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. tonythecroat

    Ive had it with CNN nonsence and athiest promoting stories and blogs. BBC here I come.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Adam

      ...where there are no stories on the denial of evolution because THEY ARE NOT SO BACKWARDS AS TO EVEN CONSIDER HAVING SUCH A POINTLESS DISCUSSION ON A NATIONAL STAGE!

      August 27, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Mammoth1

      Buh-bye.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Wrenn_NYC

      Hate to break it to you, but while there's approx 10% of the us who are atheists, 20% of the UK are atheists. You're only going to a higher concentration. 😛

      August 27, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • jemzinthekop

      BBC as in Europe as in the birthplace of the enlightenment and the most pervasive atheist continent on the planet?

      Just dumb your fairy tales man, Jesus is not coming down the beanstock

      August 27, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
  2. Lance

    Has there been proof of macro evolution yet? I haven't studied it in depth for sometime and am really asking out of curiosity.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • Rob-Texas

      If anything its been provin that the gap is to big to be filled by the evolutionary process. In order to fill the gape between humans and apes, you would need to have a quantum leap in evolution that is so fast it has never been witnessed in any speices on this planet. Seems like Nye isn't much of a Science guy.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • D

      There's no such thing as macro-evolution. It's all amounts of micro-evolution.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
  3. Richard Louis Fairchild

    ok, now everyone please be quiet, I have something to say, do not type for the next minute, thank you

    August 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
  4. Harold Mayes

    I happen to believe that both are correct.
    1). Science confirms the Bible on a number of points. The Bible describes in the correct, logic order how the universe was created,
    A). The universe did not exist until it was created – the big bang theory comes to the same conclusion.
    B). Light was created next – The universe was dark for some time after it was created.
    C). The world came next – Universe at 13 Billion years, Earth at 4+ Billion years.
    D). Water next
    and so forth.

    The Bible also states that a day with God is a thousand years, and a thousand years is but a day. A thousand was the largest number that the writers of the Bible knew. Why not a Million years, or a Billion years? The point it makes is that God is timeless. He exist outside of time.

    How did the writer of Gensis know how the universe was formed, or that it even was? It is amazing in itself.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • TheAlaskaCurmudgeon

      I happen to think I'll have another beer.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Harold,

      please read Genesis again. The order is completely mixed up. The sun, moon and stars are not created until the fourth day. Go check it out – I'm not making it up.

      Also it has birds before land animals. There are lots of gross inconsistencies that can't be hand-waved away.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • save the world and slap some sense into a christard today!

      You've never listened to or read works by a lawyer or a politician or a lobbyist or a salesman??

      August 27, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • ?

      But why get your cues from the bible in the first place? There's zero evidence backing any of it up. What makes Christianity more right than any other religion? Honestly, religion makes no sense.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • Wrenn_NYC

      You do realize you're applying a 1st-2nd century letter (2 Peter), and the last letter to be added to the NT canon, to an oral story, a parable to teach monogamous marriage and care of the resources around you, that was likely finally written down about 6-700 years before the letter was written?

      And you don't think you're reading to much into it?

      August 27, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • db

      The Bible isn't "amazing" and it basically got very little correct. Bible stories are great for teaching children because they will stop asking questions and you can get them to bed more quickly than if you had to actual explain how things really work. Are there still some unexplained mysteries of the universe? Of course, but why do people in this modern age continue to fill in the blanks with fantasy and make believe? It's dumb.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Abraham

      Perhaps the writer of Genesis figured that since he lived in the universe, it must have formed somehow. That he did not know how lead him to invent the story found within Genesis.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Rob-Texas

      Agree with you 100%

      August 27, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
  5. Carlos

    Yea we evolve from primates... Smart answer coming from a man that has studied almost all his life.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • putty

      Again, we are primates. In science, we call the other primates "nonhuman primates."

      August 27, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
  6. Mark in California

    That "god" had a hand in evolution, is something that still may be determined, but to disbelieve scientific fact that we evolved, and to believe that the earth is only 10,000 is pure stupidity and a denial of reality. That said, there are a lot of ignorant folks out there that staunchly maintain that ignorance.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
  7. monomial

    I think those who litteraly believe the world was made in 6 X 24hr periods is very small and is not mainstream. Religion is a form of brain washing, just as school is. You grow up believing what you are taught. It takes some effort to un-learn false principles you grew up being told were fact. It's just going to take a lot of time to filter out.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • Babs

      No, no you're getting confused with Amway...

      August 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @monomial

      "I think those who litteraly believe the world was made in 6 X 24hr periods is very small and is not mainstream"

      Survey says:
      46% believe in creationism
      32% believe God guided creation through evolution

      Survey says (sadly) that your premise is wrong.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • putty

      You know, I also refuse to believe that survery is accurate. Almost half of the country being creationist seems way too high for an educated first world country. Did they give a definition of evolution in the questionnaire? Evolution is merely species changing over time, but I'm assuming that a lot of people just think it means we evolved from monkeys or something. If you understand that the dog's origins are the wolf, then you believe in evolution. If you breed animals or plants then you also necessarily believe in evolution because you're the one doing the work!

