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 • Faith Now • Science

soundoff (14,640 Responses)
  1. Science Slams Creationism, Bill Nye Points It Out...

    Facts are facts, just like r a p e is r a p e.

    August 28, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • .

      Nye is a fool.

      http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm

      ..++..

      August 30, 2012 at 10:43 am |
  2. 2tor

    How many times has science been absolutely factual, only to change it later. Endless... even Christians believe weve evolved, unfortunately, Bill doesn't evolve with the facts.

    August 28, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • sam

      Ah. So adjusting things to accommodate new evidence is bad, then? Tell me more.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      What exactly is Bill not "evolving with the facts" on? .....As if that even makes sense.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • Observer

      Unlike science, the Bible never changes. That's why it has such a hard time trying to justify the errors and nonsense it contains.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • donna

      Never. A fact is a fact. People can be wrong, however, about how they interpret those facts. The difference between science and dogma is that science is supposed to be questioned, and dogma is not.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • One one

      Christians have evolved. Several hundred years after science discovered the earth revolves around the sun Christians finally accepted it. Of course, it would have looked really stupid to still insist the earth was the center of the universe as we were senging people to the moon.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • One one

      But the bible is 100% consistent.

      "For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

      "Yahweh said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the surface of the ground; man, along with animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

      August 28, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • nojinx

      Zero. Science is never "absolutely factual". You should know this stuff, it is basics of the scientific method.

      Science can only form theories from tested hypothesis. Those theories are and must be mutable in case new discoveries contradict them later.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • .

      Nye is a fool for the fools.

      http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm

      August 30, 2012 at 10:44 am |
  3. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    Now that things have calmed down a bit ...

    I make no argument with people who synthesize a belief in God with evolution. This is a pragmatic approach.

    Many of the people who do this go further and state that the Genesis account accurately reflects the same sequence as scientific cosmology. Irrespective of interpreting a "day" as an arbitrary period of time, it very plainly does not.

    Not only is Chapter 1 inconsistent with science but Chapter 2 is quite inconsistent with Chapter 1. Even the bible can't get the story straight. It is quite evident that Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 are two completely different cosmology stories.

    The sequences are:

    Genesis
    ===============
    Chapter 1
    ---------
    - Beginning: Heavens and earth, darkness and waters
    - 'Day' 1: Light! night and day
    - 'Day' 2: Waters in the sky (atmosphere)
    - 'Day' 3: Dry land, plants
    - 'Day' 4: Sun, moon and stars
    - 'Day' 5: Sea creatures, birds
    - 'Day' 6: Land animals, Humans (male and female)
    - 'Day' 7: Miller time

    Chapter 2
    ---------
    - Man
    - Plants
    - Animals and birds
    - Woman

    Science
    ===============
    - Big bang (13.8BYA)
    - Star ignition (sun 4.57BYA)
    - Planetary accretion
    - Earth (4.54BYA)
    - Moon (4.53BYA)
    - Bombardment
    - Surface Water, toxic atmosphere
    - Simple vegetation
    - Oxygenated atmosphere
    - Aquatic life
    - Land animals
    - Birds
    - Mammals

    August 28, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • KRHODES

      Genesis 2 is not a re-organization of the chronological order of creation? You folks need to stop copying and pasting nonsense from atheist websites and actually try and learn to understand the english language. I have read that childish accusation from many an atheist...it is pure nonsense and frankly intellectual laziness.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      It is abundantly evident by simply reading Genesis 2, that it is a totally different cosmology myth than Genesis 1. Clearly two different bronze-age myths were appended together – but that's the minor point of my argument.

      The primary point is that Genesis 1, is not (as many advocate) remotely consistent with the sequence of events that science articulates.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • .

      http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm

      +.

      August 30, 2012 at 10:45 am |
  4. Anon

    This is creationism in a nutshell.

    August 28, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • Jduff

      Nice. Agreed.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • One one

      LMAO ! That comparison is a insult to the video!

      August 28, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • .

      Here are the fools in a nutshell.

      http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm

      August 30, 2012 at 10:45 am |
  5. GodFreeNow

    Repeating from previous page...

    Question for creationists:

    Why, in your opinion does a fetus go through many fish-like stages (including having gills, eyes on the side of the head, etc) during the 9-month gestation period?

