By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
(CNN)–Famed TV scientist Bill Nye is slamming creationism in a new online video for Big Think titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children."
"Denial of evolution is unique to the United States," Nye begins in a YouTube video posted on Thursday. The video quickly picked up steam over the weekend and as of Monday morning had been viewed more than 1,100,000 times.
Nye – a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program, "Bill Nye the Science Guy" – said the United States has great capital in scientific knowledge and "when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everyone back."
"Your world becomes fantastically complicated if you don't believe in evolution," Nye said in the Web video.
Creationists are a vast and varied group in the United States. Most creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
In the creation account, God creates Adam and Eve, the world, and everything in it in six days.
For Christians who read the Genesis account literally, or authoritatively as they would say, the six days in the account are literal 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.
Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique
The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for the past 30 years. In June it released its latest findings, which showed 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.
During the 30 years Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years.
Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins
"The idea of deep time of billions of years explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, itself inconsistent," Nye said in the video.
"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems," he said.
Creationists' beliefs about the origins of the Earth are often a narrow focus, based in large part on religious beliefs, and while they reject evolution as "just one theory," they often embrace other fields of science and technology.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
In "The Genesis Flood," the 1961 book that in many ways help launch the Young Earth creationism movement in the United States, the authors write: “Our conclusions must unavoidably be colored by our Biblical presuppositions, and this we plainly acknowledge." Their goal for the book was to harmonize the scientific evidence with the accounts in Genesis of creation and the flood.
The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution.
"In another couple centuries I'm sure that worldview won't even exist. There's no evidence for it. So..." Nye ends his video.
As far as God creating the world in six (literal) days; says who? As far as the earth being only 6,000-10,000 years old, I think any sane person would question that. Perhaps God has made more than one world here........
My biggest problem with evolution is the missing link. If we evolved from chimps etc., why are there still chimps? why didn't they all evolve into humans? Why is there no "in between" species present? Big bang? OK, who/what pulled the trigger?
As far as evidence, I don't think either theory (creationism or evolution) has the evidence to support it. At this point neither theor can be proven conclusively.
Partly it's because humans didn't evolve FROM chimps. Humans and chimps evolved separately from some common ancestor.
Evolution doesn't say we evolved from chimps. No wonder you people believe in creationism, you don't even bother to learn the most simple concepts of evolution.
A lot more missing than a one missing link my friend!
What ever your beliefs in a God or your religion, it really has nothing to do with Evolution being the correct answer to how all of this came about.
Evolution is a childish fairy tale, just silly in every form it presents itself. It to has its "preachers" and zealots...
Evolution has vast amounts of evidence to support it. You can start your reading and learning here:
In contrast, ready evidence directly contradicts statements in the Christian bible about the basics of biology, such as how diseases propagate, and even about basic bodily functions, e.g. of the kidneys.
We want answers Sue..... NONE are provided, everyone just points to their "Bible" and says, its all right there...
Credulity is all I see among the proponents of evolution...no REAL facts..
Snake eyes, you clearly have no idea what the theory of evolution is. It's the idea that living things evolved from common ancestors, not each other. We can see by looking at other primates and studying their genetics and history,as well as those of previous species of hominids, that we have common traits. It's not like evolution says humans and butterflies evolved from common ancestors.
There are always missing pieces in science, but that doesn't mean what is known is invalid. Theories are not wild guesses, they are tested by observable facts and those tests can be reliably verified. Just because we didn't know what caused lightning at one time doesn't mean it was just as likely created by gods hurling light at each other in the sky.
If the universe was created by a big bang, there is still room for your god in the scenario. Evolution can explain HOW, but not necessarily the WHY.
At any rate to say the creationism is just as likely as evolution is just ignorant. But if you're going to say that, you must also believe the the Hindu creation story is just as likely, or any other you can dream up, just because you can't really prove one over the other.
And Sue, what does one idea have to do with the viability of the other, even if the Bible does not have it right, that does not in any way bolster the silly little doctrine that is evolution.
Mike, what ancestor? Why did some eveolve into humans while other evolved into chimps? Prove it with facts.
Oneironaut, Good post. My point is simply neither theory can be proven. Saying one is just as likely as the other is not ignorant; to me it is the only thaing that makes good sense.
We did not evolve from chimpanzees. Chimpanzees, humans, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans (etc) all share a common ancestor. From that ancestor we diverged into distinct species.
