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. Friknbam

    "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,"

    So not believing in evolution means you can't build stuff or solve problems. Then please explain, Mr. Nye, how in the world the world got to where it was before Mr. Darwin was nice enough to enlighten everyone with his theory and evolution went mainstream...

    August 27, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • Rich

      I have to agree with you there. Whether evolution does or does not explain our existance probably has no bearing on the day to day lives of 99% of the world including most engineers. That's why I don't engage people in the argument. The last thing I want o do is disuade someone of their beliefs when it has little or no impact on them.

      That being said, medicine would be nowhere without the influence of the theory of eveolution. We do need doctors and I'm not sure I want one who can't understand evolution.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
  2. william

    the fool hath said in his heart there is no God. To all who don't believe

    August 27, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
  3. Mona

    No one is suggesting people shouldn't be religious. Creationism however has no business being taught in school. There is no such thing, there is no evidence to support it.

    August 27, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
  4. Other side

    @ HenryO

    What have you been reading? Do you mean “proving”? Are you referring to the planets and stars as “perfectly round objects”? Does the Universe see spherical bodies as the “most efficient” form? And where does that darn “gravity” thing come in anyway? Does anyone ever see “exact precision” in the Universe? Why are we putting so many terms in “quotes”? I know. Just some more of those egghead, scientificy questions.

    August 27, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
  5. BobTBuilder

    Jesus Christ was a gay. He and the Apostle regularly had gay s e x.

    August 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • BobTBuilder

      and he would never give a turn around. Priests now continue the condition with little boys.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • BobTBuilder

      sorry, condition => tradition

      August 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
  6. caesarbc

    Science is agenda oriented and fake... if you just believe.
    Erase it from your mind... see!!! It's all an illusion!!

    August 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • alexanderthoughts

      Every system of practices and beliefs has an agenda my friend, there is no escaping it. The man on the street that gives a homeless person a few bucks has an agenda as well, no matter how good his agenda might be. It is just like "everyone has a bias." Of course they do! Science wants you to believe in it just as much as religion does, only the stakes are much higher in religion.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
  7. basic123

    Wow chaz, the " answeres" in the bible, are not scientific proof!

    How can you justify a cliam and proof in the same source! This is like someone say: "because I say so"

    August 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
  8. spockmonster

    "But don't make your kids do it. " Unfortunately far from the truth, Creationists devote significant time and effort at injecting Creationism into elementary and high school textbooks.

    Religion is a mental disease, and one of it's behaviors is that it's victims are compelled to spread the disease to those around them, until the entire world shares their belief system or is destroyed by a self-imposed Armageddan,

    August 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
  9. PudninTane

    Sheesh, why do people continue to insist that you can't be Christian and/or believe in God and evolution at the same time. Certainly you can. It is absurd to read and believe in the Bible without taking into account the historical context in which it was written.

    August 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • alexanderthoughts

      What an excellent point that you are making my friend. I don't think that religion and science have to be diameterically opposed at all! You can believe in both. It is like believing in fire, but not believing in the two sticks that were rubbed together to make the fire. God set it in motion and wrote the laws of physics..why not?

      August 27, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
  10. Adam

    Creationists really irritate me. They have no flexibility in their beliefs to allow for person intellectual growth. Science is always changing. That is what makes it so powerful. It recognizes its mistakes and changes its theories to best fit the available evidence. Religion and particularly creationism is a static form of thought. It does not change, if something cannot change it cannot improve. These creationists are living two thousand years in the past. It is pure insanity. Stupidity should be challenged. If your entire beliefs and world views are focused on ancient books about magical deities then you are stupid, or at the very least brain washed. If you don't look at what the best evidence supports at this point in history you are an idiot. The flip side of this is that you have to look not only at the bible but also study the other world religions. It would be ignorant to say that religions have NOTHING of value. However, to have faith in something that does damage to your intellectual growth is a form of self abuse.