    You can watch a video here (keep in mind, this is not a special effects 3d animation. This is actual 3d sonogram footage):
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255

    August 28, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • KRHODES

      What you been smokin? Babies don't breathe through gills? They get everything they need from the mother...it has nothing to do with evolution.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • KRHODES

      Just reading the comments and Nye..an atheist brings nothing to the table but mere accusation and emotional arguments. I suppose it fits they would believe evolution given the level of intelligence proffered by atheistic thinking.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Obvious troll is obvious.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Moby Schtick, Yeah... though I don't understand why no one is answering. I suppose, either they don't understand the question, or they don't have a good answer, or they don't care enough to comment.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Cq

      KRHODES
      Try this video.

      August 28, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • .

      http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm

      .+.

      August 30, 2012 at 10:46 am |
  6. Jeevus

    Thank You Bill Nye!

    August 28, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • .

      Bill Nye is a fool for the fools.

      http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm

      -+-

      August 30, 2012 at 10:48 am |
  7. Michael

    So what makes a Mechanical Engineer an expert on Americas Economy or the origin of the Universe, Hes just another overpaid famous guy with a huge Ego. Dont hear Warren Buffet complaining about Creationists hindering the economy. Many of the Inventions that he calls Science today were built by Creationists, just go to the Smithsonian. I think he talked to some wacko in the Mall or something that set him off. The Bibles account in days, does not have to be "mans" 24 hr periods, later in the Bible it says that "a thousand years is but a 'day' to God" this is what happens when people try to be an expert in all fields. Stick with what ya know.

    August 28, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Michael, you seem to lack critical thinking skills. Firstly, the man's a scientist with a very wide and deep knowledge, and he's well respected to speak out on issues of national importance like this one. Secondly, whether or not the days are literal, 24-hour days is the least of your concerns. The order is all out of whack, and wrong on other, multiple levels.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • ME II

      Many people have commented on the need for better education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. People like Bill Gates have commented on the lack of highly skilled workers in the US. What Bill Nye is saying is that denying Evolution hinders children in the very thing that many say is important for the child and the economy in general, science.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • Michael

      @ME II, I understand what he is saying, its just the blame game. He is a Mechanical Engineer, that is a celebrity. No more, No less. Has he designed something that changed the world? No, he talks, and has TV shows and Speaks. I urge you to go to the Smithsonions many builiding and see the great inventioins of the world, many designed by creationist thinking outside the box. Blame the US problems on the truth Greed, Laziness, and unmotivated children addicted to the net and video games, not the belief in a creator.

      August 28, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • Michael

      @ Moby. I see your reply to all the posts is pretty much the same. Im glad you have it all figured out. Over time you will find that the world changes. (Milk is good for you, no Milk is Bad for you, no Milk is bad for you). Im glad to know that you are so well versed in the origin of the universe, could you make me mIne? Cause I would like my very own! LOL. Im not debating Creationism with you. Its an unwinnable topic. But I can tell you many of the great inventors of the world through history believed in a supreme being and managed to think out of the box. Blaming the US economy on creationists is a contradiction of history and is totally unfounded.

      August 28, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • .

      http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm

      .-+

      August 30, 2012 at 10:49 am |
  8. Steven Evans

    Well said! The scientific method is observable and reproducable. Creationism is faith based and is best taught in CHURCH and Science in the school system

    August 28, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Creation is scientifically proven, but not hinduism, absurdity of evolution.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • ME II

      "but not hinduism, absurdity of evolution."

      What does Hinduism have to do with evolution? Or am I misunderstanding?

      August 28, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      pleas study results of LR 2 in Switzerland, they call it dark matter but a spirit, soft ware, matter is attracted to on 125 volt to take a form, their has to be a programmer to create a soft ware, no programmer, not soft ware. hindu's deny spirit , truth 360 absolute and worship hindu soul, filthy desire as their god.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @MEII

      The guy is either completely crazy or way too obsessed. Who knows what caused it.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Evolution is fundamental belief of hinduism, denial of truth absolute some thing not of modern time but of hind, dark ages.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • ME II

      Well,, alrighty then... moving on.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • sam

      hindu dude is obsessed with hinds.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
    • nojinx

      If creation is scientifically proven, one of two things occurred:
      1. someone missed out on their Nobel Prize
      2. someone has gone insane, perhaps out of self-delusion.

      Anyone want to guess?