As to who pulled the trigger to start the big bang, maybe thats a matter of faith.
jOHNB166, WHAT COMMON ANCESTOR? ON WHAT DO YOU BASE THIS? FACTS PLEASE (NOT THEORIES), FACTS!
You are aware that the theory of evolution in NO way suggests that human beings evolved "from" apes or monkeys, right? If you are going to question the premise of a theory, at least learn what it is you are questioning, first. Evolution proposes that human beings and modern apes and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor. This split in the evolutionary family tree happened millions of years ago. One evolutionary path moved toward humans and other paths led toward monkeys, other great apes. There were numerous dead-end branches, as well, like Neanderthals. The idea that evolution suggests humans descended from monkeys is a straw man argument put forward by evolution deniers who want to make evolution look as ridiculous as possible, or by people who honestly don't understand the theory and have just heard the straw man argument and don't know any better.
It cannot yet (and may never be) proven what that common ancestor was millions of years ago, but to use that as the excuse to discount the theory is ridiculous. Yes, it is a theory. But it is the best working theory we've got that can actually be backed up by logic. There is no logic to creationism – none. That is a big difference for me. Science has speculated and predicted the existence of many things before they could be proven. Who knows what evidence awaits discovery for this. As for the "why didn't they all evolve into humans" nonsense... Again, you just have no understanding of th theory. You seem to assume some predetermined outcome here (humans), and that's just not how evolution is theorized to work. Once populations become isolated (a necessary condition for evolution), different pressures begin to impact the different populations differently. Some may find advantages in a certain type of teeth that will help them eat nuts prevalent in their current environment. Those with naturally bigger teeth will be better able to utilize this food resource, allowing them to survive when members of their group with smaller teeth starve, thus leaving the big toothed ones to prosper and reproduce, thus increasing the frequency of big teeth genes in their gene pool. Over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, the change in gene frequency has altered the physical aspects of the species as a whole. Perhaps another population of the original species finds itself somewhere where they need good hand-eye coordination to catch their food. Those with naturally goo coordination survive and reproduce at fast rates, altering the frequency of genes in their pool, et,etc,etc. Rinse and repeat. Yes, that was way over simplified, but hopefully you can get the point. Evolution only occurs when environmental pressures result in an alteration of gene frequency in a population. It is not predestined. I is not universal or inevitable. And that is why not all members of the ancestor species evolved into humans. Other populations faced different pressures and evolved differently to fill different niches in their environments.
Clarification: isolation of separate populations is necessary for divergent evolution. I apologize for leaving out an important word.
Bill Nye = NOT a man my family admires. We prefer to have loving intact marriages and Faith in God
What does that have to do with anything....
So Susan, can we assume you oppose the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, et al ? And of course you'll be leading the charge to make divorce and adultery illegal, right ?
Yes, Susan, let's not admire a man who tries to instill a love of learning in our children. Let's instead admire a made-up philosophy that instills fear and hate in them.
My belief in the scientific theory of evolution has nothing to do with my loving marriage of over 10 years and my faith. It IS possible to accept evolution AND believe in God.
Not believing in evolution "holds people back". Really ??? Mathimatically the probability for evolution to hold any credence is way beyond that of creationism. The probability that there is a high power (God) has more probability than evolution. Evolutions foundation of how things evolved has so many more zero's behind it than a God creating the immense amount of order that is in our world and our universe. Look at things from that perspective. Everything has order in it in our natural world. There are high powers that are unseen to us in this dimension – both very good and very evil.
Thanks for proving the point, Jeff.
Ladies and gentlemen: the dumbing down of America.
Mind throwing some facts behind your assertions, Jeff? Because from what I can tell, you're just making up statements to support your point of view.
"The probability that there is a high power (God) has more probability than evolution."
So the probabilty that an intelligent god created everything is greater than things occuring naturally.
How do you come up with a probability of something that exists beyond time and space , has never been observed in any fashion what so ever, but created everything? As opposed to a natural occurance that has up to this point been the explanation of every occurance in nature.
I think you need to re-check your math.
Come on, CNN – amp up these articles. I know you're working on it, but we've got to do more to counter the GOP National Convention. Remember, we're a team.
Oh, and Bill Nye is ordinarily such a large contributor to CNN.
Guess what, g00f? Many conservatives don't believe in creationism and also believe the Darwin theory has holes. Check out the work of Lloyd Pie. I'm not saying I accept his theories, but he pokes enough holes into Darwin's theory and also recognizes that Genesis is a fairy tale.