      I find that for some weird reason, religious people do believe that species change over time (evolve) with the odd exception of humans, which they refuse to believe shares a common ancestor with anything, despite DNA evidence.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
  8. Carlos

    Yea we evolve from primates... Smart answer coming from some scientists.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • sam

      Read a book, dumbass.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • Mammoth1

      You don't think we did? You have a tail bone. It serves no purpose. But once when we had tails it did. Just like your appendix.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Al

      We ARE primates. Do you even have any basic understanding of science and/or evolution? Did you fail 5th grade biology?

      August 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • putty

      We didn't evolve from primates – we ARE primates, silly. All primates share a common ancestor, as does all life.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • Carlos

      blah blah that's what comes out of your mouths.. want me to believe that evolution is reality well creationism is reality. not gonna change my view. so go waste your words on poor people with no education.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
    • gager

      A typical denial of evoving from primates but no one made that assertion except bible thumpers.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • Al

      Your lack of education is clearly apparent if your only response is "blah blah blah, you're wrong, I'm right". Carlos, you should've paid attention in school. Being a vapid adult is embarrassing, isn't it?

      August 27, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
    • sam

      Obviously, we *are* wasting our words on a poor person with no education. Thanks for playing, Carlos.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
  9. skeptical

    Questions for Christian creationists.

    I don't want to straw man your views so please help me understand. I am not trying to be glib or sarcastic.

    Do you really believe that the Earth was created in 6 days roughly six thousand years ago?

    Do you really believe in the Noah's Arc fable?

    Do you really believe that God created Adam and then took one of his ribs to make Eve? And that their offspring populated the world.

    Do you really believe that all of the billions of humans that have walked this Earth that did accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior are currently burning in an eternal hellfire?

    Do you believe man and Dinosaurs lived together?

    Thanks

    August 27, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • jeff

      your right, creationists are really stupid. But thats why they need an imaginary friend.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • Rob-Texas

      Do you really believe that the Earth was created in 6 days roughly six thousand years ago?
      No, and I don't know any other Christans that do. Quit listening to the media.

      Do you really believe in the Noah's Arc fable?
      Yes, not a fable. The flood story is in almost every anchient society.

      Do you really believe that God created Adam and then took one of his ribs to make Eve? And that their offspring populated the world.
      yes, but not just their offspring. Eve was not the first woman God created.

      Do you really believe that all of the billions of humans that have walked this Earth that did accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior are currently burning in an eternal hellfire?
      That was not the requirment before Christ, otherwise yes in hell. Which is probably not anything like a buring lake of fire. Probably more like knowing that there is a creator and you seperated from him and your family that has gone before you. Still we are not the judge so non of us know who will be there in Heaven or hell. Many of us believe that all mankind will be raised from the dead and they will get a second chance then.

      Do you believe man and Dinosaurs lived together?
      Yes, why is that so hard for you?

      How about a few questions for you:
      Do you believe there is any historical fact to the bible?

      Do you think that it was just some radom game of chance that we are here and self aware?

      Do you listen to what you heard in the media and take it as fact, or reseach it on your own?

      Have you been turned off by someone that tried to pressure you into coming to church in the past?
      If so, did you assume that all Christians were that way?

      August 27, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • skeptical

      Bob – Thanks for your candid response. And I apologize for the guy that jumped on my post calling creationist stupid. That was in no way my intent. There is way to much name childish calling on here.

      Do you really believe that the Earth was created in 6 days roughly six thousand years ago?
      No, and I don't know any other Christans that do. Quit listening to the media.
      -Not sure what you mean by listening to the media, I read quite a bit and watch next to no television. And I am sorry but I have to disagree with you, there are a number of prominent Christian apologists that profess to believe in a young Earth creation. (Hen Hovind, Ken Ham etc.. I can provide more examples if necessary.)

      Do you really believe in the Noah's Arc fable?
      Yes, not a fable. The flood story is in almost every anchient society. (no h in ancient 🙂 )
      – I totally agree that flood myths are quite common, especially in the middle east. I believe its fair to say that yes, there have been a number of cataclysmic deluges throughout the Earths history However, there is absolutely o evidence to support the idea that the world was completely covered by water. More to my point is "Do you believe that a being in the sky came down to Earth to warn one man and his family of the impending flood and hat family collected 2 of every species of animal and put them on a boat for 40 days and 40 nights?

      Do you really believe that God created Adam and then took one of his ribs to make Eve? And that their offspring populated the world.
      yes, but not just their offspring. Eve was not the first woman God created.
      – Okay, just to be clear, God created man and removed a rib to create another person? Again, I am just trying to understand your beliefs.