      August 28, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      No one bothered to make pay attention to, believer of creation are at sleep, just being hindu, ignorant to fact..

      August 28, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • .

      .+.

      http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/1186/Gnosticism-False-Knowledge.htm

      August 30, 2012 at 10:50 am |
  9. GodFreeNow

    Question for creationists:

    Why, in your opinion does a fetus go through many fish-like stages (including having gills, eyes on the side of the head, etc) during the 9-month gestation period?

    You can watch a video here (keep in mind, this is not a special effects 3d animation. This is actual 3d sonogram footage):
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255

    August 28, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Simran

      Also, why is that the fetus in early stages of development cannot be distinguished as male or female? And even if the fetus has XY (male karyotype), but develops a defect somewhere along the path of formation of testis or male homrmone pathways, ends up looking as a female? Well, female is the default pathway for reproductive development. Also, if female fetus gets exposed to male hormones in utero (as happens in certain disorders), it ends up with ge.nita.lia resembling males?

      August 29, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Leo

      GodlessNow, human fetuses have pharyngeal or branchial pouches that are sometimes called gill slits. They are transitory structures that eventually become parts of the jaw and the upper respiratory tract and they do not function like gills at all.

      August 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm |
    • b4bigbang

      You're referring to an hypothesis known as 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'.

      It was discredited by the scientific establishment many years ago.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory#Modern_status

      August 30, 2012 at 12:46 am |
  10. justanopinion

    There are only two options. 1. There is a creator 2. There is not a creator

    Neither can be empirically proven. My point is that creationism doesn't clash with science. Beliefs are the lenses through which we comprehend the world. Formulas and science are tools we use to adjust our lenses. Whether they are right or wrong, beliefs are essential to any kind of progressive thinking. Even scientific theories rely on underlying beliefs that cannot be proven through formula. i.e. causality

    August 28, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Science originates from truth absolute, and truth absolute is God, if there is no truth of being, than their is no science. Evolution is hinduism, absurdity of hindu's, ignorant s.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      What does adding the word or action of "creator/creation" do for us that understanding the HOW of evolution does not do on its own?

      August 28, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • nojinx

      "There are only two options. 1. There is a creator 2. There is not a creator...Neither can be empirically proven"

      Yes and no. Number 1 is technically infinite, so you should say, "There are two options, the first of which has an infinite number of possibilities" to be accurate.

      Science will prevent us from believing in anything we do not have empirical or inferred reason to. That is just its nature – if you cannot use the scientific method to verify it, then it is illogical to assume it to be true.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • Another Opinion

      Let's just start with the very first moment (I dont even know if I can say calling it a moment is right) – but just in layman language –
      1. There was god, then he created things and we evolved.
      Question – Where did god come from? Second from what did he create? You say nothing. So everything came from nothing.

      2 There was nothing, then something, and we evolved.
      Question – How did nothing become something? Not sure, people are trying to figure out.

      Second option leaves only one question unanswered, first has two questions unanswered.

      August 29, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
  11. possibly

    The way I see it is this.. Evolution is still a Theory, hence teh term 'Theory of Evolution'. And no scientific studies have been done to 'prove' creationism. So maybe we can think of things this way. God created the inner workings of everything so that scientists have something to discover. EX. – a ball rolling down the hill. Some may say, "God put the ball on the hill for a reason." or others may say, "It happened to come to be on the hill." but here is a way to think of it differently. God created the atoms that make up the ball, man made the ball. Through some unknown force(be it a kid, the wind or an animal) it has come to be on the hill and begins to roll down. God has created that bc's in the univers to keep gravity moving the ball. everyone wins. lol

    August 28, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • sbp

      It's not STILL a theory. In science, a theory isn't a guess. Gravity is a theory. Is it not a fact? There is sufficient evidence to PROVE evolution.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • Adam

      You just used a gallon of rubber cement to adhere the word onto a text book, and in the process have made it useless.