I think it's a fair bet that no one in Africa or the Middle East were named Adam and Eve several thousand years ago, had their offspring in-breed, and so on and so on......then again, maybe that's our problem.
People around the world doubt evolution. South Korea has a strong anti-evolution movement. There are Darwin skeptics in England, Spain and other parts of Europe. One of the largest creation organizations is in Australia. Nye is sadly misinformed. He states no facts about Russia, the Middle East, Africa, or South America, but expects readers to just accept his sweeping Generality. Even if it were true, would he really want America to imitate the rest of the world?
A member of the faithful is calling someone else narrow-minded? That's almost as funny as believing Jesus could have possibly, in any way, been a white guy.
Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
There are also populations of people around the world that believe the moon landing didn't happen, that Elvis and JFK aren't really dead and Holocaust, what Holocaust?
What Nye is trying to demonstrate is that in the US, if you go by the statistic in the story, nearly HALF of Americans believe in Adam, Eve and some business about an apple and snake; and that the world is only thousands of years old and that dinosaurs are a cosmic joke from God. HALF.
That statistic demonstrates that a huge part of the population is willfully ignorant. And now we get to watch while Creationists imprison Nye in a tower until he recants his sacreligous talk much in the way Galileo was imprisoned by the Church for supporting the scientific theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the universe revolving around the Earth.
I have a number of problems with his statements:
1. "Denial of Evolution is unique to the United States." Really? Because I can name twenty countries, off the top of my head, in which people deny Evolution exists. And no, they're not all muslim theocracies. There are people in the UK, France, Italy, and indeed every First World country that are skeptical of evolution, or outright deny it.
That goes to show that there are idiots everywhere.
Stop making stuff up. I live in France and I have never met a creationist.
So, if God created the Universe, then where was God before the Universe existed?
Salt Lake City. Utah
String theory shows that there up to 11 dimensions, and our universe is manifested in the third dimension. God comes from one of those higher dimensions where time is not a factor and could exist without teh universe even being here
Bill Nye thank you! Secular knowledge is Objective and alows humans the ability of Free Thinking and Reasoning! Religions monotheistic or polytheistic are subjective!!!
That's a nutty thing to say. Objective? What kind of modernist elixer have you been drinking? If there is no god and no ultimate reality, we have nothing by which to approach objectivity but a mish-mash of opinions and perspectives that can never hope to know anything with any certainty. The events of the past decade have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the scientific community is driven by government money and political correctness far more than any genuine desire for "objective" knowledge. Take a look at the lynching the professor at the University of Texas is getting for suggesting that unstable gay homes are not as healthy for children as homes where two committed parents are providing consistency over long stretches of time. Science is dead.If there is no god, might makes right and the sciences are always manipulated to serve the desires of the powerful.
BILL NYE isn\'t a theologian and is not qualified to make theistic determinations any more than my auto mechanic (perhaps less, because my mechanic doesn\'t have a conceited view of his academic credentials).
BILL NYE is a religious bigot and is NOT a professional educator. As such he has no authority to determine what is or is not appropriate for children.
BILL NYE should stick to the scope of his specialty because he\'s revealed to one and all his bigotry and his complete lack of educational and cultural understanding.
\"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.\"
– Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
and that\'s just me, hollering from the choir loft...
When magical theistic claims violate our natural understanding of the universe, experts in the various fields can most certainly point out scientific inaccuracies.
Yep... youi small minded zealots are always looking for an "authority" to do all your thinking for you. Why don't you all just rapture yourselves off to your omnipotent sky king? You could be in heaven TODAY! Wouldn't that be great (for all of us)?
Lucifer, eternity is a LONG time. Hope you have your CamelBak filled.
A short of those (living and deceased) who have made significant contributions to our understanding of the world and cosmos through science who also happen to believe (or believed when living) in creation by a divine being. In looking at this list, I find myself wondering what the world would be like without these men and women and their creationist belief inspired discoveries.
Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
John Grebe (chemist)
Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
George F. Howe (botanist)
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
There is ZERO evidence to support your assertion that any of their discoveries were related in any way, shape, or form to their belief in a Creator.
You forget to mention that some on your list would have been tortured and burned alive unless they proclaimed to be christian. Good job, religion.
Many of those people were not creationist. However, even if they were all creationist it would not change the fact that evolution is one of the most supported theories in all of science.
A short list of scientists named Steve that accept evolution.