    What good is faith if it is based on ignorance?If a loving god exists, do you think he wants people no ignore the world around them? The very world that god himself created, because some book says so. If god exists he exists all around us. Get your head out of the stupid bible and look to nature, philosophy, and science. Science isn't perfect but it is the best thing we have because it relies on a strict reliable and standardized epistemology. If the scientific method didn't work the internet, cell phones, cars etc. wouldn't work either. Oh and to those who say evolution is just a "scientific theory", I suggest taking a biology course at ANY major university. The evidence is there. If you believe in god don't spit in his face by ignoring the details of his creation. If you don't believe in god, please don't look for answers within the New Age movement! They are bigger idiots than the creationists.

    August 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
  11. jrsmith7

    I agree that the method by which we came to be will be disputed until the day we are no more; however, the bigger takeaway tidbit here is why is Bill Nye the science guy posting video on yet another topic he is ill equipped to discuss in terms of academic qualifications. There are several topics he has stuck his nose into that he was equally incompetent to discuss (i.e.his commentary on CNN of the Fukishima incident – he proposed there was an error in the translation of hydrogen, and therefore hypothesized it was indeed a helium explosion. Really!?!)

    Mr. Nye's degree is in mechanical engineering. If he were to attempt to post a video on some kind of topic associated with his degree, I may indulge my curiousity. While I agree we all have the right to post what we like, one must be considerate of others by stating the contents are your opinion unless one has the training and/or education to speak on a topic as an expert. That being said, I will not be watching his new YouTube post on yet another topic he should leave to the real experts.

    August 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      I'll watch it for both of us. It's too bad that you are afraid of science.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • OOO

      Ignoring all of your hot air... What's your stance on evolution? Should we ignore all the evidence?

      August 27, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • You sound pretty clever...

      Do you even know what a mechanical engineer is? Any idea what kind of coursework they may study? Do you think it's not possible to learn something outside of college? Maybe you should pick up a science book every now and then and educate yourself rather than projecting your ignorance onto others.

      August 27, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
  12. Grim

    Bill is 100% correct, and echos what I have said for so long. Parents brainwash their children from birth with their own belief in a super being overlord, no different from those other weak minded people that believed in Zeus, Ra, etc.
    Jesus, son of god, oh please, in this day and age he would be in a sanitarium, but back then it was easy to convince obtuse people. Plus check your history, the New Testament was slapped together by Constantine for means of control.
    Mohammed, pedophile, but that's ok because it was the norm then, and now too just not as widely known.
    And don't even get me started on the Old Testament, biggest grouping of fairy tales ever brought together in one giant pile of BS, which, a ton has been proven to be natural disasters by science.
    Myth, lore and lack of intelligence is all there is to religions.

    August 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • michiganhockey11

      If the OT is just myth and lore, why has the OT been proven time and time again historically and archaeologically accurate?

      August 27, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
    • Chance

      All your arguments towards the Christian bible have all been diminished time and time again. Move on to current topics. Such as why there is something rather than nothing or morality to name two.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • Timmy

      Just because the people who wrote the bible knew the names of the towns/cities/kindgodoms etc. that were around them does not mean that jesus is the son of god.

      August 28, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • Chance

      @Timmy
      I agree with you, those facts are only supporting factors.

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

      @Chance

      Supporting factors? Really? "Oh this verse here has the name of a city that we can confirm through other sources. Therefore Jesus was magic." Is this really what you're trying to say?

      August 28, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      meant to type "Therefore it is more likely Jesus was magic".

      August 28, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      I was responding to @Timmy; I was implying it is a mute point. Yes the bible corresponds with history; so this supports the message of bible.

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

      So then since spider-man takes place in New York, it makes it more likely that spider-man is real?

      August 28, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      to take it a step further the Bible corresponds with historical events and places; these elements support its purpose.

      August 28, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      Places yes, events I'm not so sure. Any examples?

      August 28, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      The rule and falls of empires are in the bible ie the Caesar reign. The life of Jesus is accepted among the bibles critics along with His crucifixion. If you do some simple research you will find that historical cities/towns and events correspond with the bibles writings.