      This is a pathetic exegesis which merely tries to adapt what we know to be true with something which you seemed attached to believing as true. All it does is acknowledge that there is a schism between these two modes of discourse, and betrays the fact that you have a dog (a specific dog) in this fight.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • Observer

      God is a theory without proof.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • possibly

      Adam- Do you celebrate holidays? Because research into the origins of any one of them will prove that is exactly what happened to make them popluar. Pot.. calling.. kettle.. black..
      I guess in the end we will all find out who is right. Either when the sun explodes and devours the solar system or when God finally gets tired of people continually screwing up.. Right? right.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • Mark Bigelow

      People are very ignorant. A scientific Theory is not a “guess”. A theory is the highest form of knowledge we have. It is in a league above a mere “fact”. A fact is just an observation, without any explanation as to why the fact is a”fact”. The sky is blue. Ok that’s a fact, big deal! The theory will explain why the sky is blue! Theories explain why we observe what we observe; they are superior to mere facts!

      August 28, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
    • clcapps

      I'm afraid you don't understand the scientific method. It's an iterative process that goes something like this:
      1) Make careful, objective observations
      2) Develop a theory to describe a more general rule. This could be the theory of evolution or mathematical equations (as in the theory of gravity.)
      3) Evaluate how well this theory matches the evidence and go back to step 1)

      Science is not "absolute knowledge". It is a collection of observations and ideas. The Theory of Evolution is by far the best idea that fits the facts. We have the mechanism for how it works (genetics), observations of it happening (bacteria in a short period of time, fossils, etc.), and a generalized theory that matches these observations.

      If you believe in an arbitrary statement from the Bible written thousands of years ago, then you are ignoring the evidence around you and the entire body of scientific observations over the past thousand years.

      If nothing else, have some faith (ironically) in the scientists who spend their entire lives studying evolution, rather than those who blindly believe what's written in one book.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • nojinx

      Gods are a hypothesis that cannot be tested. Fairies also. How do you go about testing Harry Potter's existence?

      August 28, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • basic_math

      Nice try all of you, but you still lack basic skills in math and science....

      Evolution is defined in 2 parts for those of you who have never actually studied it.
      Natural selection is the agent of change, no argument there, just look at athletes and steroids, they can do what we can't do yet.

      It's the single species part; that is why evolution is a theory and cannot be proven.

      This part violates the PROVEN theorems of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and Tarski's undefinability theorem.

      Are you all proposing that sentient life evolved in a single incident over 500,000 years, where dinosaurs lived 160 million years and evolved nothing? You're the same people that think hydrogen evolved all other elements in the periodic table, but refuse to acknowledge anti-matter, dark matter, dark energy and the entire origin of the universe.

      You confuse natural selection with evolution when natural selection is only part of the theory. You are concluding that single species is an exception to all the laws of physics, astrophysics and mathematics.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Atheism is the natural state of all living things

      Evolution is a theory because that is the top spot for science. Nothing can go higher than theories. There are no laws in science.
      Evolution can never be proven because science cannot prove. I can only form theories based on tested hypothesis.

      This is basic stuff, kids. You should know this.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @basic math

      When will you be having the ceremony to accept your Nobel Prize for disproving one of the most well-established processes in the entire discipline of science?

      August 28, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • nojinx

      " hydrogen evolved all other elements in the periodic table"

      Hydrogen evolved other elements? Bad grammar aside, where did you get that?

      August 28, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • basic_math

      Well proven?

      I don't see any formal statement of a proof. Any undergrad would know these basic principles of science.

      As far as theories being on top..... Laws are on top, proven theorems are next. Theories are just what they claim...nothing more than a theory.

      As for hydrogen being the creator of the other elements, you would have to believe this if you believed in single species. But let's say you are smarter than that and know that in the origin of the universe both hydrogen and anti-hydrogen are created, then what do you have to say about dark matter and dark energy?

      And you say nothing about the effect of gravity on the formation of elements.

      Go back to school

      August 28, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @basic math

      Yes, well proven. Do you understand what a scientific theory is? If so, then you understand why there's no "formal statement of proof" but yet the theory is completely sound. Again, if you really expect to be taken seriously, here, then you've obviously done the peer-reviewed work on the matter and will be accepting your Nobel within the next few months. When will that ceremony be held for you?

      When you say stupid sh!t like "nothing more than a theory," it demonstrates that you haven't the slightest clue what you're even arguing. Even more so when you refer to hydrogen as "the creator of the other elements." It's like you're claiming to have the most impressive mathematical theory ever devised, but you're seriously using the term "little cross symbol" instead of the word "addition." Your rhetoric is exposing your ignorance.

      Nope, we don't know much about dark matter and dark energy. We also don't know all sorts of stuff. Science doesn't claim to know everything. Again, you're saying stupid sh!t that makes no fvcking sense if you actually had 1/1000th the knowledge you claim to have.

