The 'Science Guy' explains why creationism is bunk

I have responded section by section. Evolution is the foundation for modern science. Bill Nye in this video  explains that creationism, or the ironically evolved term, intelligent design, needlessly complicates things. He is exactly right, of course. Creationists state that life is so complex that it needs a creator, not understanding that over the course of tens of millions of years there were countless trillions of organic molecules interacting with each other in a trial and error process to create each new step up to the first cell.   I think it’s a bit overreaching to make a blanket statement that creationists don’t understand “that over the course of tens of millions of years there were countless trillions of organic molecules interacting with each other in a trial and error process to create each new step up to the first cell.” I’ve studied evolution since 1967, including 4 years during which I taught it, and I think I have a pretty good handle on what the theory proposes.  I also know that Darwin(because of the time in which he lived) did not have any idea of the complexity of organelles on a cellular level, much less the mechanism by which cells constructed these incredibly complex organelles, repaired themselves, and passed on their unique characteristics.  The structural makeup of an organism is the very simplest part of the potentially evolved whole.  It’s the information and coding systems that are considered by knowledgeable creationists as too impossibly complex to have evolved.     Now, if evolution is not true, it has to explain a number of things. Well, what about dinosaur bones? Where did they come from? Amazingly there are actually creationists who deny that dinosaurs even existed. Supposedly their deity put them in the earth to test the faith of believers. That is of course why faith is worthless, intellectually, it is anti-reason and tells people to believe in nothing backed by intellectual merit. So, in a way it is a belief in nothing, something atheists are told they have a belief in. You are correct in stating that there are creationists who do not believe dinosaurs ever existed, but I bet if you looked hard enough you could also find a number of evolutionists who believes in bigfoot.  That would not in any way negate the evidence they have to support their belief in evolution nor would it be fair to use that small sampling of evolutionists as an argument against evolution.   To have a fair discussion I think it would be best if we leave the fringe elements at home and concentrate on the evidence presented. I believe the theory of evolution is one possible interpretation of the evidence available.  However, I believe that creationism is just as valid an interpretation.  There are many brilliant scientists on both sides of this debate and I think it’s a shame it has become a mud-slinging, name calling argument rather than the scientific endeavor for truth that it should be.  As a Christian I apologize for the ignorant, reactionary  responses from this side of things and I hope that in the future there can be more real science and civilized discussion that will lead to a better understanding of our beginnings. Sadly, people like Bill Nye get ignored for scientific illiterates such as Ben Stein. Ben Stein by the way, is somebody that the religious right-wing still hold up as a hero for supposedly trapping in an interview Dr. Richard Dawkins (one of the world's most respected biologists and atheists) for his statement that if he had to pick an example of intelligent design that was true, it would be aliens developing life and sprinkling it on a planet. This was his belief, and mine and many others, if there was actual intelligent design in the universe, it would be this. I nor he, do not believe that is the probable way life on our planet started, which is much more likely to have been purely natural in origins. This supposed trap by Stein was supposed proof that Dr. Dawkins did not believe in evolution, which he clearly does. The fact is, the religious right-wing have to openly lie to not only others, but themselves. I don’t personally know of any educated creationists who would accept Ben Stein’s “trapping of Richard Dawkins” as proof of anything.  I understand you are an evolutionist through and through and I respect that and would not denigrate you personally for your beliefs, even though I disagree with you whole-heartedly.  I would only request that you consider returning the favor by not assuming that every creationist is an ignorant, judgmental religious zealot. If you would like to see what I consider a truer picture of what an educated, intelligent creationist believes and why, you might consider looking at a website hosted by Creation Ministries International: www.creation.com. This is not a poorly disguised attempt to convert you.  I would just like for you to  see some of the real science that is being practiced by men and women who believe in a creationist model.  Just in case you do accept this invite, I apologize in advance for the proselytizing and very obvious disdain for evolutionists you will encounter on the site, but again, this doesn’t minimize the veracity of the science being conducted by these very intelligent and dedicated folks. You might also enjoy a list of “arguments not to use” that has been put together by the same people that again may just show you that not all creationists grab onto any argument out there in a misguided attempt to prove the “satanic” evolutionists wrong.  I hope you realize the satanic part was a joke. So we need more Bill Nyes, unfortunately in talk radio, we get more Ben Steins. How about if we have neither, just real folks having a valid scientific disagreement. By the way, just in case you were wondering, I am a follower of Jesus, and I read and believe the Bible to the best of my ability to understand it.  That being said, as more knowledge is gained by real open-minded research, I expect my faith to be proved true.  Any discussion I have with someone who believes in another paradigm is conducted based on physical evidence, not on a book that only one of us believes in.