      August 28, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      I'm not sure about the Ceaser thing, but I know that the life of Jesus and crucifixion is not an accepted thing, especially since there is no exra-biblical, contemporaryaccounts to support the life or actions of Jesus.
      Be that as it may, if I were to grant the Ceaser thing, it still wouldn't give any credence to supernatural claims. It's like saying Darwin was a sexist, therefore he wasn't right about his evolutionary and natural selection observations.

      August 28, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • truth be told

      There are at least 20 known accounts of extra biblical references of Jesus and the resurrection, many written from a non belief perspective, and several trying to explain the empty tomb.

      August 28, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
    • Golub

      Cite even one of those references. I bet it won't stand up.

      August 28, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @TBT

      Cite your sources? I also notice you didn't add contemporary.

      August 28, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
    • Golub

      Little chancy, your points are "mute" at best.

      August 28, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
    • Chance

      Outside sources of Jesus:

      Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher)

      Do a little research the Bible is filled with historical events.

      August 28, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG

      Jesus said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

      During his ministry Rome was under control of Jerusalem; do a little research you will see historical events aligned with the bible. Such as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

      August 28, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      Josephus we can discount out of hand. He references Jesus twice in his writings. One merely states that he is the brother of James. How can you determine which Jesus he's talking about? The second one is thought to be a forgery, since it:
      1) Does not show up in the earliest copies.
      2) Has a different writing style and language style.
      3) Merely talks about what these new religious people called christians believe.

      Tacitus (56-117 CE) Also not contemporary
      The passage does support the crucifixion of Jesus, however, gives no support for any supernatural claims.

      So at this point we have found an almost contemporary to corrobarate the existence of a man named Jesus, but not his actual works.

      Pliny the Younger (61-112 CE) Not contemporary
      Describes his torture of christians, and who they worship, but gives no mention of the person actually existing.

      Lucian of Samosata (115- after 180CE) Need I say anything about contemporary at this point?
      At this point his writings, which is based on the christian lore, can in no way be considered anything but heresay, and at the least 3rd or 4th hand heresay. Not to mention he doesn't mention Jesus by name at all.

      Celsus (born sometime in the second century)
      He hated christianity, and attempted to undermine it through their own doctrine, assertion that jesus existed and performed his miracles through satanic sorcery. But, as before, certainly not contemporary, and certainly not to be taken as any kind of evidence.

      August 28, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
    • Chance

      Scholars have worked on this problem for a very long time, starting in the 1770s. We're talking about a discipline that’s hundreds of years old.

      For about the last century, the majority of scholars in Europe and North America have agreed that the earliest gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, do contain historically reliable information.

      And the majority of scholars have believed that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist. Jesus believed there were forces of evil that were in charge of this world, and that's why there's so much pain and suffering, but God would soon intervene to overthrow the forces of evil. Jesus probably expected this to happen within his own lifetime or his disciples' lifetimes.

      -Bart Ehrman (an agnostic – UNC Chapel Hill)

      August 28, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      And I still don't see how a historical thing in the bible makes the supernatural assertions any more valid.

      August 28, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      You're still not addressing my question of how does any of this equal god and magic?

      August 28, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      You supposed that this equaled God & magic...

      What I'm saying is that historical events and archeological discoveries support the validity of the bible text.

      August 28, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      If I want to assert the function of God in the universe I would point to the origins of the universe.

      August 28, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • Chance

      I don't defend magic; I defend the supernatural. Magic and mythical creatures are child's play. I defend God ie a eternal being (without cause); God by definition is Omnipotent. Not a mythical creature in charge of a set of specific functions ie Greek Mythology. If you want to discuss God I will be happy to.

      August 28, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      No, that's where the issue is going to be. Validity in one text doesn't mean the rest is any more valid. Arguments and hypothesis stand on their own merits, not on the merits of a perceived authority.