      Do you really believe that all of the billions of humans that have walked this Earth that did accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior are currently burning in an eternal hellfire?
      That was not the requirment before Christ, otherwise yes in hell. Which is probably not anything like a buring lake of fire. Probably more like knowing that there is a creator and you seperated from him and your family that has gone before you. Still we are not the judge so non of us know who will be there in Heaven or hell. Many of us believe that all mankind will be raised from the dead and they will get a second chance then.
      – Can you provide any evidence to support this assertion or is this, shall we say, just something you feel or know to be true and that it doesn't require any evidence?

      Do you believe man and Dinosaurs lived together?
      Yes, why is that so hard for you?
      – It's hard because the fossil record indicates man and dinosaurs are separated by 60 million years. There has never been human remains or artifacts found in the same strata as dinosaur fossils. (if that would ever to happen than evolution would be disproved. Science is by definition falsifiable

      How about a few questions for you:
      Do you believe there is any historical fact to the bible?
      – Yes I do.

      Do you think that it was just some radom game of chance that we are here and self aware?
      – Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species.

      Do you listen to what you heard in the media and take it as fact, or reseach it on your own?
      Again with media thing? Do you consider Science to be part of the media?

      Have you been turned off by someone that tried to pressure you into coming to church in the past?
      If so, did you assume that all Christians were that way?
      – I was raised in a Christian home but we were not regular church goers and I have never been exposed to any sort of fundamentalist or evangelical teachings. I joined the Army after high school and the loneliness and separation from my family drove me to seek comfort in religion. In basic training and AIT we were not allowed to have any books or magazines other than the Bible. I read the Bible from cover to cover in a little under 8 weeks (only had a little bit of time at night). What I read horrified and quite frankly disgusted me. (I do not mean to offend, but we are having a frank discussion and I am speaking frankly).
      Again, Thank You for taking the time to answer my questions. I hope that you will find my answers sufficient. I don't expect to change your mind (nor is that my intention).
      I had one final question:
      Do believe that the vast majority of scientists in the life sciences fields are just wrong or are they part of an active conspiracy to suppress any evidence for creationism?

      August 27, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • D

      Thank you for being a curtious person on this forum. I appreciate your candor and skepticism. I will try to give a good response.

      Do you really believe that the Earth was created in 6 days roughly six thousand years ago?
      Yes, I do. The age of the earth can not be measured directly. The RATE exeperiments performed by ICR show a date of thousands, not billions of years old.

      Do you really believe in the Noah's Arc fable?
      No. I believe Noah's Arc actually happened. This is based off of the old school of thought in geology called catastrophism, that the earth was rapidly shaped in a short amount of time due to a series of catastrophies. If you believe in global warming/climate change, you believe in catastrophism as well. The difference is that the catastrophic effects of global warming will happen in the future, while Noah's flood happened in the past. Also, anecdotal evidence of flood stories in most cultures will point back to a deluge.

      Do you really believe that God created Adam and then took one of his ribs to make Eve? And that their offspring populated the world.
      It is supernaturally possible that could have happened. Also, in my world view, it is reasonable to believe in the supernatural to explain unique anomalies consistent with scripture.

      Do you really believe that all of the billions of humans that have walked this Earth that did accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior are currently burning in an eternal hellfire?
      No. I believe that the billions of humans that have walked this earth that accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are currently in heaven. I also believe the theology mentioned in the book of Romans regarding people who have never heard of the Gospel.

      Do you believe man and Dinosaurs lived together.
      Yes. There have been findings of soft tissue on dinosaur bones. That is only consistent with the Young Earth/Catastrophism school of though, as the soft tissue would completely decay and be gone if given millions of years exposed to the elements. For those findings to happen, a catastrophy would have to preserve the specimen for a long period of time. Also, there is anecdotal evidence of humankind and dinosaurs living together in some historical records. There have been temple carvings and cave paintings of dinosaurs. Remember that before 1841, there were no dinosaurs. They were simply referred to as "dragons". Accounts of dragons in ancient cultures mostly depict giant monstrous lizards. Fossil digs in the 19th century revealed skeletons of giant monstrous lizards.

      There is truth to some mythology, especially when almost all the cultures before our time had accounts of a great deluge in the past, and terrible dragons roaming the land. They are either ingrained memories/instincts from our ancestral past that harken back to our human and possibly pre-human ancestors, or they are historical events that occured near the dawn of the human civilization. Depending on your presuppositions, one is seen as truth, and the other is seen as foolishness.

      August 28, 2012 at 10:05 am |
  10. NoRa

    King Clone is thought to be the oldest Creosote bush ring in the Mojave Desert. The ring is estimated to be 11,700 years old. It is considered one of the oldest living organisms on Earth. hmmmm .... must have been put there by the Devil, Right? 😉

    August 27, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • Babs

      How'd they date that thing/

      August 27, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • gager

      Babs, would you like the short version or the long version on how dating is done?

      August 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • Duh

      Babs, they use science and technology. American Journal of Botany, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Feb., 1980), pp. 246-255.
      Carbon dating, which is useful to date things as far back as 60k years. It is based on the physical fact that not all carbon atoms are the same, some of the isotopes of carbon radioactively decay differently such as Carbon14, which provides a means to measure time. Other radioactive substances can be used for dating the decay of those substances, allowing for much longer clocks, going into millions of years, or seconds, depending on the half life of the isotopes.