Well I'm convinced. All these people who have a whole lot of book learnin' degrees MUST know more than me. Oh Jesus,
will you ever forgive me enough to let me in to the Disneyland of eternity? Jesus? Jesus? Test..test... is my prayer
Bill Nye is talking about Young Earth Creationism, or Biblical Literalism, not all religious belief.
Please point to any of these who include in their discovery the bit where it says "and here in this part of my discovery God does something magical".....
Nice work. Now watch the the haters scramble and mutter and babble. So smart, they are. So sophisticated. So intellectual. So enlightened. So tolerant. So predictable. So pathetic. Fight them. Shun them. Pity them. Tell them to go to hell.
Creationism supports the idea of something being created from nothing. Sound like Harry Potter to you? Me too.
"Nye – a mechanical engineer" Oh well then I guess he's qualified to make such a statement . . . Children are equally poorly served by having Darwinism crammed down their gullets as though it is the gospel truth also. It is increasingly clear that Darwin was not entirely correct either – oh, and by the way, I have a PhD – in SCIENCE.
Well duh, we know darwin wasn't correct about everything. Bottom line, evolution explains the evidence better than anything else does. God or not.
Who created God? His mommy and daddy doing the big bang thing when God's older siblings were in bed?
What kind of science Dave, political science? Social science? Engineering is science, btw. He's much more qualified to speak about evolution than the vast majority of people who talk about Creationism.
... and I'm the dark lord of the underworld.
Well, I'm certainly hoping it's not in cell or molecular biology.
Which specific science do you hold a PhD in, Dave? Is it a science in which you require the use of molecular physics, radioactive isotopes and measuring their half-life? Or is it a science in which you accept the construct of an atom and hypocritically deny what said atom may have to say about the age of Earth?
@Brian, how do you explain the existance of C-14 in items that carbon dating methods show to be millions of years old? Have you read anything about the studies of the Mt. St. Helen's erruption and the rapid burial of elements and the findings? Are you aware that Macro Evolution requires the suspension/dismissal of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? (by the way, heat/energy from the Sun increases the entropy of a system) If Macro evolution is true, why don't we see any transitionary animals now? Are you familiar with micro biology and irreducible complexity?
Well I'll go tell all the evolutionary biologists that briangut just discovered evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics LOL
If only we had a giant source of energy... say a nuclear furnace of some sort... to bombard the earth with photons that could supply the energy for life processes. Then we wouldn't need a Jesus...
who says we are not seeing aniumals in the middle of evolution? evolution happens over many many years and also goes by environment and the need to adapt. we had gobbs of hair at one point now, for the most part, we dont have nearly as much hair on ourbodies. that is evolution of our bodies saying we dont need the hair because we now have clothing.
Please cite cases of C-14 in million year old samples. I suspect that any such example is due to contamination, background detection, or other well-docu.mented situations.
The 2nd Law is not violated, that is a misunderstanding of the 2LOT. Earth is not a closed system and the increase in entropy is overall, which allows for localized decreases.
Technically, all animals are trasitional, not between two existent animals, but between their ancectors and their descendents.
How does one measure the reducibility of complexity?
Talk orgins gives explanations to everything you just mentioned. You are wrong on all counts.
C-14 can only date things a far back as 56,000 yrs and only organic samples.. There are 40 other radiometric dating isotopes for use in dating much older samples including non-organics.
Yeah, you don't want the kids to learn the true story. Just teach them the absurd story that we all evolved from plankton. America need to stand up for our values and eliminate the liberal "new thinking" mentality that is set to ruin us all.....
Yes we need to shun technology and advancement. Let's start with your computer and internet connection.
Or you can teach them that man and dinosaurs coexisted 6,000 years ago. Yeah, that'll work.
Finally, someone who makes sense on here! We should call evolutionist, "plankton faces" from now on!
I am a mechanical engineer too and it's about time the thing be called THE LAW OF EVOLUTION.
Laws only apply in mathematics and logic. Science doesn't have laws, a theory is as high as it gets.
Huebert, you are wrong. What about the first and second law of thermodynamics in physics? How about the law of gravity? Hunds law in chemistry? Please don't voice your uninformed opinion again as it ridicules to the extreme. Again, it is time the so called "theory" of evolution be called the LAW OF EVOLUTION. No amount of denial from the ignorant like you will change the facts.
Exactly right. Theory is the pinnacle of a scientific model. So overwhelming is the evidence in support of evolution that it is acceptable to say it is a fact.
