22 Responses to 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe in Evolution


Earlier this week, Bill Nye debated Ken Ham in a little museum in Kentucky. Buzzfeed, ever delighted to turn pop culture spectacles into listicles, asked 22 Creationists to write questions they would ask a person who believed in evolution (and here’s the parallel article of 22 messages from evolutionists to Creationists).

Here are my responses.





2. 2-question 2-response


3-question 3-response



4-question 4-response


5-question 5-response6.

6-question 6-response7.

7-question 7-response


8-question 8-response


9-question 9-response(Note: entire books can be written on the answer to this question, but it’s likely that the formation of DNA preceded the formation of the first single-celled organism, but this answer focused on how a cell-like structure might “spontaneously” arise without the intervention of a Divine Creator. To clarify: organic compounds that are hydrophobic will aggregate together to form large bubbles rather than mixing with water — similar to micelles which can be created in your kitchen by mixing oily/fatty substances with water — which probably formed the basis for the first ‘cell’, although that cell would be pretty primitive. However, if it formed around pre-existing RNA and nucleotide monomers (which this theory postulates pre-exists), it would have all the building blocks for creating a proto-cell.)





11-question 11-response12.


For a nice summary, see Wikipedia.
For a nice summary, see Wikipedia.


13-question 13-response


14-question 14-response


15-question 15-response

16.16-question 16-response17.

17-question 17-response18.

18-question 18-response


19-question 19-response


20-question 20-response


21-question 21-response



(The real answer is because both humans and current monkeys are related descendents from an ancestral primate. We didn't evolve from modern monkeys.)
(The real answer is because both humans and current monkeys are related descendents from an ancestral primate. We didn’t evolve from modern monkeys.)

If you missed the debate, it can still be streamed from debatelive.org.

Did you like this post? Please support Reappropriate on Patreon!
  • Keith

    Why is Bill Nye wasting wasting his time debating creationists. Doesn’t he have better things to do, or is getting paid a shit load of cash to do it? I am tired of the way creationist nut jobs are being enabled and pandered to in this country.

  • James

    Because reaching people who don’t listen to scientists helps those people learn more about the world.

  • I love everything about this post. Most times when people stay stuff like this to try and disprove evolution a little voice rings in the back of my head…dumbass..dumbass..dumbass. I know its mean. I can’t help what the voices in my head say.

  • Keith

    They all look like (folks from the article) pod people from the 70’s remake of “invasion of the body snatchers.” Don’t think that any bit of reason will get through there ignorance.

  • Thanks, Wesley! I think it’s natural to be like “OMG — so dumb!” But I also feel like sometimes these people are saying things because they were never actually taught the right stuff. Like, all the stuff about the second law of thermodynamics suggests these folks never really learned with the second law is or what it says; or even how it’s relevant to evolution (it’s not; it IS kinda relevant to Big Bang). I feel like teaching is always better. 🙂

  • Tasha

    Wow. They are still asking the same questions, whereas science, in its amazing way, gets to continuously ask _new_ questions!
    I especially like question #17 – like she can’t comprehend that just being a decent person is purpose enough…
    Stupid, stupid, stupid people…

  • My favourite is definitely the sunset one.

  • TheRipper

    Is this the real life?

    Did people actually take this “debate” seriously?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the two participants met at a strip club afterwards for beer and laughed at all the idiots that actually showed up or tuned-in.

    Usually what happens at the beginning of a “real” debate (as opposed to this hilariously successful publicity stunt troll) is the participants actually bother to define the actual TERMS THE WHOLE F****** DEBATE IS SUPPOSEDLY ABOUT!!11!?1!? If I had the capacity I imagine I would be upset that this was taken so seriously.

    1.) “Creationism” remained undefined.

    2.) “Evolution” remained undefined.

    Just pop culture buzzwords straw-maned to death.