      NoRa, it would appear King Clone predates the devil, assuming the devil came into existence on or after the first day of genesis/bible 6000 years ago. The real questions are: did King Clone create the devil? Should we destroy King Clone as a first-priority religious and national defense posture? Should this be included as part of the GOP policy plank to rule us and make us safe from King Clone? Is first strike appropriate against King Clone to restore American values? Will the country fail in the eyes of God(s) if we do not destroy it now?

      August 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
  11. Chad

    The BIGGEST problem is that Nye and his ilk don't want to talk about theistic evolution, their ultimate goal is atheism, so they only want to talk about atheistic evolution..

    Time after time we see it, the atheistic community strives to create a false dichotomy that there are only two choices:
    A. Believe the bible
    B. Believe atheism

    That TOTALLY distorts the reality, and ignores absolutely valid exegesis on Genesis that are in harmony with theistic evolution.

    We arent seeing a clash between "science" and Christianity, this is a clash between atheism and Christianity.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • Allen

      No the biggest problem is that 46% of people in the most powerful nation on Earth reject basic science.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • Richard Louis Fairchild

      theistic evolution is, well, sorry to burst your universe, not true.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • OOO

      What is the difference between theistic evolution and athiestic evolution?

      August 27, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • Chad

      @Richard Louis Fairchild "theistic evolution is, well, sorry to burst your universe, not true."

      =>and your evidence for this,.. is?

      August 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • sam

      He's trying to use common sense on you, Chad.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Chad, Richard Louis Fairchild doesn't have evidence of anything, zero, zilch, nada.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • CommonSense

      Chad,
      I think you are missing the point, and I wish you were not on defense.
      Look at where United States is compared to other countries when it comes to math and science. If all you want to do is teach creationism, Americans will continue to fall further and further behind. America as a super power is no more, and that is because of religious dogma that is putting us more and more behind.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • just a John

      Chad you are a one trick pony, there are 100's of so called gods and dozens of creation myths, why is yours any more truthful than the others? Don't duck the question, try and convince me?

      August 27, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • Chad

      @OOO "What is the difference between theistic evolution and athiestic evolution?"

      Theistic evolution is one of three major origin-of-life worldviews, the other two being atheistic evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian evolution and naturalistic evolution) and special creation (the notion that God created living creatures in their final form).

      Atheistic evolution says that there is no God and that life can and did emerge naturally from preexisting, non-living building blocks under the influence of natural laws (like gravity, etc), although the origin of those natural laws and the origin of the first self replicating life form is not explained.

      Theistic evolution believes that evolution was the mechanism by which God created life as we know it.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • cg

      I suppose one or two atheists might be pushing that kind of idea, but the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't even factor the bible into their work because they're only concerned with gaining a better understanding of the natural world through empirical testing and analysis. In general, scientists never declared war on religion, they merely seek out rational explanations for how the world works. It's nobody's fault but yours if you feel like rational explanations are a threat to your religious beliefs.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • Chad

      @CommonSense "I think you are missing the point, and I wish you were not on defense. Look at where United States is compared to other countries when it comes to math and science. If all you want to do is teach creationism, Americans will continue to fall further and further behind. America as a super power is no more, and that is because of religious dogma that is putting us more and more behind."

      =>ABSOLUTELY perfect example of the false dichotomy that I describe in the root post.
      You probably did it without even thinking..

      can you spot it? (it's easy, you present "it's either math and science or creationism". There is a third alternative..

      August 27, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • Chad

      @cg "I suppose one or two atheists might be pushing that kind of idea, but the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't even factor the bible into their work because they're only concerned with gaining a better understanding of the natural world through empirical testing and analysis. In general, scientists never declared war on religion, they merely seek out rational explanations for how the world works. It's nobody's fault but yours if you feel like rational explanations are a threat to your religious beliefs."

      =>another EXCELLENT example of the false dichotomy. Can you spot it?
      its easy, just look for the "it's either science or the bible"

      if you actually read my root post, do you see a third option?

      August 27, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "Theistic evolution believes that evolution was the mechanism by which God created life as we know it."
      Just to clarify, doesn't Theistic evolution usually mean the same thing as Theory of Evolution, but as a tool of God?

      "A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution."
      Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. (1998). "Evolutionary Creation". American Scientific Affiliation. (as quoted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution)

      August 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
    • ME II

      p.s.
      Such a Theistic Evolution would be indistinguishable from your "Atheistic" Evolution, would it not?

      August 27, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • Larry L

      As an atheist I don't reject Christianity any more than any other of the mythologies that have been practiced for centuries. It just happens to be to one with the most political and economic influence on our government. Your rejection of science that challenges your religious dogma has a negative influence on education, medicine, reproductive rights, environmental protection – just to name a few areas. The money wasted on religion could be used to advance our society rather than cause the spread of hatred and bigotry.