      August 28, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      The universe exists. So what? How does that equal god? What's the difference between supernatural and magic? How much it's accepted as truth?

      August 28, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      I agree and as you can see most Historians find the Gospels to be historically reliable. That is my point and case.

      Now speaking of the divinity of Jesus that is another issue; one that is irrelevant if you don't believe in God in the first place. Why discuss Jesus if you don't acknowledge God?

      August 28, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
    • Chance

      @ HG
      For starters magic is considered pagan in Christianity; supernatural events are attributed to God.

      you say -> "The universe exists. So what? How does that equal god?"

      The fact that there is something rather than nothing is monumental in the quest for deciding to believe in God or not.

      If I were atheist I to would turn a blind eye to question "why there is something rather than nothing"

      August 28, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      You've stated your entire point with the historical events things is that it somehow makes the entire bible more valid, and I'm saying that's not how things work.

      Again, there's something rather than nothing. So what? That in no way even insinuates a god. Asking why is merely begging the question fallacy. I could care less what you might turn a blind eye to if you were an atheist.
      Ohhh Oh wait wait, lemme guess, Kalam right? Or maybe TAG? Which is it? Wait it doesn't matter, both are based on fallacies. That being said, I need to go, respond if you want I'll be back tomorrow.

      August 28, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      what I'm saying is that historical corresponding evidence supports the bibles validity. As I quoted Bart Ehrman "the majority of scholars in Europe and North America have agreed that the earliest gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, do contain historically reliable information."

      So what I'm saying is that because of the reliable historical accounts from the bible, I believe it to be true. Key word I.

      I'm not conveying that because of it's historical credentials it's mandatory you accept Christian theology. I am saying because of its "historically reliable information" it elevates the bibles credibility. If the bible didn't align with historical events or key figures of the bible where not discovered to have existed (ie the roman governor Pontius Pilate) it would be the death blow for the bible.

      The reliable historical events in the bible give a believer more confidence in the bible. I'm not saying that a atheist or non practicing Christian should take the bible for all its worth because of the historical reliability. I believe that's what your assuming...and that is not the case.

      I'm stating for a believer the historical reliability of the bible elevates the confidence WE have in the bible. You must remember the bible demands that believer question everything and have a strong footing on what we believe in.

      August 28, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      you say "Again, there's something rather than nothing. So what?"

      I'm not referring to any of the position you posted above. To ask the question "why there's something rather than nothing" is not a fallacy. A fallacy would be stating that absolute nothingness can produce something.

      Do you believe that nothing made everything? or do you ignore the question? the reason I ask you is why bother discussing theology specifically the christian theology if you don't believe in God? If you don't have a open mind for God much less will you be open to theology....I believe we would first have to establish a infinite being God possibly exist to debate christian theology.

      I'll be happy to answer question of christian theology but why debate them if ultimately you totally deny God? I believe the bible debate is for someone open to the possibility of God.

      So back to the point -> This universe we live in is finite, I won't get into the expansion of the universe but we know the universe we live in will not last forever. So if it's not eternal it had a beginning.

      That's my point the universe had a beginning just as you and I had a beginning. So the question is how did the universe leap into existence?

      August 29, 2012 at 12:22 am |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      The bible also states that faith is the most important thing. There are contradictory statements in the bible, so really it's just a matter of choosing which position you like.

      You are equating the current state of matter, or the state of matter brought about by the Big Bang to being the start of everything, and you have not justified that claim. I am not stating that something can come from nothing, but I do not accept the assertion that something cannot come from nothing for a few reasons.
      1) Nothing can be ill defined at times
      2) We don't have an example of nothing to determine that something cannot come from it

      Now, it's already obvious that you accept that things can exist without a cause (i.e. your god), so why does your god get to be in the special category? The current state of the universe began to exist with the Big Bang yes, but until you can demonstrate that there was "nothing" before that, you cannot justify the assertion that there was nothing, therefore god (which is essentially Kalam anyway). Also, even if you were able to demonstrate all of the above, you STILL can't get to the christian god from that.

