By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
(CNN) - Bill Nye's viral YouTube video pleading with parents not to teach their children to deny evolution has spawned an online life of its own, with prominent creationists hitting back against the popular TV host.
"Time is Nye for a Rebuttal," Ken Ham the CEO of Answers in Genesis writes on his website. Answers in Genesis is the Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.
Nye's criticism of creationism went viral earlier this week, after being posted last Thursday.
"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," Nye says in his Big Think video, which has been viewed nearly 3 million times.
Ham writes that Nye is joining in with other evolutionists who say teaching children to deny evolution is a form of "child abuse." That idea comes in part from the atheist scientist Richard Dawkins, who in his book "The God Delusion" argues against exposing children to religion before they are old enough to fully understand it.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
"At AiG and the Creation Museum, we teach children and adults the truth concerning who they are in the Creator’s eyes — and where they came from," Ham writes. "We tell people that they do have purpose and meaning in life and that they were created for a purpose. "No, we are not just evolved animals as Nye believes; we are all made in the image of God."
Ham is the public face of a group that academics call Young Earth Creationists, though they prefer to be called Biblical Creationists. They believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis found in the Bible.
The Creation Museum also produced its own rebuttal video on YouTube that features two of their staff scientists, both Ph.Ds, David Menton and Georgia Purdom.
"[Nye] might be interested to know I also teach my young daughter about evolution and I know many Christian parents who do the same," Purdom says in the video. "Children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past."
For the past 30 years, one popular method for Creationists to advance their cause has been to make an equal-time argument,with Creationism taught alongside evolution. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.
In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school class rooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state.
A key point between most scientists and many creationists is the timing for the origin of the world.
Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique
Nye's argument falls in line with the vast majority of scientists, who date the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years old and the universe as 14.5 billion years old.
"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 says in his viral video.
Young Earth Creationists say the weeklong account of God creating the earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.
"Yes we see fossils and distant stars, but the history on how they got there really depends on our worldview," Purdom says in the museum's rebuttal. "Do we start with man's ideas, who wasn't here during man's supposed billions of years of earth history or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all?"
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
Polling from Gallup has shown for the past 30 years that between 40-46% of the survey respondents believe in Creationism, that God created humans and the world in the past 10,000 years.
The most recent poll showed belief in atheistic evolution was on the rise at 16%, nearly double what it had been in previous years. The poll also found 32% of respondents believe in evolution guided by God.
This article states the earth and universe are about 4.5 billion years old. While that is the Earth's age, the universe is closer to 14.7 billion years old. This should be corrected.
As for Tom, Tom, the Piper's Inbred Son,
I don't feel "griped" by him at all.
I do get a really good chuckle just looking at him though.
But, I'd probably get a good chuckle looking at your picture, too.
I'm wondering, do you have a point with your posts? Or do you just feel like typing irrelevancies today?
@ hawaii – when posters like Fred have a child's grasp of the issues, it should be no surprise that their comments are like those of a child: he looks funny, he's stinky. Given the absurdity of the creationist position, this is the best they can come up with. Hey, fred: why don't you try debunking or refuting the mountains of scientific evidence which confirms evolution?
There is no god or gods. There is no afterlife. Your memories are not preserved in some ghostly body once you die. Your brain rots, and everything you were disappears along with it. That is reality. Everything you've been told about religion comes from man. Man wrote the torra, bible, and koran. Man invented mormonism and scientology. The less we subject our kids to these outdated fairytales, the better off they will be when they adults.
Biblical themes appear throughout our literature. I have yet to see a history of science that does not bring in philosophy and religion; indeed, history without religion is unthinkable. The myths of the past are important to understanding the present, just as the myths of the present are important for predicting the future.
What myths of the present and how are they important for predicting the future?
Sure, teaching religion in terms of history is fine. Teaching religion in a literal way is as bad as convincing your adult children that there is a Santa Claus. It will only complicate their lives.
No history of science would be complete without chapters on alchemy, magic, and shamanism too, but this is "history", and science is all about new discovery, not being mired in the past.
it's o.k. to teach creation myths. but you shouldn't stop at Genesis, the creation of the world by the Rainbow Serpent is equally valid. don't stop there either, every religion has it's creation myths and all are entertaining as children's stories
While you're at it, how about telling that funny, funny fable about how lizards
gradually turned into birds over time. It's hilarious!
Those funny atheists have the best sci-fi stories to tell.
Fortunately for the lizards to birds "sci-fi", there's that whole fossil record and modern phylogenetics comparisons between extant species. Oh yeah, there's also that T. rex collagen study supporting the dino-bird link.
