home
RSS
Bill Nye slams creationism
August 27th, 2012
11:31 AM ET

Bill Nye slams creationism

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.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Creationism • Science

soundoff (14,640 Responses)
  1. Jeepgirl

    "science is based in fact; religion is based in myth..........so one is real the other fake"

    Science is based on finding the facts, but many times throughout history different scientific theories (once beleived as fact) have been proven incorrect- thus creating a new theory based off the original but inclusive to the new facts that have arisen. As we continue to evolve so do our theories.

    I personally think of religion/god in the same manner. I personally beleive that there is something greater than us – what/who/how etc... I don't know. Obviously we've been around longer than 6,000 years – that has been proven so no argument there. HOWEVER – it has not been proven that we came from nothing. That is a theory, just as having a "creator" is another theory. There is no evidence that a creator did not or COULD not exist.

    To those who compare God to Santa Claus, I would just like to point out that the idea of Santa Claus actually originated from a real person. Over time the story grew and became the fiction that it is today. Many fictional characters are based off of someone real so the God we hear of today may just be some exaggeration by man of who/what he really was/is. It doesn't mean he doesnt or never existed at all.

    But I digress, I grew up watching Bill Nye the science guy – in fact as a little girl he inspired me to play with microscopes and science kits. However, I think it is irresponsible of him to try and tell anyone what they should tell their kids to beleive. Every parent should encourage their children to know all theories and come to their own conclusion. Both Science AND religion (I said religion not "religious" people) encourage a quest for truth.

    I would also like to point out that parents should encourage their children to not just beleive everything they are told regardless of whether it is at church or school etc.. I know there are a lot of things I was taught in history class as a young child that the school "left out" very important facts. Public schools teach you the bare minimum of what they want/think you should know. When I got older I learned much more when I was given the freedom to explore and research on my own as opposed to having some textbook shoved down my throat.

    Evolution is taught in school as it should – but other theories should at least be mentioned as well to open a dialogue and inspire kids to think for themselves.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • Simran

      Jeepgirl,
      Well, it is pretty simple. The other theories are called religion and they have no place in science class.
      You can however teach it in Social Sciences class, as they do it in my country. But again, caution, teach about every religion bcoz yours is not the only one. And US is not a Christian nation! They do that in my country – I learnt the basic philosophies of all religions in school.
      My religion – I learnt at home.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • T-Max73

      Except that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it has no evidence in support of its core contention, which is that a god guided or started the process of evolution. Further, all scientific theories MUST be falsifiable. There is no statement or fact that would falsify ID's premise. You do not understand science-you simply want to keep believing nonsense and try to square it with irrefutable scientific facts and discoveries. Go read a book on evolutionary theory (and also look up the definition of "scientific theory" and how it defers from the general use of the word) and THEN come back here and make some comments. Peace.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Simran

      And religion has failed in its quest for truth more often than it has ever succeeded. Look around how much violence exists in the name of religion.
      Look around – these people who are pushing creationism are basically protecting their religion. Do you think they care about the faiths of other people? If so, then why aren't they united with other theists of the world? Why isn't the Hindu or the Sikh or Buddhist or Jain worried about science taking control? Bcoz they know better.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Jeepgirl

      @Simran- I never said anything about Christianity or teaching Christianity or any other religion in school. My point was that evolution should be taught as a theory and in relation to the theory of how we exist – other theories should be mentioned to open a dialogue amongst the students. Beleive it or not there are other theories of our existence beyond Evolution or Creationism – mind you those theories may be based off one or the other but my point was that children should be encouraged to be free-thinkers. In school we had to write about what we were taught regarding evolution. To me it would be more beneficial if the children in addition to writing about what they were taught- were encouraged to write what they think.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      At the beginning of time, the heavens and the earths were mixed together in a great cloud. Slowly, the clearer, lighter parts of the cloud rose up and became heaven. The heavier parts of the cloud descended and became an ocean of muddy water. Between the heavens and the earth, a pale green sprout began to grow. It grew swiftly and was extremely strong. When the plant’s flower burst open, the First God emerged. This First God then created Izanagi, is the god of all that is light and heavenly. Izanagi, whose name means "the male who invites", and his wife and sister Izanami, whose name means "the female who invites". The First God gave Izanagi the task of finishing the creation of the world.

      Should the above Shinto creation "theory" be taught in school alongside Abrahamic creationism?

      August 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Moo

      Scientific theories that have been shown to be "wrong" in the past were at best only shown to be partially wrong, and more often than not the wrong parts were forced upon scientists by religion and the church.