      August 29, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG you said ->The bible also states that faith is the most important thing. There are contradictory statements in the bible, so really it's just a matter of choosing which position you like.

      Your above statement is a fallacy; the bible doesn't ask for blind faith followers. There is no contradiction in a genuine faith supported by research into why you believe what you believe. Yes faith is required but to ask questions and seek answers to strengthen you faith is logical. It would be ridiculous to blindly follow a belief with no basis. That's something I call empty faith, essentially someone going through the motions. IF YOU READ the bible it states LOVE is the greatest out of faith hope and love. Further more if you read the bible you will find that believers are told to be on guard and be ready to answer question as to why you have faith. Get your facts correct about the bible please.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG you say -> "You are equating the current state of matter, or the state of matter brought about by the Big Bang to being the start of everything"

      I'm not equating anything yet, I have not stated my position, your assuming my belief system; I don't care for what you think I believe. Further more I have merely asked a question.

      You answered:
      "1) Nothing can be ill defined at times" –> I would expect better from you; this is a ridiculous counter. So because LIFE can not be defined by science it means it doesn't exist? PLEASE get real HG just because we can't define something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. WOW I'm very disappointed in you HG....is this really you?

      "2) We don't have an example of nothing to determine that something cannot come from it"--> WOW you need to see prof that nothing can not produce something.

      You have not given a reason for the universe's existence but yet you ridicule the belief of a Creator...HG the belief in GOD and the belief in Christianity are two different things. One can believe in a God (eternal Omnipotent being) and not practice Christianity.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      I thougnt I answere a long time ago. So then.

      1) Nothing is a very ill-defined term in your post, because I'm not sure if you're talking about physics, math, or some abstract philisophical idea.

      2) I only need to see proof something cannot come from nothing when someone makes the assertion that something cannot come from nothing.

      "You have not given a reason for the universe's existence "
      You're the one that seems to be asserting a reason, not me, and I don't accept that it MUST have one. Plus, a reason for something automatically insinuates a creator, so I don't accept the question on those grounds either.

      As for the bible thing, I refer you to Galatians 5: 1-24 I think.

      August 29, 2012 at 8:12 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      Speaking over faith and Gal 5 take a look specifically at verse 5:6; the message is faith in Jesus provisions God's grace for those who have faith in Jesus (Jesus is the key no further benefit is available by human effort). Faith is expressed by exercising love towards others (see Rom 13:10;14:17-19; 2 Cor 8:8-13). Faith is very important in Christianity I'm not denying that. See "1 Cor 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

      Back to faith and my point about questioning your belief system so you have solid footing on why you believe in Christ. See "1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil." Also see Col 4:6...

      The passage above conveys to always be ready to answer anyone who questions why you place your hope in Christ. The only way to do this effectively in modern times is by studying all aspects of the "Good Book" and "Nature Book" (Bible/Nature). Blind faith could not answer the questions of a skeptic who has genuine doubt of God or Jesus.

      I'd like to move on from the issue of faith and questioning the foundation of faith. As you can clearly see those who believe in Jesus must have faith in Him but need to always be ready to ANSWER WHY WE HAVE FAITH in Him. The only logical way to convey the reason we believe would be to have answers for questions from doubters. To do this we have to seek answers; blind faith would not cut it. The fallacy of blind faith is easily observed with simple research in the biblical text.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:22 am |
    • tallulah13

      Since a city that is likely to be Troy was found by using landmarks in the Iliad, you'd best get your hecatomb ready, By your logic, it's just as likely the events of the Iliad are true as the events of the bible. Zeus can be petty, so be sure to sacrifice your best cattle to him.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:33 am |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      I'm willing to put the faith thing away if you want to. Do you want to go back to my response to the other part of your post?

