing educator and they’re idiots with zero worth to the scientific community.

  • Vampboy

    I like that they misrepresent where Dr Purdom works to try and give her legitimacy. She does not work at Ohio State, she works at Mount Vernon Nazarene College. Isn’t lying a sin? 

  • Anurraagg A

     Our problem here is not religion but superstition. Once we grow out of that we should be able to tackle the various other “evils” (religious and linguistic separatists, corruption etc..). Even a half decent educational system should have taken care of the irrational ones in our country a decade ago. I can’t believe engineers do pooja before they start work on a bridge.

  • Glasofruix

    Not if you’re doing it for Jeebus.

  • Pascale Laviolette

    Yes – EXACTLY!  The whole world makes complete sense when you understand evolution, and it’s so BEAUTIFUL because the explanation means we are all connected.

    I can’t imagine how confused creationists must be about all of the contradictions, although I suppose their minds are expert at quickly changing the subject before critical analysis kicks in…

  • NogahdzNoughmasters

    [zzzt...zzzzt] can’t respond….blood pressure too…high….2:26 my head a splode

  • Al

    The sun going down and temperatures are getting lower! Therefore global warming doesn’t exist!!

  • Andrew Brooks-Davis

    I feel sick. How can someone with a pHD even contemplate advocating the creationism bullshit? seriously. It makes my brain ache from attempting to  process the sheer idiocracy of it :-/

  • Matt Smith

    They’re using a teleprompter!!1!

  • Reason_Being

    Ughh…what nonsense.  I am always a bit suspicious about things like that that do not allow comments.  It implies that they really are not interested in debate at all.  And let’s be honest, creationists are interested in hearing facts nor what other people think.

  • Make It Stop

    I think I just had a stroke.

  • Scott Macauley

    Or the fact that insects can become immune to certain pesticides within a few generations.  Dawkins mentions it in one of his books.  It’s evolution you can see happening literally before your eyes.  When you can observe it both in nature and in a controlled lab setting, the validity of it increases a thousandfold.  People who are willfully ignorant, however, will almost always remain that way for the entirety of their lives.

  • Kyle B. Epperson

    RNA is the key point that is needed for DNA to replicate… just a clarification

  • Scott Macauley

    I think there are ways to be creative that don’t require myths based in theology. If you look at all fiction as a myth in some form or another (which, essentially, they are), then you can enjoy that creativity without the existence of foolish beliefs, and the other upshot is that writers of fiction nowadays at least make an effort to try and ground their stuff in reality to some degree.

  • Jui

    you are awesome for writing this article. Thnx Hemant!

  • Brent Beberstein

    This crap makes me angry! 

  • cararacs

    We actually can see evolution happen right in front of us:

    Bacteria, viruses, bird speciation, reptilian speciation, eukaryotic cellular evolution, plant speciation, adaptive survival, fish speciation….all this stuff documented within a life time. If you know nothing of a subject and refuse to read about the evidence and papers written on it then you cannot speak about it and all you can really say “I choose not to read about evolution or learn about it, I choose to stay ignorant and uneducated.”

  • Steven Satx

     So much for “peer review” one of the most important parts of the scientific process.  The last thing they want is anybody knowing anything about evolution (let alone an evolutionary scientist) getting a chance to poke holes in their “theory”

  • Daniel Kloberdanz

    I think we found the magical mystery doctors that taught Todd Akin about rape.

  • Whosaidso

    Interestingly enough is the fact that the PhDs (nor Bill Nye) have not described the process by which the initially recognizable item was created. When this is described, the description will include objects whose origins are undescribed. Faith in an omnipotent is not undermined.

  • Anthony Lee

    soooo…’s some info on the academic integrity of david menton

    and a video that allows mrs georgia purdom to illustrate herself that she is a well educated moron

  • Jessica Peeples Myrick

    These people sound so absurd and uneducated.  

  • The Celestial

    These two “Scientists” should have their PhD’s revoked…. Bill has 10,000 times more smarts and imagination than these two idiots. I think that’s the equation…. scientists have imagination and have the want to look over the horizon to see what is over the next hill…. Creationist are willing to sit on their ass, don’t think and beileve that someone did it, using only a bronze age book as their source of info, forgetting or ignoring that MEN were the ones who wrote it, most who were possibly either delusional, on drugs or after drinking too many beers!

  • M_j_gallant

    Science has provided us with volumes upon volumes of evidence, experiments, practical applications and proofs for evolution, and these creationist twits think they can discredit it by saying “it can’t be true because the bible says we were created”. Get over it, the facts are in – evolution is by far the winner here. Creation doesn’t even make it as a decent fantasy story, let alone truth.

  • M_j_gallant

    Exactly. Herpetology doesn’t teach dragon lore, as far as I know. I’ve never heard of botanists having to learn about the curious phenomenon of people growing on trees in strange, exotic lands. Not once in zoology did I ever have to learn about a unicorn.

  • M_j_gallant

     I’ve not encountered such a person as you describe here. I’ve debated this stuff with people for years and not once have I ever known a YEC to budge an inch, no matter how you present the facts to them.

  • Jane’e Taylor

    Oh Grell, the stupidity burns!

  • Nicolas Chan

    Shameful. This is why America is in decline.

  • Nolon Lawrence

    Evolution, or not. Though there is facts upon facts for evolution. The bible teaches to hate. That is enough to be shamed for believing in a god especially from that book. 

  • Derekrodgers1978

    i have my doctorate in anthropology and behavioural sciences from the university of calgary…anytime this “doctor of genetics” wants to debate on evolution and creationism, i will gladly debunk all her garbage…also, i have read the bible, koran and im starting to read jehovahs book..why?…it just goes to show you, if there was science in the middle east 2-3000 years ago, the bible would have never been written

  • Rich Wilson

    There’s a key moment in there, where I think Shermer missed something.  At about 12:00 they’re talking about the age of the earth, 6K or 4.5B.  They agree every individual goes in with a starting bias, she at 6K, but then she says a “you” go in with the staring assumption of 4.5B.