      Trust me – atheists wouldn't give a rat's @$$ what you do if you didn't interfere with our lives and threaten our personal freedoms. We aren't a "faith" and do not create a mythology others are expected to accept.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • CommonSense

      Chad,
      Do you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god?

      August 27, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "Such a Theistic Evolution would be indistinguishable from your "Atheistic" Evolution, would it not?"

      =>no more so than a house is indistinguishable from a pile of building materials..

      August 27, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • Chad

      @CommonSense "Do you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god?"

      =>absolutely 100%. When read in context, in the original language and with the understanding that the goal is to understand exactly what the author was attempting to communicate.

      were you able to spot your false dichotomy? It was fairly easy..

      August 27, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • Chad

      @Larry L:
      exactly
      1. which personal freedoms
      are
      2. All Christians
      attempting to deprive you of, and why do you feel that
      3. Christians have no right to lobby the government?

      August 27, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      As I see it, only theists want (need?) to introduce God into theories of life's origins. No one else has seen reason to do so. We could invoke extra-terrestrial intelligent beings of very ordinary capabilities as the originators of life here – that seems plausible enough – but we don't. Why? We don't need to. Biology seems to be progressing well enough without such things.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      The ultimate goal is not to bolster atheism. It's just to arrive at a parsimonious theory supported by evidence.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      But I suppose theists start with certainty that God exists and is involved in everything. They only ask how God is involved. How God does things.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • donna

      There's no evidence that there is a deity involved, so why would they talk about it?

      August 27, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • CommonSense

      @Chad,

      So if you believe the bible is the inerrant word of god, then tell me when exactly did jesus die? If you've really read the bible, then you'll find different answers (before passover and after passover). Ther are clearly tons of contradictions in the bible. However, if you take it at face value, then the bible still gets some of the largest moral issues of our times wrong. It condones slavery and that alone should make people think twice about what their god wrote.

      August 27, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • Chad

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One".... Why? We don't need to. Biology seems to be progressing well enough without such things..."

      =>really?


      In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.

      Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria - one of the simplest life forms in existence today - is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:

      – A cell wall of some sort to contain the cell
      -A genetic blueprint for the cell (in the form of DNA)
      – An enzyme capable of copying information out of the genetic blueprint to manufacture new proteins and enzymes
      – An enzyme capable of manufacturing new enzymes, along with all of the building blocks for those enzymes
      – An enzyme that can build cell walls
      – An enzyme able to copy the genetic material in preparation for cell splitting (reproduction)
      – An enzyme or enzymes able to take care of all of the other operations of splitting one cell into two to implement reproduction (For example, something has to get the second copy of the genetic material separated from the first, and then the cell wall has to split and seal over in the two new cells.)
      – Enzymes able to manufacture energy molecules to power all of the previously mentioned enzymes

      Obviously, the E. coli cell itself is the product of billions of years of evolution, so it is complex and intricate - much more complex than the first living cells. Even so, the first living cells had to possess:
      – A cell wall
      – The ability to maintain and expand the cell wall (grow)
      – The ability to process "food" (other molecules floating outside the cell) to create energy
      – The ability to split itself to reproduce

      Otherwise, it is not really a cell and it is not really alive. To try to imagine a primordial cell with these capabilities spontaneously creating itself, it is helpful to consider some simplifying as sumptions. For example:
      Perhaps the original energy molecule was very different from the mechanism found in living cells today, and the energy molecules happened to be abundant and free-floating in the environment. Therefore, the original cell would not have had to manufacture them.

      Perhaps the chemical composition of the Earth was conducive to the spontaneous production of protein chains, so the oceans were filled with unimaginable numbers of random chains and enzymes.
      Perhaps the first cell walls were naturally forming lipid spheres, and these spheres randomly entrapped different combinations of chemicals.
      Perhaps the first genetic blueprint was something other than DNA.
      These examples do simplify the requirements for the "original cell," but it is still a long way to spontaneous generation of life. Perhaps the first living cells were completely different from what we see today, and no one has yet imagined what they might have been like. Speaking in general terms, life can only have come from one of two possible places:

      Spontaneous creation – Random chemical processes created the first living cell.
      Supernatural creation – God or some other supernatural power created the first living cell.

      And it doesn't really matter if aliens or meteorites brought the first living cell to earth, because the aliens would have come into existence through either spontaneous creation or supernatural creation at some point - something had to create the first alien cells.

      August 27, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago."
      Actually, no. The theory of evolution doesn't start until there is life.

      August 27, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "no more so than a house is indistinguishable from a pile of building materials..

      How so? In what way would the evidence point to Theistic vs "Atheistic" evolution?

      August 27, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad-

      I decided to move this over to the Morning Speed Reads if you're game.