      Modern scientific theories are certainly at least partially true because they have led to technological advance and application. The only changes you'll see to modern scientific theories are very detailed changes to very small pieces of the theory, not an entire paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts in science have historically resulted from revolution against the church and anti-intellectual philosophies.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • sammy zoso

      Your point is well made. I want to learn as much as possible if I'm in school and that means I want to know the origin and basis for creationism as well as evolution and intelligent design for that matter. I don't need Nye or some school board of local yokels or any government to tell me what my kids should learn or not learn. Doesn't mean I believe in creationism but I want them to learn it all or as much as possible. The theory of evolution does not have all the answers either and in some ways intelligent design makes more sense to me. And not the creationist form of intelligent design.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Moo

      //I never said anything about Christianity or teaching Christianity or any other religion in school. My point was that evolution should be taught as a theory and in relation to the theory of how we exist //

      No it shouldn't. One theory is backed by a preponderance of evidence and the other is an easily falsified hypothesis at best.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Jeepgirl

      @T-Max73
      A theory is still a theory whether you add the word scientific in front of it or not. If you read my comments you see that I encourage free-thinking as opposed to shoving any beleif down anyone's throat. As I stated, I beleive in a higher power – that does not mean I belong to any one religion and it also does not mean I disagree with science. Because again they do not disprove one another. Also for you to state I beleive in nonsense when I did not actually elaborate on what exactly my beleifs consist of is extremely ignorant of you. Try opening your mind, you might be surprised what you find.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Jeepgirl

      Thank you Sammy – I think you were the only one who actually read my post and understood the point I was trying to convey.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Moo

      //A theory is still a theory whether you add the word scientific in front of it or not.//

      No it's not. The common definition of the word as used in everyday conversation is "guess" or "hunch." In science, a theory is a collection of scientifically verified hypotheses that together form a complex understanding of at least loosely related physical phenomena. For instance, the germ theory of disease is not just a guess or a hunch, or most of modern medicine as we know it would be useless. If general relativity was just a hunch, why would we have to adjust for relativistic effects to keep our GPS systems accurate? Do you honestly think cell theory is just a hunch? Quantum mechanics?

      August 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Jeepgirl

      @Doc Vestibule
      I see no reason that theory could or should not be brought into the dicussion. My point was that when students are learning about evolution, other theories should be brought into that discussion. I am glad you used that theory as an example – as I had never heard it before and that is my point exactly – bringing other theories to the table allows for students to explore and think and research. Learn about other cultures, why do they beleive that theory? What is it based on? What evidence is there (if any) to support it?.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Simran

      @Jeep girl,
      The other concepts cannot be called aTHEORY. They are concepts, hypothesis to be exact. Until they are proven, they cannot be accepted. And proof will not come by finding flaws with the existing theory and saying "FILL IN THE BLANKS WITH GOD".

      You may allow the child to think on his own but you cannot teach them as scientific facts. Well, a healthy discussion may go into the area of God, but as I stated before, the discussion should also incorporate the concept of God in other faith systems. Many faiths believe in multiple Gods. WIll these creationists allow that to be taught as well??? Rain god, fire god, god of creation, god of destruction????

      August 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Jeepgirl

      @Moo
      Theory -a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

      Glad to know you're smarter than a dictionary. Joking aside – you and Simran both missed my point entirely. To say that evolution should be the only "theory" discussed in school is just as ignorant as a Christian or other religious person saying that only creationism should be discussed. I know I know – there is no scientic evidence towards creationism, blah blah blah. I am not saying to teach these things as scientific fact – I am saying to put them all on the table present the evidence (if any) and discuss. The students will get a lot more out of that then some textbook that is probably outdated anyway.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • I am God

      Let us not choose a definition of theory that we like to argue our case:

      From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

      A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • Simran

      Sorry about the earlier post, forgot to change name.
      Let us not choose a definition of theory that we like to argue our case:

      From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

      A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Jeepgirl wrote, " Evolution is taught in school as it should – but other theories should at least be mentioned as well to open a dialogue and inspire kids to think for themselves."

      Cool. So, Jeepgirl, let's play a game. Let's take turns listing valid scientific theories that explain the diversification of life on earth. And, when we are done, I think all of us science geeks will agree that this is the list of valid theories that should be taught tom our students describing the diversification of life on earth. Are you OK with that?

      Since this is my game, I'll go first –

      The Theory of Evolution.

      Now you name a valid theory that explains the diversification of life.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • Simran

      Now the first argument would be – Is creationism a theory?
      As you said, it is not.

      You want to have a free-thinking environment for children – fine do so. These innovative skills are most welcome, the world needs them to be free thinkers and not make the same mistakes we made. Educate them of the concept of God where it is most appropriate. What an individual teacher discusses in class is his/her prerogative. U simply cannot put something as a theory in a textbook when it is not.
      I dont think Nye is trying to say that everyone should become atheists.

