Conservapedia tries to call out Penn Jillette

This is just plain weird: convinced of the superiority of their “argument” (mainly that their super-dad made everything so a few white people can enjoy it), they’ve decided to specifically target Penn Jillette to a debate on evolution. Firstly, they want him to answer their “15 questions evolutionists can’t answer”, a grab-bag collection of old creationist canards they think has merit. I’ll summarize them here:

  1. How did life originate?
  2. How did the DNA code originate?
  3. How could mutations create the variety of life we have?
  4. Why is natural selection taught to explain the diversity of life?
  5. How did biochemical pathways originate?
  6. We think it looks designed. Why don’t you agree?
  7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
  8. How did sex originate?
  9. Why are transitional fossils “missing”?
  10. Why hasn’t evolution transformed everything into something super-smart?
  11. How did evolution create morality?
  12. Why does society “tolerate” the teaching of evolution?
  13. Where are all the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
  14. Evolution deals with history. Why is it a science?
  15. We think evolution is a religion. Why is it taught in science class?

I recommend you actually read the fully phrased version. It’s fucking hilarious. Anyways, they also make a few stabs at his weight, which has become their new obsession as of late. They wrote an article recently suggesting the despair of abandoning God, or being angry at him, creates depression which leads eventually to obesity. It’s rather deranged logic, especially since there’s actually data to suggest the opposite. Regardless, it seems like a ploy to try and piss him off. I’m willing to bet it doesn’t work.

Penn has nothing to gain from engaging these bozos, since they’re so caught up in their little delusion they actually think the “evidence” of evolution points to their creator God. It makes me wonder how anyone can accept “God did it” as a satisfactory answer to all 15 of their little questions.

Comments (8)

  • avatar

    Sterling Knight

    You know how hard they fail? Questions 10 – 15 are on page 1 and questions 1 – 9 are on page 2.

  • avatar


    [whisper]It’s a 3 panel double sided leaflet set out for printing, it’s meant to be like that so it looks right when folded…[/whisper]

  • avatar

    Tom C

    Penn actually addressed this last week in his Penn Point podcast. Give it a watch, because it’s actually pretty funny. He essentially has no idea who these jamokes are, he knows he is fat, he points out their “proof” that he’s fat, and then points out that Richard Dawkins is rather thin.

  • avatar


    Those creationists are so ridiculously clueless and completely delusional and batshit crazy that it doesn’t worth to lose our precious time with them (and Dawkins knows that perfectly well)

  • avatar


    The thing that always amuses/infuriates/fascinates me about Crearionist arguments (particularly when dressed up in the Emporer’s New Clothes of Intellogent Design) is the plain and simple truth, obvious to all sides, that such questions about, and objections to evolution, raised as “problems”, like those paraphrased above, are absolutely *not* why the other side chooses to reject evolution in favour of the ancient, tried and tested, theologically impregnable… “God did it!”

    Two minutes at your search engine of choice would give you scientifically rigorous, simple to understand answers to all of their make-believe issues with evolution. They would have no problem, finding, understanding and verifying such answers to a level that would satisfy even the most doubting of Thomases (the most underrated character in the Bible).

    But what I do see in the nature of their arguments and tactics is however a much clearer indication of their real position; I can’t in good faith use the term argument here, as their position is (unsurprisingly) utterly vacuous.

    The problems they have with evolution are quite simply that it demotes humans to the rank of file(um) of other animals, stinging deeply the proud, yet weak spirited who find consolation in religious oppression; and, of course, that it removes the need to deploy their favourite answer to everything that would otherwise take time, effort and commitment to understand… “God did it!”, and in doing so directly contradicts, and so fundamentally undermines, the already desperately weak doctrines of their faith.

    So given that, I really don’t think it’s worth trying to intellectually engage with proponents of such nonsense, because despite protestations to the contrary, their arguments and objections are not intelligent or designed, but simply the all-too-pathetic, and sadly all-too-familiar babblings of people too afraid, or unable, or unwilling to accept the simple truths of the universe we live in.

  • avatar

    Amrut the Atheist

    The last two are not relevant to the big question, it’s just there to annoy us

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top