Matt Stopera of BuzzFeed recently attended the debates between science educator Bill Nye (The Science Guy) and Christian author Ken Ham about the controversial topic of evolutionism vs creationism. While there, he asked a number of self-described creationists from the event's audience to write messages or questions they have for people who believe in evolution.

The participants in Stopera's photos address the touchy subject, which often divides people about the inception of humankind, with their own firm beliefs and questions to consider. Many ask "non God believing people" to assess the validity of the Big Bang Theory. Within their messages, they also question the definition of a theory, asking why evolution is taught in schools but creationism is not.

Stopera's images provide an insightful look at the way creationists view evolution. He allows them to have their say, without adding any words of his own. However, the images alone have the power to incite fiery debate amongst viewers. The series, like the topic, is bound to have polarizing reactions on either side of the issue. While one person may look at these individuals with their signs and applaud their promotion of religion, there are just as many to rebuke their rejection of science.

via [BuzzFeed]
Email me when people comment –

You need to be a member of My Modern Met to add comments!

Join My Modern Met


  • Very basic questions with many answers in the science.

  • if ignorance is bliss why would these halfwits need heaven?

  • Мarwan Almuraisy, it's just that the estimated age of the Universe using real science is 13.82 billion years. Not 15+ billion years. Would the Quran change the text because of these new evidence like cosmological theories did? Nothing annoys me more than religious people trying to use science to justify their myths because the science is ALWAYS bad, misunderstood or not understood at all!

  • people...please... public i.q. dropping....somebody with more brain please shut these people down...

  • Creation In Six Days

    I think this will explain many things, hope you all read it carefully, friends.

  • Kerjun Chang, great comment. You missed the most "scientific" anti-evolution claim in the pictures though - the one about living organisms violating the second law of thermodynamics.

    Living organisms DO NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics. Such claims can only stem from completely NOT UNDERSTANDING the laws of thermodynamics.

    This question has been discussed back in 1944 by Erwin Schrödinger in his book "What is Life?". Short explanation: the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a closed system which is adiabatically isolated, meaning no heat can enter or leave. Living organisms are NOT a closed system. Also, living organism do work like everything else to achieve results. Work = increase in entropy (body heat etc). Simple as that. (Longer explanation: whenever a system experiences a decrease in entropy, a wider price must be paid. When a biological organism absorbs energy and grows — thus increasing in complexity — work is done. When work is done, it is not done with 100% efficiency. Some energy is always wasted and some given off as heat — this means that in the larger context, overall entropy is increased even as entropy decreases locally within an organism. Thus, the Second Law is not violated. More here and here.)

  • To each question fro top to bottom:
    1. Great, but that's not the Big Bang Theory, that would be your own theory.

    2. Seriously? Is this even a serious question? Bill Nye the Science Guy was one of the greatest kids shows ever, and one of my favorites as a kid, followed closely by Magic Schoolbus and Reading Rainbow.

    3. Yes, that is completely illogical. Has anyone ever witnesses an adult human poofing into existence? Or a tree poofing into existence? Logically, one would expect an adult human to be the result of a child growing up, just as one expects a tree with rings to accumulate rings as it ages from a sapling, one ring per year. There is a logic to that. Similarly, on a less observable scale, one should not expect a planet to have poofed into existence without any process of formation.

    4. By chance, yes, but through building up in small steps, not in one immediate step from basic inorganic molecles to single-cellular organism. Observable and reproducible experiments have shown that organic molecules can spontaneously form under natural circumstances in primordial Earth ocean conditions. How did that happen? 1: One, the right conditions, and 2: chance. Unfortunately, the human mind has a diffiult time comprehending extremely low, but non-zero chances, but given a long enough period of time, low probability events will happen.

    5. Exploding star? You must be thinking of a supernova which is the final stage of a dying star. That really1 has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory...

    6. Evolution is not taught as "fact." It's taught as a theory which is supported by a large body of scientific evidence that is solid enough to be considered fact. Theories are not "fact" can sometimes be proven incorrect over time when new scientific evidence appear, in which case if the theory is completely wrong, it can be thrown out, but in many cases, it is modifed in a way which it is consistent with the evidence. Simply put, theories are scientific explanations of the facts put together. In science, the word "theory" is not used lightly and is not equivalent to just an idea that's hypothetical. Theories are put against the test of holding up against scientific evidence. Creationism is not supported by scientific evidence, and therefore cannot be a scientific theory.

    7. See #6. Science is not a "theory." Science uses theories to explain our observations of the physical world. Intelligent design is not supported by scientific evidence, so it should not be taught as science.

    8. Who said evolutionists/secularists/humanists/non God-believing people believed in intelligent design by aliens? Or believe in aliens at all? Way to generalize. And who said believing in evolution rejects God as a creator? It's conceivable that one can believe that evolution was a mechanism of creation used by God. Again,way to generalize.

    9. I think this question needs more elaboration/clarification.

    10. Probably not. By definition, faith means believing without needing external validation, for example, observation and scientific evidence. Believing in God, for example, would require a lot of faith because there is no evidence for a God. However, believing in gravity takes no faith because we observe and experience it daily and we can easily validate that it exists and works. It's not so easy to validate the Big Bang theory, but it is probably the best that we can do scientific explanation that we have for the origin of the universe. Not to say that everything we have on it is correct, but to a guess at the answer is more satisfying than none at all.

    11. Please, please, please stop saying that we came from monkeys. We did not. Humans and monkeys share the same ancestors, so if anything, humans and monkeys are more like cousins. Evolutionary theory does not say that humans came from monkeys.

  • HEY, "SCIENCE", IF THERE IS NO GOD THEN WHY DO WE BREATH AIR?!?! HAHAHA, CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!!! Seriously though, there are two types of people - one who want to understand and accept the world as it is and the others who want the world to be exactly as they want it to be. The problem is, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson put it, the world doesn't care about your believes. Gravity won't stop working just because you don't believe in it. It's not an opinion. It's the simple truth.

  • Controversial messages? Only see repeated ones, which have been answered so many times, with facts.

  • Confucius say, "It's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

This reply was deleted.