      Let's be practical – whose agenda is Creationism basically? Like I said before, why aren't Hindus shouting at the top of their voices? Their knowledge of science is far better than these young earth creationists. The Vedas and Upanishads are full of knowledge. Did you know that at the time when Ayurveda was written, they even performed plastic surgery?

      August 28, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Simran

      @Primewonk 🙂
      Now can I bring in the Greek's concept of spontaneous generation? Well, nope, that was not a theory. What a waste?
      Do you have any other in mind, coz I am out of any options here.

      August 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
  2. Dyslexic doG

    Top Ten Signs You're a Christian
    10 – You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
    9 – You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
    8 – You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
    7 – Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
    6 – You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
    5 – You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
    4 – You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs – though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
    3 – While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
    2 – You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
    1 – You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but still call yourself a Christian

    August 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • lolol

      your little attacks prove nothing and you just wasted your time

      August 28, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • scentof reason

      Nailed it.

      Although I find it facinating there are over 10,000 comments on Bill Nye. Sounds like the Science Guy should get his old show back!

      August 28, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Dee

      Thanks! Love it!

      August 28, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • random

      This guy is off his rocker

      August 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Micah

      Thats interesting. I call myself a Christian and almost none of what you said applies to me.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • Sally

      Dyslexic doG – you are absolutely spot on!

      August 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Brian

      Love it! gotta print that one out

      August 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
  3. Dave

    Bill Nye's opinion is neither here nor there. I happen to have met Bill Nye, in person, and in my opinion he's a conceited stuck up arrogant jacka$$ who's managed to convince himself that because he had a "science" fair gig on a local comedy tv show in Seattle (Almost Live) that then got picked up by the Disney corporation that he now has qualifications that greatly exceed his actual faculties. His opinion in this matter is completely irrelevant. Now, as to the matter of teaching creationism in schools, I don't think it's a particularly good idea however, I also think that Darwinism needs to be taught as a theory and that children need to be taught about the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. We need the next generation to be thinkers who question accepted beliefs and explore alternative theories.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • T-Max73

      In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative

      August 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • DizBear

      I think it's fine to show problems with evolutionary theory, HOWEVER, we cannot teach creationism. There is no proof of it. It does not belong in a science classroom.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Dave

      T-Max73 – Don't lecture me about scientific theory. I have a Ph.D. from Duke University in the field of medical science.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Dave

      T-Max73 Nice cut and paste job from Wikipedia tho' You should be congratulated for being able to use the Internet.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "We need the next generation to be thinkers who question accepted beliefs and explore alternative theories."

      Dave,

      That is what science does (which apparently you should know).

      Should we teach children the strengths and weaknesses of the 'theory of gravity' too?

      August 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Joel

      Oh for Pete's sake, not another "just a theory". Educate yourself about what a theory is. Hint – it's not a wild guess that most people use the word to mean.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Thor

      I have a Ph.D. from Duke University in the field of medical science.

      If that’s true then the school has failed you if you don’t know the difference.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Illegal Memes

      @Dave

      If you have gotten a PhD from Duke in the medical sciences, then you would know that Darwinism is passe and that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.

      Just saying...

      August 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • T-Max73

      @DAVE- And I received my MD from Harvard. Impressed? Neither am I. What matters is evidence, not credentials. Come back with some of the former and save me the latter. Peace.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Moo

      //T-Max73 – Don't lecture me about scientific theory. I have a Ph.D. from Duke University in the field of medical science.//

      Then your denial of evolution is either intellectual dishonesty or you're a crappy medical "professional."

      August 28, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Moo

      //I also think that Darwinism needs to be taught as a theory and that children need to be taught about the strengths and weaknesses of the theory.//

      Darwinism is an invented -ism by creationists to strawman biological evolution. It's like calling classical mechanics Newtonism and claiming physicists worship apples.

      As a medical professional, one would think you'd understand that biological evolution, much like general relativity, quantum mechanics, the germ theory of disease, cell theory, plate tectonic theory, etc is a scientific theory and should be taught in science class based on the preponderance of evidence that backs it.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • MilaKunisIsMyGoddess

      T-Rex wasn't even smart enough to remove the citation from within his cut/paste. Way to go, buddy.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Dave wrote, " I also think that Darwinism needs to be taught as a theory".

      Dave then stated that he had a PhD from Duke in a science field.

      Funny. Cause it's only creationists who use the term "Darwinism". Do we teach Newtonism? How about Planckism? Faradayism?

