Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era? Yesterday Bill Nye and Ken Ham had a civil debate which addressed this question. If you have three hours to kill you can watch it here. While I am happy that creationists are actively contributing to the scientific community I have to answer no to this question.
After the debate some people had questions for Bill Nye. I decided to address these questions.
1. “Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?”
You must define positive in order to answer this question. If you simply don’t agree with his opinions then I suppose you would not consider his influence positive. You may not agree with him but recognize that the scientific method instills an ability to rationalize and analyze problems in a logical manner. Ken Ham makes the point that even as a creationist you can reap the rewards of critical thinking. While I do not disagree, I think for the general populace creationism tends to stymie critical thought.
2. “Are you scared of a Divine Creator?”
I don’t think Bill Nye is scared of the concept of a supreme being. He stated that if he were presented evidence that supports creationism he will be the first to accept it. Fear is a natural human instinct. If you claim you are free of fear due to the promise of an eternal afterlife you are dangerously removed from the natural world. This reminds me of the sentiments some nuke commanders held during the Cold War. They felt that if nuclear apocalypse were part of a higher purpose then it was okay if it occurred. I was stricken with fear when I read that.
3. “Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings… Adam created as an adult…”
Yes it is quite illogical.
4. “Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?”
Quite the opposite, actually. According to this law, entropy of an isolated system never decreases. Entropy is a measure of disorder. An assembled car is less entropic than all of the individual parts spread across the planet. When discussing thermodynamics it is crucial to define your system. If we define the Earth as the system and consider evolution it clearly obeys this second law. Genes are being selected for which confer an increased life span and greater reproductive ability. Both of these things ultimately lead to greater entropy. A longer life span enables organisms to exact more change on their environment. Now, this change can increase or decrease entropy but, taking into consideration all of the variables in the system, entropy will always stay the same or increase. More reproduction means more people and more changes to entropy (positive or zero). Even if you argue that overall entropy is decreasing due to the activities of living creatures on the Earth the sun will ultimately die, engulf the Earth and scatter all the atoms across the galaxy. A clear increase in disorder.
5. “How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?”
The same way I can explain grammatical errors. With reading and education. It’s cute that some people consider a sunset magical, and even I concede that nature is quite magical, but it is often easy to explain. The Earth is in orbit around the Sun due to gravity. The Earth also spins due to inertia. The sun setting is actually due to the section of Earth on which you reside rotating away from the sun. As one would expect, once it rotates all the way around the sun will rise!
6. “If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?”
See number four. If you think those laws debunk the big bang theory then you cannot grasp them properly.
7. “What about Noetics?”
Well, what about it? The human mind is truly the least understood thing that humans have encountered so far but that does not mean it is above the laws on the universe. The universe is infinitely complex. Since we are made with the same building blocks it does not surprise me that we can be immensely complex as well.
8. “Where do you derive objective meaning of life?”
While people can try to be as objective as possible there is no way to be truly objective since we are the ones ultimately forming opinions. The genesis of the opinion is in our mind. Anything we use to analyze our environment was at some point connected to us. That includes the Bible. It has been rewritten by humans over the ages and is undoubtedly biased. Thankfully there are many methods to aid objectivity such as double blind experiments and peer review. Scientists are often not free from bias and it is important to recognize this when making claims.
9. “If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?”
Well, yeah. The universe is one big probability machine. If the trajectory of the giant body in the giant impact hypothesis were larger then we might not even be here. By the way, given the size of the universe it is probable that there are other planets orbiting stars which lay in the habitable zone. The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that an atmosphere containing only water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen was able to form complex organic compounds including amino acids when subjected to sparks. This environment mimicked the atmospheric conditions on early planet Earth.
10. “I believe in the Big Bang Theory… God said it and BANG it happened!”
He said it in English, did he? You can explain the universe as an invention of your God. I have no problem with that. In fact, I think the dialogue between Bill and Ken can strengthen the arguments of either camp and is important for the progression of the human race. There is an inherent danger in explaining away natural phenomenon with religion. Doing so tends to halt interest, exploration and progress of our world which ultimately hinders and threatens the existence of the human race. I know some people don’t care about such things since they believe in an afterlife. Personally, I believe this life is all we have.
11. “Why do evolutionists/secularists/humanists/non-God believing people reject the idea of their being a creator God but embrace the concept on intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terestrial sources?”
People are free to believe whatever they want. I suppose some consider that explanation more reasonable than the traditional concept of a creator God. Perhaps they have some evidence that validate their theory. In any event anyone who embraces such a concept without clear evidence while rejecting the idea of a creator God is a hypocrite.
12. “There is no in between… the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an “official proof'”.”
3.2 million years provides a nice window for the elements to destroy bone. Also, the planet likely did not have a vast population of hominids back then.
13. “Does metamorphosis help support evolution?”
Yes.
14. “If Evolution is a Theory (like creationism or the Bible) why then is Evolution taught as fact.”
I would fault the teacher or institution for that. It absolutely is a theory and should be taught as such.
15. “Because science by definition is a “theory” – not testable, observable nor repeatable why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?”
Science is not a theory. Science is a collection of knowledge accumulated through experimentation. It is the experimentation which tests theories, collects data through observation and should be repeatable in order to support a hypothesis.
16. “What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?”
Evolution describes the flow and progress of genetic information. There is no stipulation that the amount of genetic information should be increasing. The genetic code is essentially capped for each species. What genes are expressed depends on the environment, the genes of question and the interaction of the genes with the environment.
17. “What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?”
I believe we are here simply because the universe allows us to exist. Nothing more, nothing less. As far as purpose is concerned, you can view humanity as one big effort to increase entropy if you like.
18. “Why have we found only 1 “Lucy”, when we have found more than 1 of everything else?”
See number twelve. Also, how can we know how much of everything else exists? Do you know of all the species that ever existed on the Earth before this time?
19. “Can you believe in “the big bang” without “faith”?”
No you cannot. You do need faith to believe in anything. This faith does not have to be religious in nature. You do not need faith to believe facts. The big bang theory is not a fact though, it is a hypothesis. You do not need faith to believe a hypothesis regardless of whether or not it proves to be fact.
20. “How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It’s amazing!!!”
It just doesn’t make sense. While I do agree that the world is amazing I have never felt the need to explain it away with a creator. Why can’t nature be a creator? Why does there have to be some semblance of order? Some things are beyond our control. We are not the masters of the universe. We are not special in the eyes of nature. A black hole would gobble us up and think nothing of it. Is that scary? Of course it is but it makes perfect sense to me.
21. “Relating to the big bang theory…. Where did the exploding star come from?”
Excellent question! That infinitely concentrated mass cannot be considered a star. We don’t really know what to call it. We do not have the mathematics to fully understand it. It is truly mind-boggling.
22. “If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?”
Evolution enables speciation. Speciation does not require that the ancestors of the newer species go extinct.