      But don't go back to school; your ignorance is amusing.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • basic_math

      make a formal statement of your proof

      theories are by definition unproven.

      make your statement

      you've offered nothing to refute incompleteness or undefinability, both proven.

      you claim that single species origin is one of the most well developed theories, but offer no evidence.

      is it as well developed as the fact that the earth is round? because from a given point of origin to a 12 mile radius one might conclude that the earth is flat.

      so what is your statement of proof? even if you have one, how does it reconcile with multi-dimensional superstring theory (also not proven, but as well developed or better than single species)

      so if you really want to believe in single species, then where is the evidence of intermediate species that Darwin described as being extinct? You really think that by this time in history we have no evidence of any intermediates whatsoever?

      show me and prove it

      August 28, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @basic math

      No. You misquoted me, and that was dishonest. I said "well-established," not "well-proven" though I accepted your change because so, so, soooo much of the theory is based on proven fact.

      YOU, on the other hand, are claiming to have incontrovertible evidence that theory is not accurate; thus, the burden of proof is upon you. So you must have the peer-reviewed data and are ready to accept your Nobel Prize. A scientific theory rests upon much, much, much proof, as you should know since you claim to be such an expert on it while not having the foggiest idea of how to express yourself as a freshman would in basic Biology 101.

      So, to quote you, "show me and prove it." When will you be claiming your Nobel Prize for being the one individual who hasn't the slightest clue how to speak in scientific terms yet has completely disproved the entire theory of evolution? Do you even have the slightest clue how ignorant you keep proving yourself to be?

      August 28, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
    • ikea

      @Moby Schtick

      i think you and others are misreading what basic_math said. i believe he is saying that part of DARWIN'S original theory is that all life originated from one source, and he is likening that to the idea that all the elements originated just from hydrogen. he is NOT saying that he thinks that all elements "evolved" from hydrogen or whatever. He's making an analogy.

      August 29, 2012 at 2:29 am |
    • nojinx

      basic math,

      The scientific process is composed of the following steps:
      1. form a hypothesis
      2. test the hypothesis
      3. from the tests, form a theory

      If someone tries to add a step involving anything regarding laws, they are not using the scientific method. By nature, the scientific method must always allow for new evidence and theories to influence prior ones. Nothing can be unchangeable, so nothing in science can be a law.

      You should know this. 8th grade stuff.

      August 29, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • herpity_derpity

      To be fair, in the Big Bang, all atoms were made from fusion of Hydrogen atoms in the extreme heat and pressure, so yeah, all atoms that we see are from hydrogen WAY back.

      August 29, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
  12. amicuscuriae

    When my wife and I were raising our children, when they first wanted to know how babies are made, without feeding them untruths, we stopped way short of all the gruesome details. They found those out slowly as they grew older and were more ready for those facts.

    And that is where Bill Nye and those who worship Bill Nye are with respect to God – they are still uninformed children. The creator of all is a very advanced scientist and a loving parent. The creation as recorded in scriptures is purely symbolic, and only addresses the basic ordering of the process, not the details. Just as a miner or engineer can adroitly use explosives, drills and other mechanical scientifically developed devices to extract useful things from mountains, holes in the ground, bodies of water, and even the sky, the godhood (I suspect it is not just one individual – note that the Hebrew word for God is plural) knows how to use supernovas and the like to take a highly dense clump of matter and spread it out into solar systems and inhabitable worlds. He knows how to terraform and populate worlds also, which is a place we are not at yet. And yes, it may have involved some sort of evolution or refining over time. Are we so arrogant as to think that our earth is the only world populated with intelligent beings? And should we think they all look and act like us?

    Probably part of the problem is understanding the word "create". It does not mean making something from nothing. That is not possible. God does not and cannot violate the laws of physics and the universe. Creation is the act of reorganizing materials (or ideas) from a raw form into something more useful.

    So think a little outside the box. There is clearly a God, and there is clearly a reason for life and intelligence. It did not begin here, and it does not end here. But if you prefer to assume that there is only "I'm born on earth, I live on earth, then I die", you have put yourself in a sad, nasty little box. The truly great people in all generations are those that have really understood those are not the real boundaries. And some of them are probably out there somewhere creating their own worlds now.