      I'd also think that someone, with a PhD from Duke in a science field, would understand the scientific definition of theory, and that evolution – just like gravity – is both fact and theory.

      These are things Dave should have learned in Junior High.

      August 28, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
  4. Charles

    We'll all know the truth after we die whether or not there is a God. If there is a God, it'll be too late for atheists to change their minds as they'll be too busy wishing for air conditioning.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • T-Max73

      Or, you picked the WRONG god and will be punished. Or, you've wasted your life and financial resources worshipping nothing but an idea. Who will be the loser then?

      August 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Pascal's wager is a terrible argument.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Victim

      So if a gunman puts a gun to my head, and says "Love me! Be my friend! Or die!", that's like a real choice?

      Sorta like the "gift" of free will?

      August 28, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • ThisLady

      Victim – Religion isn't as black and white as Atheists think.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
  5. cuk

    if you need proof of the gallup poll that states that a majority of americans believe in creationism, a poll i found hard to comprehend by the sheer ignorance it illustrates, you need to look no further than the posts following this article.
    bill nye, thank you for a sane voice in a mob of medieval blabbering.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      amen!

      August 28, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
  6. ACB

    Why does my child have to believe in evolution to be an "engineer that can build stuff and solve problems?" So, she believes in creation, how does that impact her ability to understand Chemistry and Physics?

    Why do you consider people who believe differently than you to be "Stupid" or "Dumb, Dumb, Dumb?" Evolution is a theory, not a law.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      For the millionth time:
      The theory of evolution is comprised of 5 laws.
      Theories do not graduate into laws.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Thor

      Because Chemistry and Physics require critical thinking skills not present in people who believe god created us from dirt and ribs.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Brian

      It's a mindset. It means when you attempt to solve a problem, or figure something out, you don't assign it to a magical being, you actually try to find the answer. That is the concern. Critical thinking!!!!!

      August 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      No one is saying you can't believe in creation if you wish. However, you cannot deny evolution because of that belief unless you deny the reality of the world around you. Schools can and should teach creation(s) as literature and philosophy but not as alternatives to science.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • ThisLady

      Thor – To assert that those that believe in creationism are incapable of critical thinking is just plain ignorant. Why aren't Atheists and scientist capable of understanding that ANY belief requires research and critical thought?

      Do you automatically accept as fact all that your professors have told you? If you do, you are no better then a person who believes in God simply because someone told them to. Just because someone else researched and tested it does not mean you have your OWN knowledge of it.

      A person who doesn't believe the same thing as you is not automatically uneducated or any less of a critical thinker then you are.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
  7. Wowsers

    You are probably right Bill. Newton was a hack because he was a christian and a theologian, or perhaps Michael Faraday, or perhaps Lord Kelvin? Yeah, those guys had no clue about science since they were christians.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Which of those people denied evolution?

      August 28, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • ThisLady

      sqeptiq – Bill Nye is the one claiming that Christians deny evolution. He is also the one claiming that Creationism has no room for evolution. There are a LOT of Christians that believe in evolution. Not all Christians believe that the Bible is literal or that the six days were literal 24 hour periods. As Wowsers has pointed out, it IS possible to be a scientist and a Christian. Neither alone has all the answers

      August 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
  8. Charles

    We'll all know the truth after we die whether or not there is a God. If there is a God, it'll be too late for atheists to change their mind as they'll be too busy wishing for air conditioning.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Simran

      @Jeep girl,
      The other concepts cannot be called aTHEORY. They are concepts, hypothesis to be exact. Until they are proven, they cannot be accepted. And proof will not come by finding flaws with the existing theory and saying "FILL IN THE BLANKS WITH GOD".

      You may allow the child to think on his own but you cannot teach them as scientific facts. Well, a healthy discussion may go into the area of God, but as I stated before, the discussion should also incorporate the concept of God in other faith systems. Many faiths believe in multiple Gods. WIll these creationists allow that to be taught as well??? Rain god, fire god, god of creation, god of destruction????

      August 28, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
  9. Lindsey

    Anyone who believes the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs strolled through the Garden with Adam and Eve, and oh yes, that Eve talked to a snake in a tree, need to stop reproducing. Now. And if you already have reproduced, it is fervently wished that your offspring use their brains in a more constructive way than you have.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
  10. KH

    To all God believers: So . . . why did He create living beings? Just bored?

    August 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • kinger

      For Evolution...Lungs never would have had to develop unless the animal was already on land, in which case, they would die before reproducing.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Kinger
      Take a peek at some transitional species like Tiktaalik to see how creatures moved from the sea to the land.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • noel

      He created man in his own image. You jest, but how dare anyone question God's motives?