    When people first started working out the age of the earth, they didn’t start at 4.5B.  The data lead them there.  You could argue that now a scientist would be biases to results near 4.5B, and it would take extraordinary evidence to move them away from it.

    The kicker is when she says “it’s really no different” and then corrects herself “the difference is that ours is true”

    Even if you’re biases, if you look for answers to fit your ‘truth’ and more importantly start out by saying your truth cannot be wrong so any data that contradicts you truth is wrong there you will forever remain deluded.

  • MikeTheInfidel

    Notice how Purdom said that she and other Christian parents teach their children about evolution? That’s not the same thing as teaching them evolution. They teach about how it’s fiction. Ugh.

  • MikeTheInfidel

    It’s a dishonest attempt to play on Americans’ sense of fairness by injecting fake relativism into science. “Why can’t we just let the kids decide for themselves?” That might fly in subjective fields, like anything related to aesthetics, but science? Hell no. We know what you’re trying to do: make science look like a worldview that is on equal footing with your mythology, so that you can claim that there’s scientific dogma, scientific priesthood, scientific heresy, etc.

  • MikeTheInfidel

    I’m a former YEC. We can get better.

  • Ari_leopold

    the noah’s arc story is a description of evolution. the bible is right and modern creationists are on the wrong side of their own tradition

  • Ari_leopold

    sorry *ark

  • TheBlackCat

     Wait, what?  How do you figure that?

  • Miss_Beara

    (me being speechless)

  • Jesse L Sinclair

     That’s whats beautiful about mythology, they were trying to root their beliefs in reality too.

    The fact that they were wrong doesn’t matter. Mythology is like the fossil evidence of people trying to work shit out since the beginning, and thats a pretty awesome thing.

  • Jesse L Sinclair

     Speaking as an amateur herpetologist if someone taught a Dragon Husbandry class I’d so take it.

    I’ve always wanted to raise a V. komodoensis!

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    I would like to see a big push back from the atheist community, pointing out the fact that these theists, of all stripes,  always turn off voting and block comments. Get the general public talking about how these theists fear criticism of their views. If we could make this a big issue in the minds of people, it could make them start to question the theists themselves.

    It does not only have to be on youtube, but across all social media, facebook, huffpo, CP, examiner, and others. Anywhere religion is talked about, mention the fact that theists always close off comments, if that option is under their control. All you need do is put in one sentence at the end of your comment about this, maybe even have a copypasta of your comment ready for when you do make your replies to articles, videos, and posts.

  • the truth

    I will never understand why when rasional people see facts they embrace the truth and the bible has no answers, but when religous people see the facts they curl up in to a ball and scream “NO!!! JESUS LOVES ME!!!” to which i reply “dumbass”

  • shocked

    “There are two types of science: observational science and historical science. …… Historical science deals with the past, and both evolution and creationism fall into that category.” 
    That literally hurt. It hurt to hear that creationism is a science. 

    And can we please pretend that they didn’t suggest that if you can’t “observe it, test it, and repeat it”, it is still considered science?

  • Johnwelte

    Purdom said in an interview with Michael Shermer in2010 that evolution was not mentioned when she studied biology at Ohio State. And we should believe her comments now???

  • Johnwelte

    I think that video is still zvailable on Shermers blog. March 2010?

  • Launabanauana

    I’ve never seen god right in front of my eyes either!

  • Launabanauna

    YOUR response is my favorite for the day DocAZ! 

    AH HA HA HA HA….too funny, cause it’s so true!

  • quawonk

    Actually, the creationists are right. Nye’s credentials don’t come close to theirs. He far exceeds them by light years. The equivalent of a hammer compared to Einstein.* A PhD in creationism is equivalent of a PhD in the easter bunny or the tooth fairy, and in a sane society would be taken just as seriously.

    *apologies to any hammers who were offended at being compared to creationists.

  • Launabanauna

    Their minds are so twisted and confused by them forcing their own brains to ignore facts, that they are making themselves crazier and crazier each time they ignore what little common sense they have left or ever had to begin with.

  • Earl G.

    If her daughter takes even a single high school biology class, she should learn MANY genetic mechanisms for “gaining information.”  Geesh.  I guess Purdom slept through all her classes.

  • Alex

    What changed your mind?

  • Earl G.

    For some reason, I’m picturing him talking into the wrong end of the phone.

  • Earl G.

    And their Ph.D.s are in WHAT, exactly?

  • Rich Wilson

    And would you consider writing an article about it?  Or have you?  I’d vote for Hermanta to publish it.

  • dkindle

     5000 whining atheists vs the Great Prophet

    how the divine pen of Michel N. crushed the international atheist movement

    one applicant right here…

    get the POINT, Randi….

    for lies on top of lies

    do you think you can threaten my right to FREE SPEECH?

    what if I told you that I am not who you think I am….

    Not Dennis Markuze – but a FAN!

    you’re not the center of the universe!

    a dishonest liar



  • j me

     Could someone please tell me where all living and non-living matter came from in the first place?

  • bwaterme

    My intention on posting this is not to debate creation versus evolution.  I just want to tell you that as I objectively read these posts, I am very turned off by what so many people are saying, or more so how they are saying it.  

    If I were undecided on the issue, I would quickly get turned off by the atheist position.  Name calling, using words like “ignorant,” etc. just seems to indicate that maybe you are a little close-minded.  There are plenty of books written that present a good case for both creation and macro-evolution.  There are plenty of scientist that support macro-evolution, and plenty that support intelligent design.

    I can’t speak to the level of research of any of you who posted.  I am sure some of you are well researched on both sides, some only well researched on the other, and some not well researched at all.  What I can tell you is that when you completely dismiss someone else’s opinion and call them names, or assume they have not done extensive research, you are the one that comes across as close-minded.  So instead of name calling or making assumptions, I would encourage you to post well researched facts, with some evidence that supports those facts.  This goes for both sides.  An example of what a post like this would look like:

    In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down.”  Therefore, the irreducible complexity of cell that we can now see deep into poses a problem for macro-eveloution.  Of course there are objections to this, and one such essay written addressing this can be found here:

    If you believe there is a god then I hope you believe that we should all be tolerant with each other.  If you don’t believe in god, I think you should believe the same, but some of your posts scare me into thinking that perhaps you don’t believe in tolerance and respect.  And if it is true that you do not believe in such tolerance and respect, then I guess you are validating the atheist position that there is no god, and therefore there is no morale codes/standards we should live by.  And if you believe there are no morale codes/standards we should live by, then go jump off a bridge please. 