      August 30, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Chance

      @tallulah13
      The bible doesn't correspond to one city or one event; as I quoted before "the majority of scholars in Europe and North America have agreed that the earliest gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, do contain historically reliable information." – Bart Ehrman (UNC – Chapel Hill)

      I've also stated that because of the "historically reliable information" it elevates the confidence of a believer in the bible. I'm not saying that atheist and non practicing Christians should take the bible for all its worth solely based on the criteria of "historically reliable information".

      Take your straw-man elsewhere....

      August 30, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      Do you see the blind faith is a misconception of theism? The verse I gave you clearly shows this...Yes faith is required but also a clear understanding of why we believe is required as well. A believer has to be ready to answer why he has hope in God. This requires a knowledge of both the "Good Book" and "Nature Book".

      August 30, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      No I don't, but I really don't want to open this back up again, I'd rather get back to the other conversation for now.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      Please see below:
      “Ever since the dawn of civilisation, people have craved for an understanding of the underlying order of the world, and why it exists at all,” said Hawking, opening the proceedings. “Look up at the stars and not down at your feet and wonder about what makes the universe exist,” he continued. “Be curious.”

      this is from Stephen Hawking at the opening of the London Paralympic Games.

      Sure I'll address your previous comment.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      Not sure why you would quote Hawking.

      August 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      Because you seem not to care about why the universe exist, you're like why should anyone care. I quoted Hawking to show that the search for existence is relevant.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      I'm not saying that I don't care, I'm saying that I don't accept the automatic premise that there must be a reason, which is different than an explanation.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      I'll move on from the subject of Faith but I've clearly shown your fallacy of "blind faith" and how a believer is called to be ready at all times to answer question for the hope we have in God. In order for us to be ready we must study the "Good Book" and "Nature Book" pursing relevant answers.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      Sure lets take reason out of the mix and look for a explanation. I'll address your prior post next.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chance

      Did you really hae to try and get that dig in? Really? I said I was willing to close it for now, and that's what you come back with?

      August 30, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      1) Nothing –> I mean nothing in the sense of physics (which I would associate math with) and or a philosophical sense. Either position makes no difference to me; I'm asking you...How do you view our existence? How do you explain our existence? I know used reason earlier but I was after your take of existence; I get you believe we have no reason to exist but it doesn't give a explanation for existence.

      2) Prof> I believe logically absolute nothingness can not produce something. I also feel we can move past this point and focus on the above on whatever "nothing" you believe exist (physics or philosophical) and your "explanation" of the universe's existence.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      I'm not trying to get a dig in; but get real you want to lecture me on theology...and what kind of faith is required. Your trying to say the believing in God requires blind unfounded faith. If you know anything about Christianity we are called to be witnesses to the world. To have answers for those who seek why we have hope in GOD. Get over it your wrong.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • Chance

      @HG
      I'm not trying to get a dig in; but get real you want to lecture me on theology...and what kind of faith is required. Your trying to say the believing in God requires blind unfounded faith. If you know anything about Christianity we are called to be witnesses to the world. To have answers for those who seek why we have hope in GOD.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  13. kirk

    professing them selves to be wise they became as FOOLS
    the insanity of a finite being trying to figure out an infinite being is ludicrous
    and cannot be completely done you can mimic look, copy sometimes
    but never will you fully understand

    August 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      It's more of a case of a finite being creating an imaginary infinite being.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • sbp

      Is this how thouest assumes Jesus did speaketh? In Middle-Englisheth? Jesus Christeth.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • save the world and slap some sense into a christard today!

      sbp – "Is this how thouest assumes Jesus did speaketh? In Middle-Englisheth? Jesus Christeth."

      It's either HeavenSent or some other "writer" who was let go from the Pat Robertson Enlightened Fortune Cookie Co.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
  14. Artifex

    You have managed to perfectly meld towering ignorance and infinitesimally small minded racism in one pithy comment! You are the epitome of conservative evolution. Congratulations!

    August 27, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
  15. Dev

    And yet Bill creates. Can you imagine the size of the mental disconnect that he has over this issue?

    August 27, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      Huh?

      August 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Chris Mankey

      What?