      August 28, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      @Doc Vestibule

      And some even went back to sea.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • kinger

      For evolution to be true every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      @noel
      "He created man in his own image. You jest, but how dare anyone question God's motives?"

      Aren't you special you little fu*cking mole, who the fu*ck do you think you are, you and your foolish idiotic God?

      August 28, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      @kinger

      There are many species that are both male and female.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • kinger

      The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      @kinger

      Cite your resources.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Evolutionary changes that result in speciation (IE: males and females can't reproduce together anymore) take tens of thousands of generations.
      The changes are subtle, cu/mulative and exponential.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • nope

      @doc vestibull,
      nope

      August 28, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • kinger

      There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
  11. 633music

    God or no God, Bible or no Bible, evolution is a ridiculous little childish fairy tale, plain and simple. NOT a viable option.
    Show me an evolutionist and I will show you a virgin.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Huebert

      Were all virgins? Go back to school child.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • DizBear

      Can you please show me some evidence that DISPROVES evolution?

      August 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Steve

      I'm sure you mean creationism

      August 28, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
  12. Geekgirl72

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

    "Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. "

    Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

    Catholic belief is the world is billions of years old and science can only prove God's existence.

    See St Thomas Aquinas – a scholar 5 Proofs of God Existence. Which uses scientific theory.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
  13. rob

    What a big huge surprise!?!?! No blasphemous moron wants to respond to the fact that these supposed "millions of years" are based on a calendar. Which one? Gregorian or Julian or what? I predict, with GREAT ACCURACY, that NONE of these idiots who claim that God does not exist will be able to answer that question. Seems the morons forgot the starting line of this big huge marathon and can't back up their "scientific proof" with any quantifiable answer. You MUST answer the question of which calendar if your claims of "millions of years" is to have any validity at all. I can save you evolutionists some time. You HAVE not validity in your statements, unless you can state which calendar.... (grumbling... morons....)

    August 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Nick

      lol

      August 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      rob,

      All of this is moot. Until you can prove your claim that there is a God and you have empirical evidence to support your claim then everything else is just hyperbole.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • rob

      Exactly, Nick. What a bunch of morons. They got their heads so far into the books that they forgot who they are.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • ME II

      @rob,
      Which calendar? none really.
      When science refers to millions of years ago, it is referring to orbits of the earth around the sun, not an arbitrary calendar date.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • rob

      The Vocal Atheist, I notice you didn't answer the question. However, I did see that your reply came in on August 28, in the good year of our Lord, 2012 at 1:49 pm. How's that for proof? You are sawing off the very branch that you are standing on, you moron. If you are not going to answer the question, then you don't know. TheVocalAthiest isn't so vocal now, is he..... Jacka$$.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Huebert

      @Rob

      Time on this scale isn't calculated using a calender. It is calculated using the speed of light. In the 1920's Hubble measured the speed, and acceleration with which all objects are receding from us. using this as a base he then extrapolated backwards and found the point at which all objects were in a single point, this was the singularity that became the big bang. We speak in terms of years because that is what most people can understand.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Who Believes?

      Nick, Rob: You are wrong. Creationists don't have to prove God exists, Jesus Christ already did that. Evolutionists have to prove that he was wrong and that is what is leading us down the path of discovery. That is why science exists to prove what is real and not... in a couple millennium man may understand better than today.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • rob

      Hey, Me II, (Moron Enigma, too). What do you think a calendar represents. Is there ANY ATHEIST who will answer the question? You ignore the year zero, and then say there are millions of years. What a bunch of jacka$$es who can't quantify their results, so they make bogus claims using tv shows for the feeble minded like Moron Enigma too here....

      August 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      @rob

      You are an obscene little person that doesn't have a clue that their existence should have been aborted. You bring nothing to the table and I'd rather feed you to the pigs than even give you one iota of knowledge or wisdom. You play some silly little calendar game that really has nothing to do with your God. Like I said, until you can prove there is your God, go fu*ck yourself you sad example of a human.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • rob

      Now that's what I call Vocal, Atheist! Wow. Sounds like I really rattled your chain. Did I hit a little too close to home? I see you still didn't answer the question. No big surprise there. Which calendar? duh.. i dunno.... never taught of dat.....

      August 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • Who Believes?

      @ TheVocalAtheist – Wow down there. You just signaled your inability to intellectually argue facts. My note earlier was misdirected to Rob and Nick when it should have been directed to YOU. Read it then ask yourself because you don't believe does that make it true. Stick to the facts; man will never disprove what occurred 2 thousand years ago but don't fret because it was said "he will come again".