  • Rich Wilson

    Our language is reflective of our frustration at people continuing to push religion in our kids’ science classes.  It’s religion.  It’s not science.  There is no theory of creation or intelligent design.  There are creation myths (including Genesis) and there are sets of arguments against evolution, all of which, including the one you cite, have been debunked.

    In short, only the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life with something other than “God did it”.  If God did it, then God used evolution.

    Cdesign proponentsists had their chance in a court of law in Dover PA.  Their best case failed miserably.  It wasn’t an ‘activist judge’, or ‘legislating from the bench’.  It was an objective analysis of both sides.

    If you’re so concerned about a few atheists tossing around ‘ignorant’ in utter frustration, I suggest you read Mathew 7:3 and then spend a few minutes at an ultra conservative site like The Blaze or WND, or Fox, and see what kind of language is used against atheists.

  • bwaterme


    I appreciate your well thought out response.  I completely agree with your reference to Matthew 7:3.  I would equally discourage such language from the theist.  It is not so much that it concerns me.  I just wanted to point out that harsh language from either side does not encourage healthy debate that can ultimately lead to readers opening their mind to opposing positions.  I came to this site curious, looking for some information, facts, intelligent discussion, or anything that would further validate my belief, or help me better understand those who oppose my belief.  I ended up on this discussion, and was simply disappointed.  Perhaps had their been more intelligent, factual based posts, something would have prompted me to dig further.  What I found was a lack of tolerance, mockery, and frankly lack of human respect.  I expected more from something titled the “Friendly Atheist.”  And you are 100% correct in that the same kind of hipocracy can easily be seen on creationist or extreme right sites.  Shame on them too.  If everyone posted intelligent and well thought out responses, perhaps those seeking different views would not get so turned off. 

    I think it may be too decisive to say that all challenges to macro-evolution have been debunked.   I think there is less or little debate that micro-evolution occurs.  But to accept that all life came from non-life is hard for many people to fully understand or accept at this point.  If all counter to macro-evolution ideas had been fully debunked, then why is there still debate?  Because 100% of the people who beleive in intelligent design are close-minded, ignorant, or unintelligent?  I personally struggle to accept that.  Therefore, there must be intelligent, logical, and fact based points that can support either position. 

    If the case for macro-evolution is so strong and clear, why not teach kids the concepts of intelligent design so they are best informed?  Do we all not have something to gain if kids are fairly taught why people believe in macro-evolution, and why others believe in intelligent design.  I am not suggesting we even have to teach them Biblical creation.  Simply teach them why some believe there is a creator, and why some don’t believe in it?  If the case for macro-evolution is so undenyably strong, then kids will see that and over time macro-evolution will be the unilateral worldview.  There are plenty of legitimate scientist that believe in intelligent design.  Teaching macro-evolution as undenyable fact without presenting the counter arguements only makes kids more suseptable to someone being able to convince them that they were taught wrong.  Give them both cases, present the evidence, and let them decide.   Are macro-evolutonist scared that kids may choose on their own the opposing position?  I doubt that, but some could interpret it as such, and therefore use that against the macro-evolutionsit.   

    Again, I do appreciate the healthy dialouge and I am glad you responded as such.  I would encourage others (both views) to always do the same.  Because if your comments seem intolerant or disrespectful, you could turn someone away that was open-minded and was considering changing to “your” team. 

  • TheBlackCat

    Name calling, using words like “ignorant,” etc. just seems to indicate that maybe you are a little close-minded.

    Or maybe we simply know something about the subject.  When someone says something that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the subject, it is completely accurate to call them “ignorant”.

    are plenty of books written that present a good case for both creation
    and macro-evolution.

    I have read a huge amount of creationist material, and have seen absolutely zero good cases for creationism.  So have many other people.  Creationists have had a chance to make their case to the scientific community, but have failed to do so.

    There are plenty of scientist that support
    macro-evolution, and plenty that support intelligent design.

    The number of scientists that support intelligent design, by every measure taken so far, is so small as to be negligible. 

    What I can tell you is that when you completely dismiss someone else’s
    opinion and call them names, or assume they have not done extensive
    research, you are the one that comes across as close-minded.

    It is not an assumption.  If someone says something that shows they don’t understand the basics of the subject, it is safe to conclude they have not done extensive research, or not understood that research.

    So instead of name
    calling or making assumptions, I would encourage you to post well
    researched facts, with some evidence that supports those facts.  This
    goes for both sides.

    We’ve already been through the facts.  I’ve been through the facts hundreds of times alone.  The facts are out there, they are easy to find. 

    In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any
    complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by
    numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down.”
     Therefore, the irreducible complexity of cell that we can now see deep
    into poses a problem for macro-eveloution.  Of course there are
    objections to this, and one such essay written addressing this can be
    found here:

    And here we get into the lack of understand of the subject.  Just because removing a part now breaks the system, does not mean that it could not be made by “numerous, successive, slight modifications”.  The reason for this is simple.  For one thing, one of those “slight modifications” might have removed a redundant component.  Similarly, one of those “slight modifications” might have made an optional component necessary.

    The sort of  thing Darwin was talking about would, indeed, be a problem for evolution.  But the issue Darwin was talking about and Behe’s “irreducible complexity” are two entirely different things.  Evolution has no problem at all creating the sort of irreducible complexity that Behe talks about, in fact it has been directly observed both in nature and in the laboratory.

    This has been discussed over and over and over again, so anyone who makes a statement like this shows they haven’t done even basic research on the subject (or are being dishonest), have not thought much about the subject, and you have not even carefully read what you posted.

    but some of your posts scare me into thinking that perhaps you don’t believe in tolerance and respect. 