      August 27, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
  12. Richard Louis Fairchild

    I have 100% respect for all sides in this debate, and for everyone who has commented, and for all the rocks on earth.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • PaulGL

      1. God uses our knowledge of the physical universe to convey realization of the spiritual universe. The Bible is God's word. Problems occur when allegorical sections are interpreted as literal, and vice versa. Any explanation for life that invokes any amount of supernatural mechanism cannot by definition be a scientific discipline. Time periods were not assigned to luminaries until the fourth 'day'; so a literal 24-hour interpretation of the 7-day Genesis account is both incorrect, unscriptural, and theologically unfounded. Apparent discrepancies between the Bible and knowledge are due either to incomplete evidence or to human misunderstanding. cf: http://www.amessageforthehumanrace.org

      August 27, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
  13. mrpopular

    Hey Bill.... I know plenty of "engineers that can build stuff and solve problems" who also believe in creation of the earth by God.
    in fact they helped put man on the moon. So yeah... they can build stuff and solve problems.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • CommonSense

      mrpopular – so, how many engineers that you know who can "build stuff" compared to how many believe in creationism? Just because there are a couple of creationists who paid attention in school and became engineers does not prove anything and will not save this country from falling further and further behind if people keep hanging on to religious dogma.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
  14. Bob Christian (aka: Christian Bob)

    WHY BELIEVE IN GOD ?
    ANSWER:

    * Science has successfully demonstrated that the universe had a specific beginning — and that it is now running down due to the lack of available energy. In fact, the universe in which we live is dying of heat loss. Now since our scientific understanding rules out an eternal universe, and since it is totally irrational to believe that the universe sprang from nothing, the only RATIONAL explanation is that a supernatural being created the world in which we live; and that this being is all-powerful, intelligent, moral, and, of course, self-existent.

    * Atheism is incapable of accounting for the vast array of phenomena which we experience every single day. An atheistic world view cannot adequately account for such things as, the universal laws of logic, laws of science, not to mention, standards of morality. In addition, if there is no God, then there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to life — we are little more than animals.

    * God has revealed Himself to me through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be God in human flesh (John 8:58). Now this is an astounding claim, but He supported the claim by His matchless personal character, His fulfillment of predictive prophecy, by His influence on human history, but most significantly, by His historical resurrection from the dead. Now, if you are looking for God — you need look no further than Jesus Christ Himself. He was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend, or He was, in fact, Lord. Now I think if you’ll examine the evidence, you’ll agree with me that He was the Lord, the one who spoke and the universe leapt into existence.

    SOURCE: http://www.Equip.org

    SOURCE: http://www.Equip.org

    August 27, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • Rshan

      Pure blind belief. If someone believes something there is nothing you can say to change that. To everyone else who does not already think they know everything, religions are made up, may or may not be the way the universe actually works, but there is no way to ever know. Stop making up fairy tales and look at the world as it actually is. Religion has been proven wrong time and time again – we know the universe does not revolve around the earth, we know the earth is billions of years old, and we know evolution explains how animals came to be in their present forms.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • CommonSense

      Bob,
      Why are religious people always slamming non-believers? All we non-believers are asking is for you to leave us in peace and stop forcing your beliefs on others. Just becase science cannot prove everything does not mean that religion is right/true; that is where your logic fails. With time, science will be able to prove enough of how the world is made up. You know, the burden of proof lies on the person who makes extraordinary claims. You don't just go and jump to conclusions just because you cannot prove anything. Secondly, no religious person has ever explained this to me: if everything is in god's plan, and everything happens for a reason, then why do you need to pray? Doesn't praying go against god's will?

      August 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
    • Larry L

      You make statements as if they were logical and true. For example the choices you give regarding Jesus exclude the more obvious choice – that Jesus never existed. His inexplicable similarity to the Egyptian God Horus is quite revealing. The mythology was compiled, edited, and compromised by humans who never, ever knew Jesus. You've created your own paper trail and expect the World to accept it. Nonsense.

      You assumptions about logic are in themselves illogical. Just because you have difficulty balancing the energy equation for the universe the solution-set does not logically include a super hero. The more likely reason for your (our) inability to explain everything about the creation of the universe is the complexity of the challenge in relation to our own limitatiuons. Creation of religion might be the easy way to feel good about gaps in knowledge, but it certainly doesn't answer the real questions.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
  15. gene splicer

    whether you believe in god. isn't the question.. The problem is That it is Clear that the bible ( at least Genesis) was NOT written by God. God would Know the Truth. Just take for example the description of our world and its place in the Cosmos... Every 4th grader can describe the solar system.. A simple story! though it took humans 1000's of years of observation and the development of mathematics to get it right.. nevertheless the basic story is SIMPLE... The bible gets it Totally WRONG...Paraphrase the story about "The firmament" as the sky, conceived as a vast dome with the stars painted on... to separate the "waters above" (the source of rain) from those below (According to Genesis!), and you'll get a laugh!.. hence CLEARLY NOT written by god.... (though it clearly resonated with wandering sheep-herders 4 or 5 thousand years ago.. the story doesn't age well)