      August 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • rob

      @WhoBelieves: I am singing... AAAA-men AAAAAAAAAA-men AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-men A-men Amen. Hallelujah!

      August 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • ME II

      @rob,
      You aren't making much sense. "...the fact that these supposed 'millions of years' are based on a calendar." The data is based on the number of years prior to now. The calendar used is irrelevant.
      Whether it is 1 BC or -2 (Julian) or -642 (Muslim) or 3760 (Hebrew) does not matter. It is the same time frame relative to now.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      @Who Believes

      "You just signaled your inability to intellectually argue facts."

      What facts Who?

      August 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • rob

      ME II, if it's irrelevant, well that means that August 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm is irrelevant. Now, why don't you get real? August 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm is a REAL TIME on a REAL CALENDAR, and I'm REALLY saying that you CANNOT quantify your claims. This is REALLY happening. Now you can go into a lab and say, oh, I see Zinc changes by a atom ever 1 millionth of a second, or some such crap, but you CANNOT show me LAB RESULTS that show MILLIONS of YEARS. It simply IS NOT TRUTH. Because if it WERE truth, you would be able to tell me that, at a specific time, based on that zinc atom, but NO, you seem to want to reply on August 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm, and then act like it is not based on a calendar. Which one? Still not atheist can answer! THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!

      August 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Who Believes?

      @ ME II: A hundred, thousand, million or billion years is irrelevant. What is the age of the universe and in who's time. That is the deeper question. Man understands the concept of years based on Man's defined understanding. What if " a hundred years" from now we understand it differently like the Earth is "Flat". Then what...?.... It doesn't change the principle question. How did this all happen and Why?

      August 28, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • rob

      @WhoBelieves: My point is that "millions of years ago" is a fairy tale. If it were a REAL thing, one would be able to chart it out relative to a known point in time, such as a calendar. But anyone who tries to do that suddenly realizes that they are inventing a new calendar, and as such, realizes why the Jewish calendar and the Gregorian calendar don't match. Every time that they try to chart out "millions of years in the PAST", it seems they have a problem counting time somewhere around 2000 years ago. As such, they CANNOT quantify their claims, and I move to disqualify Bill Nye's claims and the claims of all those who do not have evidence. They have not facts, these are just "guesses". If they were facts, they could back them up with a chart.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • rob

      Bottom line, you moron atheists don't want to say which calendar because you don't want to admit that your lives are based on he who died so that we could live. And you know it. You cowards. Why don't you drop to you knees and acknowledge the Holy Spirit is one with Jesus and that YOU CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT THAT TRUTH! It is shameful that you run from me the way that you do. Why don't you just answer the question??!?!!??!! uh.... duh..... Where did they all go? God is real, you morons!

      August 28, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • ME II

      August 28th 2,000,000 BC (Gregorian)
      -728763700.5 (Julian day)
      September 24th -1999960 (Julian Calendar)
      Nisan 30th –1996216 (Hebrew)
      Rabi' al-Awwal 19th -2062022 (Islamic)

      That work, rob?

      August 28, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • rob

      Oh, I see now, 2,000,000 years B.C., which is based off the life of Jesus who declared the Holy Spirit, and the Jewish calendar, which only went back less than 4000 years, not millions of years. Now do you see how STUPID you sound? I mean, what you just wrote means what I just wrote. But you don't want to admit it. You are BASING it off of JESUS, but IGNORING WHAT HE SAID. You hypocrite!

      August 28, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • rob

      Nisan 30th –1996216 (Hebrew)? You moron. Nissan is in April, Jacka$$. Today's date is the 10th of Elul, 5772. There is no millions of years in the past in the Hebrew calendar. Get my drift, swifty? You are W-R-O-N-G. And not just a little bit. A lot. Lucky you. You got hands and knees and you can repent.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • rob

      Any of you OTHER moron atheists want to lip? No? Not a one? Big surprise. That's JUST what I predicted would happen at the beginning of this. So why don't you just SHUT IT? Maybe you could learn something. It's a simple question. Which calendar? (more grumbling... moron atheists.... jacka$$es....)

      August 28, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • ME II

      @rob,
      Ah, yes I do see now. You are claiming that because the calendar is BC/AD the it proves Jesus existed. Of course, you are ignoring the fact that 1) it is supposedly based on Jesus' birth but scriptural estimates place his birth between 6BC and 4AD, and 2) the whole BC/AD system wasn't devised until around 500 AD, and 3) counting a calendar as evidence of an event is ridiculous (unless you also believe in Thor [thursday], Woden [Wednesday], and Freya [Friday])

      August 28, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      @rob

      You lead a miserable angry empty life. You are so far deluded that your mental illness has overtaken you. Do you surround yourself with people like yourself? Who would want to be you, or a child of yours, or a relative or a friend. You're just plain crazy and need medical help. Get some before you really snap!

