Creationists Have Questions. I Have Answers.

This is a fantastic response to the ridiculous Buzzfeed article, which featured real questions from creationists to Bill Nye before his now infamous debate. It's frankly terrifying that we have this level of ignorance encouraged by some sectors of Christianity, and I encourage you to read the article.

 

Nye says...."we don't know how or why the Universe came into being." He's admitting there that science does NOT have all the answers. He also goes on to say that "science is testable, observable, and repeatable." But it's also true that those tests, observations and repeatable things about science also evolve and get changed. For instance, the great theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawkings, who came up with the theory that everyone bought into....the theory of the Black Hole----he recently admitted was wrong. And remember the chart once used in our public schools....which showed the "evolution" of man as starting from an animal-like being that walked on 4 legs and evolving into an upright 2 legged human? Evidence comes out almost weekly that says a lot of what scientists and evolutionists believed is either not true, or certainly not the entire story. And one very important thing: scientists and theorists have never been able to explain how it ALL began.

I'm not discounting either. Because bottom line: NO ONE KNOWS. But would I want creationism taught in public schools? No, that's what Sunday Schools are for. But because of all the uncertainty regarding how the world began....I certainly am NOT opposed to devoting a paragraph or two in the Science class where it's at least mentioned that Science does not have all the answers as to how we began and this keeps changing.....and that one theory is that there is a higher being (God) that started it all. Leave it at that. We should be truthful in our public school Science classes and note that Science does NOT have all the definitive answers.

 

The theory of evolution proposes that life arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals on Earth some 4 billion years ago. With modern technology and super computers, has this ever been replicated in a laboratory?

 

Life itself no, however the are getting some of the building blocks from my understanding.

EDIT:

BTW that's abiogenesis. Evolution is theory of how life has evolved, not how it all formed.
Also I like how chrome wanted to correct "abogenisis" as "abortionists"

 

Creationism is not a theory nor a scientific explanation of how everything came to be. It's a religious explanation, but it has no place in science class. May as well say "we don't know how to change elements like lead into gold, but there is a theory out there which says that if we can find the philosophers stone we can turn lead into gold!"

 

I have limited knowledge on the subject, but I believe John Venter created a cell with a synthetic genome 3 or 4 years ago which was considered the first life form created by humanity.

 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

Good memory! Unfortunately this doesn't really go to origins of life though, more understanding how things work to the point that we can inject cells with instructions. Really cool stuff though.

 

It would be interesting...no, fascinating...to see what kind of "soul" that it has, if it even has one.

 

How is this related to the creation of life?

 

So you're saying science can't prove or replicate the "creation" of life?

 

And what would a computer model prove or disprove? Any idea at all?

 

At this point no we cannot create life. We can create the building blocks of life and what we believe was the primordial environment of earth, but we cannot create life yet.

- - - Updated - - -

It would prove the programmer was able to program that computer model!

 

So Nye thinks inanimate matter sprang to life? And he thinks he isn't a creationist? Curious.

 

Can you prove the existence of a creator? Do you have a home video from when he created life?

 

How did God came into being?

 

It can in theory, but we'd need highly advanced nanotech capable of manipulating atoms into the complex materials living things are made from order to do so.

 

Existence began with God. I don't pretend to understand the workings of supreme beings.

 

How convenient.

 

Actually, we do know how to change lead into gold... it's just not worth the cost.

In any case, the Bible is not a science text... it's a spritual document, and it only talks about physical phenomena when it's necessary to put the spiritual message into context. Creationists focus on nit-picking over irrelevant details in Genesis because they hate reading the central part, which says to be nice to each other. Nowhere in scripture does it say, "Believe creation was six 24-hour days, or you go to hell", but it does say to treat others as you would treat yourself, which means... most creationists are massocists.

 

Honestly I don't know why I bother defending science since I get it from both sides. Yes we can turn lead into gold. I had a point but whatever lets just ignore that.

 

True. However, until Scientists can say for sure without a doubt what caused life to begin on this planet, we just don't really know the answers do we?

 

We can't, but we can say what we think the answer is given the evidence at hand.

 

Uh huh... and if/when they do get life out of a test-tube, you're just going to say, "But there were no test-tubes four billion years ago, and in any case, it was humans using intelligence to set up the experiment, therefore it required intelligent design", yadda yadda.

 

And then we can teach it to my teenage daughter as if it were fact! Yay! To include one BELIEF and not any others is contradictory to what science is and should be. There have many times that scientists thought they knew what the answer is and were proven wrong.

The things that we know for sure should be in the books as truth, the things we are still guessing on should be presented as just that: guesses. It really makes me angry when my daughter's science teacher won't accept that the Big Bang is still just a theory. It is a good theory, one that is logical based on evidence, but it is still just a theory! To say or treat it like fact stops thinking and learning and is just as bad as saying that God did it and that's all we need to know. Not saying that all scientists are like this, but many dismiss legitimate concerns because they have turned science into religion.

 

I think you are confusing the origins of life and evolution. Evolution is taught as fact because it is. Science classes don't pretend to know the exact way that life began. They usually share the common theories, all I which are supported by evidence. Creationism is not one because there is absolutely no evidence what so ever to support the theory.

And I highly doubt you are correctly portraying your daughters science teacher, either that or you simply haven't actually talked to him. Accepting and teaching scientifically supported theories is not turning science into religion. The whole idea of religion is based on faith. Science has tangible evidence.

Gravity is also "just a theory". Should we also teach alternative ideas on that subject?