    I believe in tolerance and respect.  I also believe in honesty.  If someone demonstrates through their statements they don’t understand the subject, I am not going to lie to them and tell them they understand it.  I tolerate their idea.  I criticize them, but I think they are allowed to have them.  Respect, on the other hand, must be earned, it is not a right.

    then I guess you are validating the atheist position that there is no
    god, and therefore there is no morale codes/standards we should live by.

    Right, you go on and on about tolerance and respect, then accuse all atheists of not having morals. 

  • TheBlackCat

    I think it may be too decisive to say that all challenges to
    macro-evolution have been debunked.

    Whether device or not, it is the truth.  The truth does not always make everyone happy.

    But to accept that all life came
    from non-life is hard for many people to fully understand or accept at
    this point.

    That has nothing whatsoever to do with macroevolution.  Please learn the basics of the subject before presuming to lecture others on it.

    Let me ask you: what led you to think the life coming from non-life has anything to do with macroevolution, or evolution of any kind?  Was it a creationist or intelligent design website, by any chance?

    If all counter to macro-evolution ideas had been fully
    debunked, then why is there still debate?   Because 100% of the people
    who beleive in intelligent design are close-minded, ignorant, or
    unintelligent?  I personally struggle to accept that.  Therefore, there
    must be intelligent, logical, and fact based points that can support
    either position.

    Argument from incredulity.  Just because you can’t accept something, doesn’t make it false. 

    The leaders of the intelligent design movement have flat-out said that evidence that contradicts their beliefs must be wrong.  That is the definition of closed-minded. 

    Behe, the guy who came up with the idea of “irreducible complexity” went on the stand and, under oath, said that he hadn’t read any of the research on the blood clotting cascade, but nevertheless new it couldn’t convince him the system wasn’t irreducibly complex.  That is the definition of ignorant.  And he is one of only a handful of real scientists in the ID camp.

    If the case for macro-evolution is so strong and clear, why not teach
    kids the concepts of intelligent design so they are best informed?  Do
    we all not have something to gain if kids are fairly taught why people
    believe in macro-evolution, and why others believe in intelligent
    design.  I am not suggesting we even have to teach them Biblical
    creation.  Simply teach them why some believe there is a creator, and
    why some don’t believe in it?

    1. because it is not science.  religion does not belong in science classes
    2. because there are many people who would play up the evidence for creationism and play down or outright ignore the evidence for evolution in order to convince children that creationism is right.  That happens today, despite the law.
    3. because the discussion often involves issues too complex for them to understand.  Creationists specialize in making statements that seem plausible to those who don’t know a lot about the subject.

    Are macro-evolutonist scared that kids may choose on their own the opposing position?

    No, we are scared that children will be lied to, misled, and otherwise deceived.  We have seen what supporters of creationism want to teach, it is readily available, and it isn’t an honest overview of the facts.

  • bwaterme

    Well I certainly apologize if my comments implied that I do not think atheists have morals.  Quite the contrary.  I believe eveyone has morals.  I speculate that you and I differ in opinion on where those morals come from.  And I think anyone might have a hard time showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that science can prove where morality comes from.  But you never know.

  • ReadsInTrees

    God created everything out of nothing…and then he couldn’t figure out how to make a woman out of nothing, so he had to use a rib. Hm.

  • ReadsInTrees

    Yes, please right a guest post on this topic. All YEC I’ve encountered have refused to budge. I did work with ONE for a while that was at least interested in the details of evolution and things like tectonic plates, and we spent some time together with Wikipedia (it’s easiest) looking up some of the details that I’ve forgotten since I last took a biology class……..So, all that was positive, but I don’t think he’s there yet.
    On the other hand, another coworker who is vaguely religious, said to me, “I don’t think I believe in evolution….I mean, I’ve never seen a fish that had legs or could breath are.” All I had to do was show him some videos of coelacanths and lungfish. That was enough for him to see that he was looking at the tip of the iceberg in terms of evolutionary knowledge.

  • bwaterme


    Thanks again for your responses.  I am happy that you know the absolute truth about how life develops on earth.  I apologize that I am clearly not educated or well informed enough to feel like I know that absolute truth yet.  I still have some questions. 

    What it does look like is that I have certainly stumbled across the wrong website to help me make some well informed conclusions.  My intent was never to lecture on the topic of evolution, and I see that I must not have expressed my main point well.  That point was that such strong and harsh language like “ignorant,” “moronic,” etc can turn-off an open minded seeker of information.  Thank you for your insight.

  • TheBlackCat

    You didn’t imply it, you flat-out said it: “therefore there is no morale codes/standards we should live by.”  Please, we aren’t stupid, we can read.

    And I notice you completely ignore everything else I said.

  • Lhurley4

    God is in the details refers to the creative force that exists within the matter that is created (e.g. the universe is recursive) so to deny evolution is to deny God – except for that three-dimensional God that pops up in church and on holidays!

  • bwaterme

    Interesting.  I have posted a response 3 times now and it keeps disappearing.  Either I do not know how to post on this site, which I seemingly have done successfully before, there is currently a glitch, or a moderator is deleting even though I do not find my response offensive in any way.  I’ll paste it one more time:


    Again, I must
    apologize for implying something that I did not mean. I did not mean to imply
    you were stupid or illiterate. My assumption was and still is that you can
    read, and not that someone is reading this to you. I feel I have come to a
    logical assumption at this time. I also acknowledge that I do not have 100% of
    the information I need at this point in my life to make an absolute and final
    conclusion on your literacy.

    My intent on
    the morality point was merely that following SOME atheist schools of thought
    can lead SOME down a path that leads them to beleive there are no moral
    standards. I absolutely believe that atheist are moral. Again, I suppose I did
    a poor job of making my point.

    On the other
    issues, I did not respond because I am currently not well equipped enough to
    have a debate on those issues. For example, on my point about the irreducible
    complexity of a cell, I stated a point and posted a link to a counter position.
    Posting a counter point was very intentional so that if the reader were
    interested they could easily get some initial information on the topic. I was
    attempting to show how a poster could post a point, but be fair and not ignore
    a counter point. It hopefully promotes thought and further research.