      August 28, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Your so called Jesus was made-up, no proof anywhere of his existence. I mean, I cannot find one thing that validates his existence.

      August 28, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
    • ME II

      @rob,
      "Nisan 30th –1996216 (Hebrew)? You moron. Nissan is in April, Jacka$$."
      the hebrew calendar (lunisolar) does not follow the same year as Gregorian (arithmetic), i.e. the months shift, and it has not always been the same, it has changed.

      August 28, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • rob

      No, Huebert, you cannot make the jump from the calculable "speed of light" to years, and get your expected results. There is no lab that proves that. It is a guess, not a truth, no matter how many believe in it. You have failed to prove your theory. However, I promise that you can try. And I promise that each time you try to prove this in a lab, you will make that attempt on a date that charts to a calendar. So, why don't we just keep this conversation real, and stop drifting off into this fairy-tale land that you and Bill Nye are living in (at Jesus' expense).

      August 28, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • ME II

      p.s.
      I may very well be wrong about the exact date by the Hebrew calendar, as I said before, it is irrelevant to science and the Theory of Evolution.

      August 28, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • rob

      And if you said that pigs fly out of your rear, should we believe that too? This non-sense of claiming that the Hebrew calendar is irrelevant to science and the "theory" of evolution is just another pig-rear false statement with no quantifiable evidence to back that up. Why? Because I can chart when science and the theory of evolution began, using the Hebrew calendar. YOU CANNOT chart when the Hebrews began using all your science and theories. YOU are based off of US, not the other way around. I hope you NEVER forget that! Jacka$$. Any other atheists wanna lip?

      August 28, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
    • rob

      Moron atheists want to claim that we Jews are holding up the progress of the United States based on something they can't even prove. If you can prove it, why not say which calendar? You MORONS. Isn't there even ONE atheist who can answer the question? Not even ONE who can quantify this bogus claim? You are living in God's time, not the other way around, Bill Nye. Why don't you get real and admit it?

      August 28, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      rob, you're the one with the bogus claim. Prove your God and be done with it.

      August 28, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • rob

      Amazing, VocalAthiest. You just keep spouting crap, but never want to answer the question of which calendar. I wonder why that is? Could it be that you are full of crap? That's my guess. Now, which calendar again? Oh, that's right, the world only goes back 5772 or so years. I will remind you that YOU are the one who is making stuff up. What I am saying always existed. I can chart your bullcrap on my calendar. You cannot chart my calendar using all the bullcrap you call science. Science NEEDS my calendar to exist. My calendar is NOT dependent upon science to exist. That should tell you something, if you are even slightly more than an idiot.

      August 28, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
    • rob

      VocalAtheist, why don't you just admit that your life is based on the life of Jesus and the Holy Spirit? It's okay, they already know. Your birthday is exists based on a calendar that is based off of the life of Jesus. That is why you won't tell me which calendar, isn't it? You don't want to claim that you are atheist, and at the same time admit that you claim it because of the grace of God, that allows you to claim it, as is noted by the dates of your birth and death. So, why don't you just tell me how many millions of year, based on what calendar? Or, you could just shut the heal up. That works too...

      August 28, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • rob

      It's HammerTime! You athiests can't touch this. Oh yeah, oh yeah... Daaaa da da dum, da dum, da dum. Can't touch this. Which calendar? Daaa da da dum, da dum, da dum, Can't touch this.
      Oh yea. You do not KNOW,
      which calendar it is because you are a HO.
      Da da da dum, da dum, da dam,
      can't touch this.
      You like to SAY,
      millions of years but there is no WAY,
      you can say that with saying WHICH,
      calendar you use to measure THIS.
      Daaaa da da dum, da dum, da dum.
      Can't touch this...

      Moron athiests.

      August 28, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
  14. Sao

    YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW
    -GOD

    August 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Huebert

      @god

      Reap away. I'll be waiting.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • ME II

      Sow what?

      August 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Oh, I thought he said; Go ra pe a sow!

      August 28, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
  15. Nurse143

    why are scientists searching for the God particle? Surely its existence won't disprove God.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
  16. GenYer

    I agree and disagree with Bill Nye. I agree that parents need to let their children explore the world with out being held down by anything. That means that evolution AND religion need to be taught as theories only. No one "knows" exactly how everything came to be.

    The big bang theory is nice on paper to a point, but it does not explain where the point of the big bang came into being in the first place. Even if the big bang happens over and over, the point of the bang had to come from somewhere. It is a THEORY. Plus, until they make life out of amino soup, I am not going to believe that life is just some random event.