@ass hole steve
Thermodynamics are laws based on equations. So mathematics. Huebert is correct
Hunds law....had to look this one up....also an equation....actually 3 rules...all equations
same for the law of gravity..F=Gm1m2/d2
Those equations...such as the ones for the Law of Gravity, are empirical derivations expressed in mathematical form. Just stay in your realm of fantasy and talk about Adam and Eve, ok? Leave the LAW OF EVOLUTION alone.
Anyone else find it funny that you can't tell the true Christians from the ones parodying them?
If evolution is true than how come im not evolving into a monkey right now? Boom, suck it evolution.
"If evolution is true than how come im not evolving into a monkey right now? Boom, suck it evolution."
If that happend it would disprove evolution. Funny, your explanation of what is it, is the exact opposite.
Hey Bill Nye open your mind – it is a very plausible THEORY that an Intelligent Being created and set in motion all the laws of science and evolution. This idea complements the THEORY of evolution as well. It is good for children to hear and consider all THEORIES. It is bad for children to present only one THEORY as proven fact. People who consider and can see the logic and possiblity of both are moving more toward the middle ground which generally holds more truth than the far right or left sides of an argument.
It's a hypothesis... and an unfalsifiable hypothesis at that.
The difference between the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism is that creationism is simply made up. It's akin to the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. Just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it's true. Evolution is the ONLY theory supported by scientific evidence, and the only reason why it's still a theory is because we can't go back in time and observe this evolution happening first hand. Similar to how it's still the theory of gravity, even though it's a basic scientific principle.
Please educate yourself on the requisites for a scientific theory. Seriously you people sound like high school dropouts.
The idea that an intelligent being created the universe isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis, an incredibly weak one that isn't supported by any empirical evidence....just faith.
Ummm....no, sorry. Intelligent Design is NOT a theory. you obviously don't know what a theory is. A theory is a well tested model that holds up when tested numerous times. Intelligent design is not even testable, therefore not even a theory.
It is a proven fact with tons of evidence. You close that hole in your head.
Gravity is a THEORY. Atoms are a THEORY. Wind is a THEORY. The speed of light is a THEORY.
In the scientific world there is no such thing as a law or fact, that is public influence. Nothing moves beyond theory. Even the idea of gravity is still a THEORY. So while I applaud your use of terminology to justify your argument, it is still inaccurate. Evolution is a theory, just as everything else we observe around us is.
@independentlyowned: Just wondering if anyone who "believes" in theories put forth by the science textbook "bibles" personally has irrefutible evidence that the human writers of these books have not committed fraud or misrepresentation within their scientific evidence and research? That seems to be a big argument against the bible – are you saying that human scientists would never falsify, tamper with or withhold information in order to further their personal or collective agendas? You could also be defending and misleading others to believe in something "made up" . In my opinion if someone thinks that a collection of books written by many people with hundreds of witnesses can be tampered with, then certainly scientific research and data can be tampered with as well.
@PT that's why they have peer review.
"Your world becomes fantastically complicated if you don't believe in evolution..." A better way of saying this is that your world become fantastically complicated (and a bit difficult) if you don't follow in lockstep with the educational and scientific "elite" who have decided that they alone are qualified to define truth. And the notion that a creationist cannot be a scientist is nonsense. There are plenty of people who believe the Biblical account of creation and are extremely talented scientists, because they understand the difference between observational science and historical science. But they are effectively silenced by the rest of the largely atheistic scientific community. Incidentally, these are the same people who will excommunicate you from the scientific community if you don't subscribe to their global warming dogma.
"In another couple centuries I'm sure that worldview won't even exist..." A lot of folks said that 2,000 years ago.
This whole article reeks of a modern day inquisition, except this time around, the church is the scientific and academic community and the religion is humanism.
I just love the zealots who are trying to dipute the validity of carbon dating, saying its "only" valid for 10,000 years or so.
Your book of toilet paper, the bible, claims the earth is only 6,000 years old. That is wrong. You know its wrong, yet you insist the bible is the word of some sky god who is perfect in every way. Please, if you insist on remaining ignorant and believing in fantasy, move to Iran. You'll fit right in.
All I know is that most of the people who claim to know what the Bible says, be they athiests, creationists, evolutionists or whatever, have not actually read it. That is the only way to know what it says, and to intelligently discuss its content, pro or con.
@joel, nice to see christians like you are ignorant fools to think that we athiests dont read the bible. I have read the bible 7 times, working on #8 since I was a child. I grew up in the church and learned of its hypocrycy. do some research dummy, athiests have been proven to know more about the bible than most pathetic christian wannabes
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.