    August 28, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
    • David Larimer

      yes amicuscuriae

      please "So think a little outside the box. "

      you write "There is clearly a God, and there is clearly a reason for life and intelligence"

      No there clearly isn't or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

      Think outside the box. Follow your own words.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • Atheism is the natural state of all living things

      Anyone who can show there "clearly is a God" is an instant Nobel Prize winner and global celebrity.

      So do share.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • truth be told

      In these last days God has revealed Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      What kind of god has to rely upon materials already made to "create" that which he will? Where did those original source materials come from?

      August 28, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • David Larimer

      truthbetold:

      you wrote: "In these last days God has revealed Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ."

      You do what you want, but these are aren't "last days" for most of us. We'll be here for generations to come unless we burn the planet down or blow ourselves up.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • Athy

      How is it "clear" that there is a god? To any rational thinking person, it is totally unclear. You've been "biblewashed" beyond the point of logical independent thought.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • amicuscuriae

      Knowing there is "clearly" a God is very personal. So I apologize for a poor choice of words. I know for myself there is "clearly" a God, and some of the more profound reasons for that I can't share with anyone else. It would be throwing pearls to swine to be trodden under their feet. I have thought very much outside the box for many years. If you are really interested in knowing whether or not God (or as I prefer, the "godhood") exists and exercises control over many things in a kind and loving way, it is up to you to do that for yourself. But I doubt you are interested in that. Most of you reading this would rather come in with your sophistry and try to "prove" otherwise, which is not possible by the way.

      But on the off chance one of you is really interested in finding out for yourself, my best advice to you would be to start with children, and really loving them. I have participated in the raising of many children over the last 50 years, including my own, my grandchildren, and the teaching and caring for other people's children. But it cannot be a half effort. You have to start when they are born, change their dirty diapers, feed them, care for them when they are sick, and watch them grow and develop. If you really do that sincerely, you will see some things you have heretofore missed in life. And you will start to see the face of God. But that is just the starting point.

      Only know this. It does not begin here and it does not end here. The next step is to pull yourself away from your incessant self gratification and sophistry and start reaching out to others, and not just healthy intelligent others. After that, you can figure it out yourself if you are still interested. But I imagine you would have lost interest long before then.

      As to what kind of God could not make something from nothing? That shows pure ignorance. There are only 2 real elements in the universe – hydrogen and stupidity. God makes everything from hydrogen. What do you make your stuff from? Everything ever ascribed to God has always had a natural explanation. That is because even God is bound by universal and natural laws, of which we have only scant understanding. If you read the science news, which I do, new things never known before are being discovered almost daily. When He parted the Red Sea, you should understand there was nothing unnatural or "magic" about that at all. Some severe disruptions very likely happened hundreds or even thousands of miles away from that venue. "Magic" is a word we use when we don't understand how something works. We are quickly coming into an era of science where we will eventually understand that all things are possible, and there is nothing magic or unnatural about any of it. But that does not by any means suppose that we should be ungrateful, or maybe even a little awestruck. Believe me, I was awestruck when one of my children passed the bar the first time. But there was nothing magic in that. Do you think God does not prepare and plan for things? Give me a break.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • amicuscuriae

      And one other point by the way. It only takes a matter of a few hours to create a gigantic galaxy from a very small amount of dense matter. That was shown in science news not very long ago. Astronomers were actually able to photograph the emergence of a very large galaxy in a matter of about 3 hours. Do you really think that was not orchestrated by something or someone with intelligence? And of course, I already know the answer to that. The cynics among you think these things happen magically and have no purpose at all in the scheme of things. Boy, are you all in for a surprise!!

      August 28, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      That might be the stupidest thing I've ever read, amicuscuriae. What in the fvck are you talking about, a "galaxy forming in a few hours?" Are you serious?

      August 28, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • Athy

      Galaxies are typically many thousands of light-years across. That means light would take several thousands years to travel across it. Since nothing can exceed the speed of light, how could one be formed in just a few hours? I think maybe you should read that article again – maybe a little more carefully this time.

      August 28, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
    • Anon

      Hey amicuscuriae, your imaginary god Yahweh/Jesus/Jehovah is a piece of s#!t.

      August 29, 2012 at 11:56 pm |
  13. frank templin

    I agree with candyapple: "I believe in God, I believe in creationism and in evolution."

    But with the pure creationists I think I detect some circular-reasoning.