    The earth was not created in six 24 hour periods. It took billions of years and this has been proven. If there is a god or many gods/goddess's, it took them a while. In fact, the world is still destroying and creating itself. Seems to me that strict Christian creationism is just not correct due to process of science. Dinosaurs: real. Asteroid impacts that are over 6k years old: real. Christianity itself comes from stories of other multiple diety religions, including ancient Egyptian, Greek and Sumerian theology.

    Now, here is what I think: Science proves and disproves over and over again. Just like I will not believe in a God I cannot see, I am not going to believe in a theory that is not proven. I will have my own faith in what I believe in. I will use my brain and I will decide what I think is correct- whether I agree or disagree with another's point of view to make up my own beliefs or not. My ideas on how the world came to be and how I came to be are my own and no one else's, unless the think the same way as I. Christianity and science both breed extremists. Both sides can and will have close minded people. Bill Nye and everyone else needs to think about that.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • noel

      When he, you, or anyone else can explain the precambrian explosion and how it counters Darwins wondrous hypothesis, I will lend you an ear. Until then, get stuffed!!!
      OBAMANOS!!!

      August 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • Quillos

      Noel – "Obamanos"... AWESOME! I'm using that one!

      August 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
  17. Dyslexic doG

    if you are wondering why athiests and agnostics comment as vitriolically as they do on this site, check out au . org which is a site devoted to the first amendment and the separation of church and state.

    many christians (but by no means all) in this country are behaving like the taliban and trying to change the laws and education to force the christian religion down everyone's throats. this has got to stop.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
  18. MJS

    Your obviously an atheist, do I need to say more?

    August 28, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • ME II

      Yes, because amazingly science works regardless of what religion, or non-religion, you are.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Bufo

      Its " You're " not " Your ". Need I say more?

      August 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
  19. HM

    And Bill Nye tries to convince us that evolution is based on science? To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The theory of evolution, and that's all it is ... a theory, has never been observed nor reproduced by anyone, and Bill Nye expects all of us to swallow it. Having a degree in physics and learned much about scientific method, it takes far more faith to believe in evolution. I challenge anyone to go study the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and see if you don't soon realize that Someone much greater than us had to "wind up" this entire universe. You have an awful lot to lose if you fall for the theory of evolution. Thankful for the 46% of Americans who are smart enough to see through this and have made the correct choice.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • ME II

      http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/biological-evolution-second-law

      August 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • Quillos

      Did you get that physics degree from Oral Roberts or Liberty University?

      August 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      It's people like you that will keep our civilization in the dark ages. Grow-up!

      August 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Pika

      What about the squirrels on the north rim of the Grand Canyon versus the South Rim? God put them there? The Grand Canyon is only 5,000 years old? Please!

      August 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Baphomet

      Correction: Micro-Evolution is observable and is a valid working theory. So is Macro-Evolution on a very long time scale. However, this fails miserably to provide answers to the origins of life, consciousness, the Solar System, earth, etc.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Joel

      Your misunderstanding not only of the 2nd law of thermodynamics but also of the word "theory" removes any credibility you have. Evolution is perfectly compatible with the 2nd law (hint – it's only valid in a closed system), and a scientist uses the word "theory" very differently than laypeople do.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Kathy

      It is an historical science and the evidence is overwhelming from many different scientific fields – geology, genetics, etc. In addition the fossil evidence is there. Evolutionary changes can also be seen in small organisms such as viruses and bacteria – this is why you need a new flu shot each year – the virus changes (evolves). The scientific term "theory" is quite different from the vernacular usage that people have been throwing around in these comments.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Steve

      so god randomly scattered fossils around just so we had something to dig up?

      August 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • 83Hawk

      you must be joking right? No evidence, cannot be tested? Really? Wanna explain to me how we've managed to breed any kind of animal or plant? Breeding for specific traits and characteristics is nothing more than human intervention in natural selection. Natural selection = Evolution. So please tell me your not crazy and this was a joke?

      August 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Chris

      But it has been observed and repeated. In fruit flies isolated in darkness. In yeast samples given a limited amount of sugar over a series of generations. In the transition from salamanders to snakes. look at the skeletal structure of a whale and you will see all of the parts of other land based mammals.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • C3vink

      Gravity is, after all, *just* a theory. Find a tall building and test it. =)

      August 28, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
  20. Pika

    Catholics and Jews recognize evolution, what's wrong with the evangelicals? Too much brother/sister/uncle love would be my theory.

    August 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Noah_Adams

      This is a false opinionated statement. Check your source.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165
Advertisement
About this blog

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.