    August 27, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
  16. nobody

    why is it that atheist believe that you are stupid (sort of like Bill Nye) suggest that if you are Christian you don't contribute to the science world. I believe science is the study of how God creates. Stop making it sound like you have to choose between believing in Christ/God or Science.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • OOO

      Do you believe christ raised from the dead? Then you have made a choice.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      You don't, you can rationalize away the contradictions or live in denial and cognative dissonance and accept both.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • zach

      You put conclusions before evidence. That makes you scientifically illiterate and diametrically opposed objective discovery and understanding.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • Manley

      I don't think he is saying you are stupid if you believe in God. He is saying that you are stupid if you are a Young Earth Creationist. Unfortunately, some ideas are mutually exclusive. And though you can believe in God and in evolution, you have to choose between the earth being 6-10,000 years old and it being 4.5 billion years old.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • erikc

      It's not about Christians or anybody else who believes in a supreme deity; it's about those who hold a narrow belief in a specific method by which the world came into existence which has been proven false. Not all Christians are Creationists, and not all Creationists are Christian. Yes, there is a large overlap, but I personally know many religious people who completely understand and accept evolution, just as they understand and accept gravity, electromagnetism, or any other scientific principle. Anyone who thinks that storms are caused by angry gods is rightly ridiculed; the same goes for people who think that the Earth and everything else was created in six days.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • sam

      That's not what he was saying at all...and thanks for the idiotic comment, proving that you can't goddamn read.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • Iamgr82day

      Religion requires belief... faith. Science requires knowing and understanding. Science does not require or even benefit from belief... Certainly not blind belief. There is evidence and facts... conclusions are based on logic combined with the evidence and facts. The debate among reputable scientists has more to do with degrees and definitions that it does with the theory itself. Theories are logical conclusions based on what is observed combined with what is factually known and theories are testable. Religion could not possibly stand to scientific scrutiny.There is not factual knowing in religion... In fact, religion requires the will suspension of disbelief. It is wrong when individual try to mesh science and religion in the ways that some have tried. But the worst part about what they have done is they try to impose this psuedo-science in public schools. Look, I get it. A person feels small in scale without the confort of a god and religion.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • CommonSense

      Dear nobody (you are somebody),
      Atheists don't think religious people are stupid. They may may think religious people are intellectually lazy or they may have a emotional reason for their religous beliefs – it's a way to deal with a very difficult and tragic world. We all have difficulties in life. I don't have a problem if people want to belive in super natural stuff. What I do have a problem with is when they try to mix religion and politics; that is very dangerous.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
  17. Saul the Finance Guy

    God invented creationism! And hot sauce. Oh and God made volcanoes and Singapore, and martian rovers, headaches, and Norton Antivirus. God sneezed and the world just snotted out and here we are murdering each other at the empire state building with taliban and cops and junkies and fashion designers. Oh and bicycles can't forget them.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • Richard Louis Fairchild

      You know too many words. Go deposit yourself into a library.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Saul the Finance Guy

      God didn't invent libraries. Ashurbanial the Assyrian king did that before God was born.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
  18. Dustin

    "The overwhelming consensus in all the related sciences to evolution is that you are wrong and that evolution is a fact."

    That is like saying everything on the internet is true and factual.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • Saul the Finance Guy

      which is true and factual, just gotta believe!

      August 27, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Dustin,

      Not even close. Geology, biology, genetics, palentology all confrim evolution. Please cite one science where the consensious is that evolution is false or even that it is questionable?

      August 27, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
  19. WAYNE

    ****CHALLENGE FOR CREATIONISTS*****

    Can you show me one verifiably accurate argument, positively indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution?

    August 27, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • Richard Louis Fairchild

      Yes, the miracle of the Bible. AMEN.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • Babs

      YES! Meet me here:

      http://www.lhc.ac.uk/

      August 27, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • Russ

      Your presupposition is flawed. Existence itself is the unquantifiable miracle.
      Where did all this stuff come from? Something out of nothing? It's always just been there?

      August 27, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • WAYNE

      The bible makes claims but it's not the evidence. Try again.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Saul the Finance Guy

      Sorry dick, moses and his peeps wrote it, and then paul, matthew, mark, luke and johnny boy took a stab at the rewrite. Don't you remember?

      August 27, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      @Richard Louis Fairchild

      Your Bible is no proof of anything. By the way Satan lives in Santa Barbara.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • WAYNE

      Russ the question was addressing evolution not the creation of everything. Try again.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Wayne: interesting – so you distinguish between evolutionary biological processes ("this explains adaptation, etc.") and the underlying assumptions of the grand theory of evolution ("this explains everything")?

      Because the creationist objection centers on the latter & not the former.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • WAYNE

      Do you have an answer to the question or not Russ?

      August 27, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Wayne: as I said before, your premise is flawed. You are comparing creation with evolution – assuming they are competing frameworks. That is an answer to your question.

      It's like you asking "do you like that I ate your pizza at lunch?" I didn't have pizza for lunch so you couldn't have eaten my pizza. The question fails on it's own grounds. To answer it is to affirm its mistaken presupposition (as an accurate portrayal of reality).