    From wiki:
    Mr. A. "Do you believe in god?"
    Mr. B. "YES"
    Mr. A. "Why do you believe in god?"
    Mr. B. Because it is written in the Bible.
    Mr. A. "Why do you believe the Bible?"
    Mr. B. "Because the Bible is the word of god"

    and my all time favorite is this from wiki:

    Here is another real example posted in a forum by a Creationist.

    If you think that the Bible is fake, a story, a allegory, or anything but the truth, then you're calling God a liar.

    August 28, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Thank you for the example but I suspect you have never had that conversation.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • basic_math

      I detect a lack of education......
      Evolution is defined in 2 parts for those of you who have never actually studied it.
      Natural selection is the agent of change, no argument there, just look at athletes and steroids, they can do what we can't do yet.

      It's the single species part; that is why evolution is a theory and cannot be proven.

      This part violates the PROVEN theorems of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and Tarski's undefinability theorem.

      Are you all proposing that sentient life evolved in a single incident over 500,000 years, where dinosaurs lived 160 million years and evolved nothing? You're the same people that think hydrogen evolved all other elements in the periodic table, but refuse to acknowledge anti-matter, dark matter, dark energy and the entire origin of the universe.

      You confuse natural selection with evolution when natural selection is only part of the theory. You are concluding that single species is an exception to all the laws of physics, astrophysics and mathematics.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • sam

      Bill...his post states it's from wiki.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
  14. hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

    Sience is a medium to figure out truth of a matter not the truth itself, the source. So for hinduism, absurdity has not been able to substantiate their hinduism absurdity of evolution, but science has substantiated existence of spirit, soft ware, source of existence of truth absolute, God at LR2 in Switzerland. One can not teach truth to a hindu, ignorant.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • sbp

      Please, I beg you, post a biography. We want to know. Are you a schizophrenic? Muslim? Where did you learn English? Did you go to High School?

      August 28, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      I am a believer of truth absolute and as for education, knowledge, I am blessed with plenty. To find answer please find your self first and than some body else. To find your self follow the truth absolute and discard hindu soul, filthy desire, it does not allow one to pay attention to himself.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
    • sam

      I wonder if it's like OCD...can you not help yourself? Do you have a form of Tourette's that forces you to type nonsense?

      August 28, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
    • sbp

      I'm not Hindu (I doubt more than one or two people in these thousands of posts IS, but it doesn't seem to matter to you). I've found myself – it turns out I was right here the whole time. And I found some body else.

      But you still aren't telling us enough about yourself. Are you aware that your sentences aren't even close to English and make little sense? Are you taking medications?

      August 28, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • sbp

      He seems to have schizophasia, often seen in hebephrenic schizophrenia. Common name is "word salad". Uncontrollable gibberish.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Their is no worst hinduism, sickness than hind, sickness of hindu ignorant hinduism,mental dyslexia, Every hindu, ignorant suffers from by birth.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • David Larimer

      I'll get right on that – getting rid of my Hindu soul

      August 28, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @David

      LOL!! Yeah, if somebody can show it to me, I'll get rid of it.

      August 28, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
  15. Reality

    For $99, you can find out if you ar part Neaderthal- not kidding:

    As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
    https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

    " DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

    "Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

    Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

    It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

    For your $99 and a DNA swab:

    "Included in the markers we will test for is a subset that scientists have recently determined to be from our hominin cousins, Neanderthals and the newly discovered Denisovans, who split from our lineage around 500,000 years ago. As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia. It seems that our ancestors met, leaving a small genetic trace of these ancient relatives in our DNA. With Geno 2.0, you will learn if you have any Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in your genome."

    August 28, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
  16. nojinx

    "Creation Science" has one primary problem: it cannot be studied using science. The first step would involve forming a hypothesis to be tested. The second step would be the testing.

    No experiment has ever been conducted on Creationism. Not even attempted, as how would you form a hypothesis for something that has no factual foundation for belief?

    August 28, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • Cq

      It's no better than taking a piece of science fiction and speculating whether it could possibly be related to the facts.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • nojinx

      @ Cq – Yes, exactly. You cannot take a piece of fiction like the Creationist theory of life's origin and just "apply science" any more than you could to the theory of Santa Claus. How would one go about it?