    I’ll say it
    again. My initial purpose of my post was to point out that harsh language, name
    calling, and antagonism don’t lead to healthy debate. You can’t antogonize
    someone into changing their beleif. Thank you for so clearly validating my
    initial concern.

     I wish you the
    best of luck. Again, I am glad that you have found the absolute truth. I don’t
    feel like I have yet. But at least now I know that when I am seeking objective
    answers, looking to a “friendly atheist” may not be the best place to
    look for those answers delivered with gentleness and respect.

  • Rich Wilson

    “But to accept that all life came from non-life is hard for many people to fully understand or accept at this point. ”

    Evolution has nothing to do with where life came from.  molecular genetics proves that all life is related.  Since all life is related, something has to account for the variety we have.  The theory of evolution does that.

    “why not teach kids the concepts of intelligent design so they are best informed”

    I agree in attempting to not be unnecessarily rude.  Not that I don’t do it, but I try not to.  That said, please don’t confuse impolite with blunt.

    I don’t know the details of how evolution is or is not taught in US high schools, but if my discussions with other Americans even those who accept evolution are any indication, it’s done very poorly.  I had a creationist biology teacher in high school (in Canada) so I missed evolution entirely.  I’ve since read on my own and corrected many false assumptions I had, and many Americans still have.  If we’re already teaching evolution that poorly, I’d prefer to see resources go into teaching it properly, rather than pandering to everyone who wants to teach some false controversy.

    There are people who think the earth is <10K years old.  There are people who think Obama was born in Kenya.  There are people who think the moon landings were faked.  And there are people who for whatever reason, think we don't share a common ancestor several billion years back with seaweed.

    If someone wants to teach a University course on conspiracy theories, then fine, include ID.  But wasting students' time with everything everyone thinks could maybe be is out of the question.  Evolution is settled science.  The fact that 40% of Americans don’t know that is sad, but entertaining ID isn’t going to help.  If The Discovery Institute really wants something to be taught in schools, then they need to come up with their own explanation as to why we have so many different but distantly related forms of life.

  • bwaterme

    So in this not so sane society that you suggest we live in, do you mean that we (including you) are not sane?   I am for sure confused as to how we define sane versus insane.  I must be insane…I guess. 

    You also seem to be a fair “judge” of level of intelligence.  No disrespect intended.  I agree that a hammer is likely not as intelligent as Einstein.  But are your credentials or any person’s better than all person’s?  For sure there are less informed on both cases.  But please don’t dismiss them as a hammer or supporter of the Easter Bunny.  I suspect a proponent (like Einstein) of an expanding universe would immediately dismiss the idea that said universe was somehow created from nothing.  Forget the biblical creation.  Just consider the possibility of some sort of creation.  And I may be completely missing your point.  If so I respectfully apologize.

    I really only have one question, and I mean it sincerely.  You mention light years, and trust me that I know the literal and mathematical definition of a light year. Where did light come from? 

  • bwaterme


    Again, well made points on all counts.  I won’t get into a debate about the infalibility of macro-evolution, because you are correct.  Scientist in an overwhelming majority accept it, and there is no denying that.  I could say something like, “science has been wrong before.”  But that is too intellectually weak.  For me to refute macro-evolution would be ridiculous becasue I myself am not well informed enough. 

    I also agree that what is taught in the U.S. needs to be better and more complete.  I was taught evolution was a fact, but was not explained the science behind it that supported the case. 

    So back to my original point, I just hope people who post on this blog realize that when they say things like “moronic” you are elevating yourself, and you certainly don’t make this a welcoming place.  And as previously agreed, sites of the counter position are all too often equally or more unwelcoming.  If you are going to call yourselves “friendly atheist,” I just highly recommend you defend your position with gentleness and respect, as Rich does.

  • Me

    As a Christian (More specifically, practicing Catholic) I’m embarrassed, along with perplexed how other Christians sects can deny science. It IS possible to agree with science, and at the same, agree with your faith. My mind is totally blown how people think it’s contradicting one another. *sigh*

  • Alan R

    Readsin Trees,
    I am catholic. What is a YEC? Evolution does not bother my theology.  I was agnostic before catholic. I majored in psych and took as many philosophy classes as I could. I’m not an expert in any field but I try to read alot.

    I have a serious question that someone on these comments might be able to point me in the right direction.  This question is not intended to discount evolution.

    I was reading about the development of early civilizations and for the most part it seems that there were five or so early centers where civilization began to develop estimated about 6000-5500 b.c.

    1. what happened at that time to cause civilizations to develope then and to continue to progress so rapidly.

    2. I think the jewish calander is on year 5700ish. Is there any writings that you know of that develop those two events as to a possible relationship?

    I guess my question is not so much about whether evolution is taking place but why civilizations started to develope when they did and is it possible that an event recoreded in Genesis reflects a real event?

    I’m not trying to get into a debate about the truth of God’s existence. I am just curious and have not come across any articles or books that address this in the Christian tradition or theology, but I may have just missed it.

    Can someone point me in the right direction?

    Alan R

  • Rich Wilson

    YEC = Young Earth Creationist.

    You might find some answers in this thread as people talk about reconciling evolution with the bible in various ways.

     is it possible that an event recoreded in Genesis reflects a real event 

    My own opinion, and I’d venture most of the regulars here, is going to be ‘no’.  But then, we’re mostly atheists, and we mostly consider the bible to be a collection of works of fiction, with a few historical influences.

  • Timelessapologist

    Science guys with corny bowties = Attacking Young Earth Creationists that advocate Bible-Belt Theology, because they fear Theists with REAL arguments.

    Give me Bill Nye against an ALvin Plantinga and watch Nye implode when he hears the EAAN. LOL keep attacking the weak ones!!!!  Just remember it doesn’t make Theism false when you play with the YEC’s and refute their arguments.