      As I posted below, this is a reductionist fallacy. Here's a great paper on it from a biblical mindset:
      http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

      August 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • WAYNE

      Russ they are competing. Creationists want to replace evolution with creationism, is that not competing? One more try.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
    • WAYNE

      Creationist can never answer a question honestly. We all know why.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Wayne: you clearly did not read the link.

      Atheistic evolution is directly contrary to creationism.
      Theistic evolution is not.

      It is not evolution that is the point of debate. It's the philosophical presuppositions.
      Again, read the paper. Even just skim it.
      Note well: the differences he draws b/t EBP & GTE.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • WAYNE

      Theistic evolution is a bigger pile of crap than snap finger 6 day creationism. Btw there is no such thing as atheistic evolution in the same way there is not such thing as atheistic gravity or atheistic germ theory. I said biological evolution, I never mentioned Gods or atheism.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • WAYNE

      I'm not talking to the author of your website I'm talking to you. Do you have a brain or not?

      August 27, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Wayne: so YOU want to be able to cite other's research, but not read outside opinions? But you're expecting the exact opposite of me. Isn't that pretty hypocritical?

      As I said before – evolution (literally 'change over time') is a term which many equivocate. Your use of that term (much like Bill Bye) is clearly bringing a set of OTHER presuppositions to bear. That's what I'm pointing out. And instead of recapitulating a 10 page essay, I thought I'd do you the courtesy of providing the link.

      Yes, gravity (thankfully) is not atheistic – but you appear to assume VERY different things about gravity than I do. That's because our *presuppositions* differ, not because gravity is empirically verifiable. And (worthy of note): gravity's empirical reality does not prove EITHER of our presuppositions.

      Again, your premise is flawed.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • WAYNE

      This is where you are wrong. Because I'm not presupposing anything. Other than the fact (God nor no God) evolution triumphs over magical creationism. Your challenge was to show otherwise and you can't.

      August 27, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • CommonSense

      @Russ: since you like to read a lot, you really should read any of Bart Ehrnman's books. He is a leading New Testament scholar at Chapel Hill. I promise you with be "enlightened".

      August 27, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Wayne: everyone has presuppositions. Lack of awareness of your point of departure is philosophically crippling, if not simply blindness. it's like pointing out that everyone else is breathing without awareness that you are, too.

      August 28, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • Russ

      @ Common sense: I am aware of Bart Ehrman.

      1) even he mocks the fact that people (despite the scholarship) as.sume Jesus did not exist. check out his new book. hear what he's saying: even he can't believe the things some folks are as.serting online in *his* name. here's the forward:
      http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/03/30/the-historical-evidence-of-the-existence-of-jesus-of-nazareth/

      2) Ehrman's claims against the authority of Scripture fail the available scholarship. a few resources:

      NT scholar Daniel Wallace gives a basic overview of the source material's reliability:
      http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/03/21/an-interview-with-daniel-b-wallace-on-the-new-testament-manuscripts/

      or here's a short video on it:
      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtOWUUMoc6Q&w=640&h=360]

      [I had more here – but the filter is rejecting my comment, so I'm trying piecemeal.]

      August 28, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Common sense: [cont'd]

      here's one review pointing out his fundamental inconsistencies in "Jesus Interrupted":
      "In the end, Jesus Interrupted can be best summarized as a book filled with ironies. Ironic that it purports to be about unbiased history but rarely presents an opposing viewpoint; ironic that it claims to follow the scholarly consensus but breaks from it so often; ironic that it insists on the historical-critical method but then reads the gospels with a modernist, overly-literal hermeneutic; ironic that it claims no one view of early Christianity could be “right” (Walter Bauer) but then proceeds to tell us which view of early Christianity is “right;” ironic that it dismisses Papias with a wave of the hand but presents the Gospel of the Ebionites as if it were equal to the canonical four; and ironic that it declares everyone can “pick and choose” what is right for them, but then offers its own litany of moral absolutes. Such intellectual schizophrenia suggests there is more going on in Jesus Interrupted than meets the eye. Though veiled in the garb of scholarship, this book is religious at the core. Ehrman does not so much offer history as he does theology, not so much academics as he does his own ideology. The reader does not get a post-religious Ehrman as expected, but simply gets a new-religious Ehrman – an author who has traded in one religious system (Christianity) for another (postmodern agnosticism). Thus, Ehrman is not out to squash religion as so many might suppose. He is simply out to promote his own. He is preacher turned scholar turned preacher. And of all the ironies, perhaps that is the greatest."
      http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/jesus-interrupted.php

      August 28, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • Russ

      @ common sense: [3 of 3]

      don't know why this is being filtered... it's not letting me put this website...
      google ehrman project.

      August 28, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
  20. John

    Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the incestuous remains of a foolish culture of stupid monkeys.

    August 27, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • Richard Louis Fairchild

      Yeah, they're all the same. Thanks, GENIUS.

      August 27, 2012 at 5:50 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.