      There has to be something observable. The hypothesis forms around this experienced phenomenon and then uses experiments to test the hypothesis. If the tests verify the hypothesis, then it becomes a theory. That is the scientific method.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
  17. snowboarder

    without a literal interpretation of genesis there is no "original sin" for which a messiah would symbolically sacrifice himself to absolve the world and therefore no basis for christianity.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • Engineer

      Why are you posting this a second time? See the previous page, and perhapes study Genesis a bit and the language it was written in. The word day as is shown in other posts doesn't mean 24 hrs.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • justmetoo

      In my mind, some things are to be taken literally and some things are not. I believe it is Mark 16, 18 where Jesus states that is someone believes in him, they could drink poison and not get sick. Do you believe that is to be taken literally?

      August 28, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      It is called Mithra ism, savior ism of hindu's, pagans, religion of hindu, Romans.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • Jduff

      and without original sin females would've had a fighting chance in this world from the get go

      August 28, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
  18. Laura

    The goal of science is to explain the world around us through observation and experimentation. Evolution is a great explanation of the scientific data we can gather in our natural world. However, science can not and will not be able to test the presence or absence or actions of any supernatural being or God. Religion has no place in science. Just the same, scientists should not presume any special insights into God or supernatural things. Scientists need to stay out of people's religious views – they have no place there.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • donna

      Laura, Science is the study of all things that exist. The only reason to say that scientists have no reason or 'place' to investigate religious claims, including god, would be if you think those things don't actually exist. So if it's all fantasy, then yes, science have no business dealing with it.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • DontPretend

      Science has always been a great means for explaining why God does not exist by consistently providing realistic causes for phenomena previously attributed to God, or gods. Thanks to science, we no longer slaughter virgins simply because we are in a drought.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • snowboarder

      religionists make claims about reality which blatantly disregard reality.

      science would be remiss in not pointing out falsehood.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • nojinx

      Science can only focus on those things that are part of our reality. Only those things that are not part of our reality are beyond the realm of science.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Science is a medium to figure out truth of a matter not the truth itself, the source. So for hinduism, absurdity has not been able to substantiate their hinduism absurdity of evolution, but science has substantiated existence of spirit, soft ware, source of existence of truth absolute, God at LR2 in Switzerland.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • Cq

      nojinx
      Things like science fiction, myth, and fantasy?

      August 28, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • nojinx

      Yes – as far as they are a part of our reality. We can scientifically study how science fiction comes about, for example. We cannot study something that is imagined, though, whether it seems fantasy or not. To use science to study, there has to be something existing to observe.

      Make sense?

      August 28, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
  19. DontPretend

    Bill nye should know that bowties are not good for children either.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
  20. wayne

    "Remember that the word translated "day" can and is translated epoch/age."

    So it took more ages to create earth than the whole rest of the universe. According to you, this is correct.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @wayne,

      and that is a reasonable interpretation. Except for the morning and evening refernces.

      And except for the fact that the order in Chapter 1 is mixed up. Plants (day 3) before the sun moon and stars (day 4)?

      And except for the fact that Chapters 1 and 2 don't match at all.

      But there is no problem synthesizing a belief in God and evolution if you take Genesis as allegory.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • Cq

      If "day" can be translated as epoch/age then how do we know that God wanted people to take a day off every week? Maybe he meant every six million, or billion years, like some people already do? :-)

      August 28, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • fred

      You all miss the point that God created what is from that which did not exist. This is more than the physical it also includes the constructs of length, width, space and time. Time was being created and set out. Six days is an important doctrinal period as is the 7th day when God rested. In case you have not noticed we are still in the 7th day of creation. The problem with non believers is that they and their science focus on the first 6 days. All atheist argument is based on the first 6 days because our materialistic ways and tools can only deal with that which can be seen in the absence of God.
      In the 7th day God rested and said it is very good and the creation process was complete. What we since that time is the soul of man working through the plan of redemption? This is what the creation was all about………..the soul of man resting in what is very good for eternity.
      The Hebrew rested symbolically on the 7th day as preparation for the final and true eternal rest. This eternal destiny for man will be in the close of the 7th day.
      The nonsense comes from those that do not believe and those that believe trying to put Gods ways into mans ways and comprehension. Thus we end up sidetracked and arguing about day 1 or day 2 and how many minutes in a day even though we know the rotation of the earth has changed.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      He didn't say "Take a day of every week" He said "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy"

      August 28, 2012 at 5:24 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

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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 and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team.