  • ReadsInTrees

    Ah ha! I learned all about this in my Culture and the Environment class when I was in college. We talked a LOT about the development of civilizations. I don’t remember a lot of the details, but obviously early human civilizations began with agriculture. Once humans stopped being nomads and settled down to farm, then civilizations began to grow. There were many early civilizations, and not all of them started around 6000-5500 b.c. Look at this timeline which shows when certain stages of agriculture began:
    This is too big of a topic to sum up here….basically, civilizations began with the keeping of livestock and with the harvesting of grasses (wheat, corn, rice). Keep doing your research!

  • Lynch Gerard

    Wasn’t there a guy with a PhD way back when who calculated the earth would eventually lose its gravitational pull with the continued use of elevators? I feel a little lighter just thinking of that.
    It seems clear that nature has an intelligent quantum “to thrive,” not only figuring out ways to adapt to changes, fight for survival, or defend against attack but also to allow for the innovation of mutations. There is this rather startling innate ability to maintain, strengthen, and enhance itself. Truly wondrous. Any person with an open mind and heart can not help but marvel at the ingenuity and diversity.
    And there has to be some sense of awe that in us this “quantum” appears to gain consciousness and a higher purpose, manifesting in such qualities as, yes, wonder and awe itself, an appreciation of beauty, our curiosity, creativity, and reason (to name a few). Nature getting to know itself and give voice to its being. Some may think of this as hubris–and that is a fatal idea.
    Recognizing life as truly wondrous is central, in my eyes, to continuing on as a species. Why? Because not doing so will reduce us to the ever-deadening weight of Scientism based on Evolutionary Theory’s implications, a joyless application of mindless survival instincts to all we think, say, and do, the sum of who we are. To me, social darwinism is the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the greatest promotion and excuse for vices ever concocted. “Vices?” you ask, with mocking indignation, “how very naive.” Where is good and evil in the wild you note, right? Is the predator evil? (Hmm, not enough time; just one last point.)
    Looking through a filter and working backwards to assign all we think, say, and do to conform to our starting premises is not science and in this case it is not humane as well.

  • Candlemann

    Georgia Purdom: 128 blinks in 80 seconds = 1 blink every .625 seconds

  • Daniel Sachse

    Platinga’s EAAN is the deceptive attempt to drag the reader or listener down into a difficult, yet entirely fabricated, logical argument. It’s a diversion, a smoke screen, disguising itself as “deep philosophy” or “sophisticated theology”.

    It’s bullshit, but it’s complicated, impressive-sounding bullshit.

    See for example here:

  • Daniel Sachse

    That is not the job of the theory of evolution, that would be cosmology, and then one would need a good model of abiogenesis. Both, especially the former, exist, but are not the scope of evolution. Evolution deals exclusively with how life forms change and adapt over time. (I will admit, though, that some of its concepts can also be useful inspirations in other disciplines.)

    Apart from that, saying “aha, your theory doesn’t explain THAT!” doesn’t prove that (a) the theory is wrong or (b) that an opposing theory (I suppose you’re implying that some god did it) is true. There is no logical connection here.

    “AHA! The public transport map of Munich doesn’t explain Munich’s history!”… So?

  • Daniel Sachse

    Well, religion makes quite a number of outrageous claims about the universe. Some of those are unfalsifiable (which, mind you, doesn’t make them true), but others clearly have real-world implications that can be studied and falsified.

    Taking Catholicism as an example, what’s with the crackers and the wine? Isn’t it doctrine that these *literally* turn in to the body and blood of Christ? Shouldn’t one then be able to detect some sort of material difference before and after the consecration?

    Or don’t you believe that? But… are you then still a practicing Catholic?

  • Jack Apple

    Wikipedia definition of engineering:

       Engineering is the science, skill, and profession of acquiring and applying
        scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and 
       also build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes.

    Irony…   A Creationist “scientist” (Ham) claims that an understanding of evolution is not necessary for “engineering” and comments on the lack of relevance between evolution and Bill Nye’s education, mechanical engineering (assuming that he is using this as an example)Perhaps it would help to explain that there’s a *relatively* new emerging engineering discipline called “Bio-Engineering” that leverages the understanding of evolution/selection (bio-mimetics) as one of many tools for ENGINEERING new capabilities into current life forms as well as developing completely new life forms… of which we *can* see evolve right before of our eyes.

    It’s obvious that to Ham, like most Creationists, biology is quite enigmatic.

  • Irishhms77

    Actually, Alan, these are good questions. Allow an anthropologist to respond……around 10,000 years ago, the earth’s climate started to change. It got warmer, wetter in some areas and dryer in other areas. Before this time, people were hunters and gatherers, living off of what they could get from nature. After this climate change, people began domesticating plants and animals. The reasons for this are hotly debated, but we can all agree on the fact that they did start domesticating at this time. Anyway, after people began domesticating plants and animals and therefore growing stable crops, they also began to settle down. It is hard to grow large amounts of food if you are moving around all over the place. When people settled down, they started accumulating. The population started growing, either because of the availability of food or in order to help grow the food. As more and more people started living in close contact in permanent settlements, certain social changes occurred, leading to the grand civilizations. You will note that the earliest centers of civilization are also the earliest centers of domestication.

    I’m sorry that there isn’t enough room
     here to give this topic its proper attention, but there are many good resources that can give you extra info on this. Some good places to start are any introductory anthropology textbook or a book by Jared Diamond.

    As to your question about events recorded in Genesis, there isn othing after Abraham which would be connected to this, since he had domesticated animals, he was obviously after the onset of domestication and he visited cities so civilizations were already flourishing. I don’t hink there is anything mentioned pre-Abraham, either, because even the story of Babel, etc., mention cities which did not occur until after domestication and the flourishing of civilizations.

    Hope this helps, at least a little, or gives you some info to get you started!

  • ariofrio

    He couldn’t figure out how to do it, OR he decided not to. Even if he created the woman out of a man’s rib, he created the rib out of nothing, so he did, in fact, create everything out of nothing. I don’t think there’s a contradiction here.