      August 27, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
  16. michiganhockey11

    Mr. Nye,

    You as a scientist should know that the only observable/proveable evolution that exists is micro. Macro evolution (thus needed to prove fish, to land walker, to human) does not exist and cannot be proven.

    If you chose to deny logic and continue to believe in an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist, be my guest. As someone who believes in creationsim, I will stand by my belief and proofs/evidences I have (although you would never consider them empirical). By the way, did you know that Stephen Hawking (at his 70th birthday party) also subscribes to a theory belief that at some point "science" breaks down and there must be a single starting cause to everything? And he's an atheist!

    August 27, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • Marco

      You're just not bright if you buy creationism. Period. Next you're going to try and tell us all the world was completed in 6000 years, when there's empirical data to show otherwise. Go back to the bronze age please.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • Michigan is full of idiots

      Jesus Christ, what is even happening in this post....

      August 27, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • ReasonableXX

      In real science, there is no such thing as micro/macro evolution. There is just simply evolution.

      Micro and macro are terms invented by creationists to help them cope with the undeniable physical evidence that they are presented with.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      Ah, 700 Club science strikes again......

      August 27, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      Creationists are the ones that came up with the idiotic terms of micro and macro evolution. Evolution is a gradual and continuous process. Its OK if you don’t understand that. Like Mr Nye eluded to in his video, there are a lot of stupid people in the US.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • Chance

      Thanks for posting the micro / macro point.

      Like you said there is little to no evidence of one kind of species making another species, there is plenty of evidence showing evolution within specific species.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • Chance

      @Marco
      In the age of scientific enlightenment there is a growing number of believers who believe the Earth is +/- 14 billion years old. It is simply old theology that subscribes to the young Earth belief. Though there is a difference of Earth's age among believers the common ground remains that "nothing could not have produced something".

      August 27, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • michiganhockey11

      The atheist’s most recent god, the multiverse, was laid to rest this January at a rather unusual event: the 70th birthday celebration of Stephen Hawking, which was held at Cambridge. Delivering the eulogy was Dr. Alexander Vilenkin, who had written a recent paper that was presented at the “State of the Universe” meeting of scientists who had gathered to honor Hawking.

      After demonstrating the fallacies of the various theories that have attempted to validate a multiverse, Vilenkin summed up his conclusions by saying, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” This, naturally, put every philosophical naturalist and atheist into mourning because Hawking himself has admitted,

      “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”
      On the fine tuning of the universe, physicist Andrei Linde has said, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”1 Linde stated this in a 2008 Discover article and added that the multiverse theory was a very compelling possibility for answering the question about the universe’s fine tuning, which permits life on earth.

      Vilenkin, one of Linde’s peers and co-workers, now seems to have shut the door on that option.

      Even before Vilenkin’s address, the multiverse theory had suffered plenty of debilitating blows before its 2012 death. A multiverse has always had the philosophical problem of an infinite regress. Such an issue is not limited to this universe; it applies to any reality. You still must always get back to a first cause – an uncaused cause for everything – and this includes a multiverse.

      Scientifically speaking, no evidence has ever been provided for a multiverse. In fact, there has been no model that has supplied any evidence showing any reality that extends into the infinite past. But, surprisingly, many atheists and philosophical naturalists have hailed the multiverse almost as something like a god – describing its beauty, power, etc., with absolutely no proof that such a thing has ever existed. It is a strange stance to be sure for those who constantly criticize believers in God for having ‘faith’ in something that (supposedly) has no proof for its existence

      In other words, Hawking’s worries about needing a divine kick-starter for our universe haven’t been squelched. This may be why Hawking made a pre-recorded phone message for his birthday event which said, "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God."

      Vilenkin’s recent paper dismantles the three possible options for a multiverse and is in keeping with prior statements he’s made which include the following:

      “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

      Defend, please.