    There can be no serious discussion until both sides are agreed upon definitions. Otherwise your’re going to have laypersons transposing what they’ve seen on Family Guy and South Park (which was probably the intent).

    Face obvious reality; most people know jack-s*** about science or theology. They can’t be expected to either, as modern American students can barely read, write, and perform mathematics at an age appropriate level. Frankly there are more pressing matters to be concerned with. The average human simply cannot be burdened with too many complex ideas at once. In my opinion what needs to happ…OMG Honey Boo Boo’s on!!1!

  • Actually, I sort of agree with you, in the sense that the level of debate is remarkably low. Even the questions shown above reveal a pretty deep ignorance of basic scientific concepts, and a weird conflation of evolution with the origins of the universe, with arguments against one being used to argue against the other. The second law of thermodynamics, for example, has almost nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

    However, I did find the debate pretty enlightening. I always like to hear what the other side has to say, and I admit I know so little about theology and how it is interpreted. But I agree with you that a proper debate requires that you understand the other side; so it’s nice to hear what Ken Ham had to say.

    To be honest, what was most surprising to me was how for Creationists, this seems to be a moral/philosophical question that then gets back-translated towards science. Like, the starting point is: the Bible must be upheld because it is the framework of my morality, now I must prove it to be correct. This is reflected in the above 22 questions, many of which actually were less interested in proving Creationism, and more interested in determining how morality/philosophy/beauty could exist WITHOUT faith.

  • I wonder if this might be why the debate continues to rage on: perhaps scientists and theologists are actually approaching the question with different criteria for debate? Creationists want a philosophically satisfying answer, evolutionists want a scientifically satisfying answer; neither can provide the satisfying answer to the other.

  • TheRipper

    I wonder if this might be why the debate continues to rage on: perhaps scientists and theologists are actually approaching the question with different criteria for debate? Creationists want a philosophically satisfying answer, evolutionists want a scientifically satisfying answer; neither can provide the satisfying answer to the other.

    The thing I wanted to point out is that the terms “Evolutionist” and “Creationist” encompass a number of different and often conflicting views within. And depending on those views the two terms are not always mutually exclusive. That is to say, there is no ultimate consensus on either. That’s why it was dishonest of them to not define the terms they were arguing. To think that Ham and Nye are the representatives of each is naive; and it was dishonest of them to present themselves as such. This WILL cause people to think that everyone that calls themselves an Evolutionist necessarily agrees with everything Nye has to say on the matter; likewise with Ham.

    The debate was always going to be a joke. I would advise anyone that is truly interested in the subject of the creation/evolution debate to get of their ass (figuratively, cause they will be sitting on it for days) and read some of the latest scientific papers on the current state of evolutionary theory and genetics (though, I will warn that it’s easy to end up surrounded by HBD enthusiasts). Along with that, read up on classical theism and philosophy. The debates at those levels are far more interesting and informative than this silliness (I really can’t stress enough of how embarrassingly pathetic it was).

    That’s why I’m currently agnostic on the issue.

    The world is far more interesting than simple dichotomies.

  • Keith

    Cosmology has nothing to do with evolution (decent with modification) Yet some of these folks seem to want to lump the two together. The conference is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

  • Keith

    Meant evolution as a basic principle of biology.

  • @TheRipper

    I think you make a good point about needing to define the terms. However, as a scientist, let’s just say we probably need to agree to disagree on the facts of evolution. That being said, I agree that scientists would do well to learn more about theism.

    @Keith and @TheRipper

    I do kind of agree it was a stunt, but I also think it was worth doing. It did quite a bit to raise awareness about science.

  • Keith

    I disagree with scientist needing to learn more about theism when all the church is doing is pushing populist platforms for it’s own gains. Creationism is one of them.

    It’s not like the church hasn’t contributed to science. Look at Mendel, where would the study of genetics be without his research on plants and allele frequencies? However lets not forget the church, (Christian church) has always been about pushing it’s own agenda for it’s own good.