    There are many better arguments against creationism. :-)

  • ariofrio

    If this is supposed to be a logical argument, I call ad hominem!

  • ariofrio

    No, no, she is assuming that God exists. Then, based on this assumption, she concludes that creationism is true. This is no different, in essence, from any other assumption a scientist makes: a physicist will assume that Newton’s laws are true (or Einstein’s, depending on context). Never mind how good these assumptions are. Attack the assumption, or the reasoning toward the conclusion, but not the method: it seems just fine to me.

    Also, I don’t see how basing scientific beliefs on worldviews make one similar to those blacklisted “scientists”. I will, however, concede that it makes for incomplete science (or perhaps not science at all!)

  • usfcire

    Okay…so let me get this straight, we all agree that science has rules and we all agree that change happens over time.  How does evolution at the very beginning, the first living organism solve the fact that somehow thousands of molecules hundreds of thousands of atoms in size “organized” and cooperated together to sustain a life form.  To me this sounds like there is something more than just scientific law working.  After all science law would indicate that molecules of large size would quickly breakdown if not in an active form of polymerization, and would infact, with the presence of radical breakdown quite rapidly. 

    Creationist do not deny that a species will change overtime, and in some cases where separation of great distances will change both rapidly and to a point where habits of the species will change, case in point galapagos, however, there is a difference in a species subspeciating and a whole new organism emerging.  The biggest concern that a creationist sees with evolution is the lack of evidence of missing links that show the gradual change of species.  The fossil records do not show conclusively that this is the case.

    The other big issue that creationists have with evolution is that there is a number of organs in multicellular organisms and organelles in unicellular organisms that cannot be shown to have been gradually changed to present day.  Evolution contends that if it is not advantageous and it is benign, over time it will be eliminated because the organism has no advantage, hense why humans and many other primates do not have tails (according to evolutionists).  Eyes, ears, tongue, etc. fall into this catagory, as do the flagella, cilia, and pili.  There is no evidence that shows the formation of an eye over time, or that of the flagella, its just not there. 

    Both theories (evolution and creation) will have to be taken as a matter of faith.  For some, evolution is seen to have more tangible proof than creation, others see evolution as having too great of a lack in evidence to support evolution from the beginning of the first life until today.  Creationists see evolution on a micro scale (subspeciation not new organism development) and believe that the Biblical creation story plus the story of the fall and entrance of sin to the world explains the changes that can be observed today.

    Bill Nye is wrong about one thing.  There will be no end to this discussion.  At least there is no end unless there is a silencing of both sides either from a rogue meteor, or from the return of a Savior.

  • Rich Wilson

    How does evolution at the very beginning, the first living organism solve the fact that somehow thousands of molecules hundreds of thousands of atoms in size “organized” and cooperated together to sustain a life form.

    It doesn’t.  And nobody claims it does.

    The biggest concern that a creationist sees with evolution is the lack of evidence of missing links that show the gradual change of species.  The fossil records do not show conclusively that this is the case.

    Every single fossil is a ‘missing link’.  Besides which, the pattern of shared DNA shows our common descent.  The only ‘question’ is how different life forms diverged.

    There is no evidence that shows the formation of an eye over time

    Yes there is.  You can see eyes at various stages of evolution throughout the animal kingdom, including eyes that are superior to ours.

    Both theories (evolution and creation) will have to be taken as a matter of faith.  

    There is only one theory that explains the variety of life we have on this planet.  ‘creation’ isn’t a theory. There are many creation stories including Genesis.  None of them offer any predictions, are testable, or are falsifiable, or offer any explanation for how anything happens.

  • usfcire

     Rich, the point of the question is that there is no evidence that can justifiably state why life began on the planet to begin with.

    Every fossil not a missing link, just a remnant of what once was alive.  There are no fossils that show, to a degree of certainty, that the horse evolved from a guinea pig sized creature.  We have fossils of similar creatures of vary stature that show similarity to a horse, but nothing that shows that there was an in between, conclusively.

    No there is no evidence that shows the formation of a compound eye.  There is no compound eye without a lens or any of the other essential parts to make an eye work, nor is there fossil evidence to show that the suggestion in this video is true.  Nor does evolution explain how two very unrelated species could evolve to have eyes so similar, mammals and mollusks (squid, nautilus, etc).  These organisms would have evolved from a shared ancestor that had no eyes. 

    Please understand I am not refuting that natural selection exists and occurs, rather that natural selection alone does not explain the vast variety of life on this planet.  When you stated that the DNA similarities shows that there is a common decent that would be as appropriate as me stating that because molten lava and humans both share similarities in atomic structure that we share a common decent.  You I am sure would agree that evolution played not role in the decent of man from a rock, so why think that just because we share nucleic acids and certain structures with a bacterium that there must be common decent?

    I have no problem admitting that from the genesis creation there has been a great change that has occurred, significant variation even, but I do believe that the variety of life came from a creator, that an “evolutionary force” aka sin, has caused changed to occur, even the Bible explains that thorns arose after sin, and that things continue to change today.  So I would state, God created dogs, but at the time, one subspecies of dog, and after the course of sin and specified breeding habits we now have hundreds of varieties within the species.  The same goes for cats, cows, horses, goats, turtles, etc. Again, I do not endorse a grand theory of evolution that goes from single cell prokaryotes, to eukaryotes, to multicellular organisms.  Why is this idea so threatening to evolutionists?  Why does it have to be all or nothing, is there no room for a belief such as mine to be accepted in the scientific world?

    One thing I have always been curious about is if there is so much shared DNA and the power of evolution is so strong, why do we not see any mammals or really any multicellular animals have chlorophyll, to me the billions or at least millions of years that animals have been around, should have at least had some mutation where chlorophyll would be part of our genome.

    I get your point, but really glib responses don’t help discussion, it just closes doors.

  • Rich Wilson

    is there no room for a belief such as mine to be accepted in the scientific world?

    The problem is that you aren’t providing evidence for creation.  You are providing evidence against evolution.  All refuted, but I don’t think there’s much point in going around in circles for a dozen posts here.