      “It is rather ironical that in the sixteenth century some people resisted advances in science because they seemed to threaten belief in God; whereas in the twentieth century scientific ideas of a beginning have been resisted because they threatened to increase the plausibility of belief in God.”
      -John Lennox

      August 27, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
    • Chance

      @michiganhockey11
      where is that article from?

      August 27, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
    • Jake Johnson

      He is not denying logic. He is upholding logic and pointing out that a belief in creation by a divine being is not supported by evidence or logic.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • michiganhockey11

      @chance
      http://carm.org/atheism-and-the-multiverse

      August 27, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • Chance

      @Jack
      How is believing that out of nothing we have everything logical?

      Why is it illogical to believe that a external cause started the universe?

      August 27, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
  17. Jesse

    @Glenc – you're right, but keep in mind that nobody today follows "Darwinism", they believe in "evolution" which is very different. The idea of evolution sprung from Darwin's work, but it doesn't adhere to his work. Much like how mathematics progressed far beyond it's humble beginnings or how our understanding of physics has greatly changed since Einstein. Those are starting points, not end points.

    August 27, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
  18. boulevardier

    The first verses of the book of Genesis are a poetic description of evolution. Creation and evolution are one in the same. Scientific knowledge is just recently catching up with the Bible. The hardliners will shout "It took 6 days" and not accept the possibility that the 6 days as described in Genesis are symbolic for billions of years. Hardliners on the other end of the spectrum will shout "there is no creator – it all just happened on its own". Personally I believe in a creator . . . . and he/she/it "created" life as we know it through the process of evolution.

    August 27, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Horus

      ummm have you read Genesis? 'cause they go a few things out of order based on scientific evidence, and biological fact.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • michiganhockey11

      If it's one thing the Jewish people did great, it's the language and the translation. If the translation of Genesis was to mean "more than a literal day/24hr period" they would have used a word to mean so (as there were many different definitions to words). The translation in Hebrew does not mean a day=billion years. The translation is a literal day/24hr period. End of story.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • Other side

      Right on, brother/sister/neuter!

      August 27, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
  19. Barry

    As a Christian, I have had no difficulty reconciling my faith with evolution. Although I will no doubt be criticized by other Christians, as well as by the scientific community, I fail to see why it is inconceivable that God could use evolution as His vehicle in creation.

    August 27, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Which God?

      Barry. You failed at quite a bit since then, yes? Craationism is falsehood. Please give proof off your god. Have him call my cell. I won't hold my brath however.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • Which God?

      Barry. You failed at quite a bit since then, yes? Creationism is falsehood. Please give proof of your god. Have him call my cell. I won't hold my breath however.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • I agree with Barry...

      I'm a pretty hard core non believer and certainly think that Creationists range between actively stupid and blissfully ignorant. But I don't have any argument with Barry. Science doesn't say anything about the existence of God, and as much as I think God is a pipe dream, I've got not evidence against his existence. Stick to your guns Barry, you are every bit as right as anyone else out here.

      August 27, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
  20. JL

    "Your world becomes fantastically complicated if you don't believe in evolution,"
    What a delusional statement. Ask any evolutionist and they will tell you that it is in fact their world that is fantastically complicated. Try explaining how hemoglobin managed to evolve in all kinds of different species that supposedly aren't related. God created good designs and a good design can work in different settings. That's why he reused them throughout nature.

    August 27, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • James

      But you miss the point – evolutionists will say that hemoglobin is present in so many species because they ARE related.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • AverageJoe76

      I actually think the quote was dead-on. Trying to marry the Bible with today's scientific findings will confuse your understanding. You really have to choose. Anything else is YOU making things up. Take it the way it's written (the Bible). don't try to 'retro-fit' it's verses to match some new discovery. At some point, they cannot be merged.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
    • Other side

      Wow! JL, you get the prize today for bad logic. Hemoglobin is a chemical present in the blood all primates to absorb oxygen. Wait! Present in all primates. Could that imply there might be a common ances….nah! God done it. Newsflash, JL. Salt’s there too. What can you deduce from that fact?

      August 27, 2012 at 3:32 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.