    Let’s for the sake of argument say all your arguments are iron clad.  You have pointed out a bunch of things evolution just can’t explain.  What then?  You have shown gaps, but you have nothing to fill them other than “it must be God”.  That’s not evidence.  There are other people who insist it’s a different God, or the same God a different way, or even aliens.  If you want to be part of the scientific world, you need to come up with your own explanation (scientific theory) to explain how things do work.

    That’s why Creationism/Intelligent Design are not scientific theories.  They don’t explain anything. 

  • Joeallingham

    These arguments and discussions are embarrassing and pathetic. Science has nothing to do with whether a creationist or an evolutionist makes public statements about their beliefs or opinions. In fact this sort of nonsense should make us realize that we need to go back and research all of the facts available to us in this postmodern age. There is no need to react or become emotional about science. The facts and the truth out there. Let’s spend our energy finding them for a certainty, instead of wasting our resources on fruitless, and frankly childish, posturing.

  • Shoulton39

    Likewise for creation.  If the “unbiased” would honestly research both subjects, they would find that CREATION fits the facts on the ground much closer than EVOLUTION theory.  But it is easier to just believe one’s teachers.    For most of the past century teachers themselves have been taught to BELIEVE and TEACH evolution, without asking any hard questions about it.  The result is that most educated people believe in evolution BECAUSE they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution.  Sad.

  • Søren Steinbeck

    How…did this guy get a PhD from Brown? Interesting…

    My favorite is Kent Hovind. It’s too good to be true: (from Wiki)

    From 1972 to 1974, Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education. In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master’s degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado, which no longer offers this program)

    He refuted so many PhD’s with his pseudo-science. He is sharp as a tack. And now he’s in jail. For tax evasion.

    Yes, I realize this is ad hominem. But I’m all right with it for now. Mayhaps I shall repent later…or maybe I will get a correspondence degree from a non-accredited school and call respected scientists who actually…you know…WORK in their fields, complete morons.

  • Søren Steinbeck

     This is my favorite comment on this page ^^^^^   :0)

  • j me

    But having the public transport map of Munich will not help you if you are in Paris.  Where you end up depends on where you begin.  Not knowing where you began can take you to many wrong places. 

  • Rich Wilson

    But any subway map won’t help you if you’re in a cave.  You think that your subway map matches the cave you’re in, but you’re most likely wrong.  Now neither of us has a map to the cave we’re in, but at least I know I don’t have a map, so I set about exploring and mapping.  You think you have a working map, and are desperately trying to turn your map the right way to match your surroundings.

  • John

    What is sad is how lost most of the responders to this thread seem to be. Is there a critical thinker anywhere in here?
    Bill Nye insults creationists and says we need scientifically literate voters and engineers to build stuff, as if because you hold to some form of religious view of creationism you must be a bumbling fool.
    I’d say the 3 astronauts in Apollo 11 were damn good at what they did – you’ve got to be among the cream of the crop to be picked for such a mission.
    Armstrong was a Deist, Aldrin was a Presbyterian, and I don’t know about Collins but he wrote this in the CSM “The best ship to come down the line. God Bless Her. Michael Collins, CMP”
    Bill Nye should be ashamed of himself.

  • John

    and here’s one more.

    Bill did an interview with Sunita Williams on the Space Lab.
    I’m surprised that he didn’t make fun of her considering she might have some of those idiotic religious notions about life.
    “Among the personal items Williams took with her to the ISS were a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, a small figurine of the Hindu deity Ganesha and some samosas.”
    Sure Bill, people who hold to religious values have nothing to contribute to science.
    You should apologize.

  • John

    Thanks for posting a thoughtful, coherent comment.

  • j me

     But how did you get into the cave.  and where did the cave and you come from?

  • Rich Wilson

    The same place as your imaginary map.  I pulled it out of my ass.

    You’re the one making up ridiculous analogies to to try to prove that you must know everything to know anything, which is plainly ridiculous.

    Faith is pretending to know things you don’t.  Neither of us know how life started.  I know that I don’t know.  I’m not sure what you think.

  • Meetatheism

     Just like those silly people are taught to read! They think that “sh” makes that hushy hushy sound but that is only because they were taught that. If they really looked at the evidence they would learn that in the English language it makes the…..oh….wait….I get it! They LEARN about how written language works just like they LEARN about science and LEARN about evolution and biology and LEARN about math. They LEARN about atoms and molecules and physics and physiology and geology and all that stuff!

    We know so much because we continue to ask THE HARD QUESTIONS and continue to demand EVIDENCE.  Creationists don’t LEARN they assume. They don’t demand evidence they demand faith. They don’t desire to LEARN they desire to pretend that the world fits their tiny little idea about a make believe spirit in the sky.

  • j me

     According to Merriam Webster,  Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof
    You have no proof how life started or how non-living things came to be. 
    All theories and laws in science do not show how something can come from nothing.
    Thus, you have faith that all non living and living things came from nothing.

    Also, I am not making analogies, I am just responding to the analogies that people are giving me.  You only think they are ridiculous because you can’t respond to them.

    I am not saying that you must know everything to know anything, but not knowing some things will affect how well you can understand other things.  Many theories have changed when we learn new things.  The more we know, the more we understand.  You appear not to want to know more.

  • Rich Wilson

    Thus, you have faith that all non living and living things came from nothing.


    Non-living: I’m not going to explain the big bang, because a) I don’t have room and b) there are better sources than me.  I’m not a cosmologist.  If you cared you’d go read Krauss.

    Living: I don’t know.  Which, by the definition you present, is not faith.

    If you claim “God” as the answer for anything, then you are using faith, since there is no proof of God.

    I’m not really sure what your argument is.  You think I’m using faith but not admitting it?  Or you think I should be assuming God must have created life since I don’t have my own explanation?

    Many theories have changed when we learn new things.

    Sure.  That’s the scientific method.  It is not, however, the theological method.

    I’m in favor of knowing more.  I’m just not in favor of assuming it must be God, when it probably isn’t God.

  • Joeelm

    Not to mention, “Islamists believe it, so it must be true!”