What a stupid god if creationism is correct. He makes all the evidence support a billions year old universe and earth and evolution--and expects people to not believe all that misleading evidence.
Geez, Bert. Yoe're a real pip. Who dresses you every morning?
A lot of people believe in God without being taught about it. Belief in God is something each person is born with. If we are in life and death crises, more than many people instinctively pray to a higher being without being aware that they are doing it.
Every one stems from truth absolute, and truth absolute God is nature of every one of "HIS" creation, but hindu's ignorant Deny truth absolute God, not by their mind, but by their hindu, darkened hearts to please their hindu filthy soul, desire, by their hindu Judaism, filthy self center ism, secular ism. for more visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/
No. Religion is taught often from an early age. If the parents are religious, the children will learn that. Then there's attendance at sunday school and church which reinforces that.
Actually, Ayesha may have a valid point. Ordinary people, those without critical thinking skills (apparently the majority of people, at least in this day and age) have to invoke a deity to make sense of their world. Of course religion unwittingly (or wittingly, I suspect in some cases) capitalizes on this, which results in a cult-like situation. As science continues to advance, religion will be displaced by knowledge, at least among those intelligent enough to accept it. We'll probably always have a few slow ones that will never see the light, but that's to be expected. At least, as an eventual minority, they will have diminishing influence on our government and social lives. This will take a few generations, so be patient.
That's complete BS, and you know it. If it were true there would never have been any need for missionaries to indoctrinate native peoples, and there would never have been a need for Sunday schools, bible studies, or Christian bookstores. Belief in God has to be taught, and taught hard because it's such a ridiculous idea that people brought up in it, sheltered from any opposing views, still drop the belief in amazing numbers once they mature. There's nothing natural about believing in God. Nothing!
Ayesha, name one.
I find it amazing and embarrassing at the same time to live in the most technologically advanced nation on the planet. We put a man on the moon more than 40 years ago, a rover on Mars last month, and yet more than 40% of our citizens believe in quaint stories passed down through the generations of illiterate, semi-nomadic tribesmen in the hills of the Middle East. No wonder the rest of the developed world looks at us and shakes their collective heads. This is insanity!
And I find it embarrassing that our nation has forgotten God and turned from Him even though
He made us the greatest nation on earth.
Of course, now that we have turned from God, we are no longer #1. We're more like #25.
Any proof of your god, or do you only have unjustified assertions?
Hey, Bert: could you please explain why your god would favour the United States over other countries? And then could you provide evidence to support your viewpoint
Funny how most of the countries on top these days are far more secular than we are even by your assessment. Sorta goes against your whole argument, eh?
Bert, your imaginary god didn't have a fucking thing to do with our successes. We did it in spite of the cross cuddlers. If it weren't for those cretins we'd have probably done even more.
This whole thing is nuts. God created evolution. He built the mechanism that allows species to evolve to adapt to their ever changing environment. Yes, you can have it both ways. Don't be so silly.
Prove that Ron.
Your god myth is just that, a myth.
You have no more evidence to support it then you do evidence it was not the pink unicorn who is responsible.
There is not such thing as a little bit god.
Ron, please tell us exactly how god did that. We all would like to know.
AAAAhhhhh, the old double-minded thingy rears its ugly head. Can't keep a gud servant serpent down! SS forever! Got a gene for that?
Word. Praise Odin!
Unfortunately, the science doesn't support that belief. Evolution appears to be a completely natural process.
Let's move on, folks. Nothing to see here. It's just Ron playing with his mommy's computer again.
I'm not one of the crowd that yells, 'JUMP!!!', but I don't think you need to elect those types as leaders of the mob, either.
What's the point of 'evolving' into more 'advanced' civilizations where the slaughter just gets bigger and bigger. Have you found the suicide genie? And that helps the species, how?
A very astute question. It may have been rhetorical, but perhaps not. Does anyone have the answer to it?
Have you noticed that billions of people now have access to virtually unlimited information?
That was impossible just a few hundred years ago.
1) Conflating avancing in civilization to advancements specifically in weapons.
2) Never heard of a "suicide gene" before, so I'm not really sure what your point is, if there is one.
3) Considering that our average life span is more than doubled that of more than 200 years ago, a general increase in the quality of life, and freely accessible information at the tough of a few buttons, I'd say that advancing civilization has helped the species immensly.
Are you suggesting that there should be no advancements and we shold all head back into the stone or bronze age? If so, DIBS ON ATHENS.
HI guest sayz, '2) Never heard of a "suicide gene" before, so I'm not really sure what your point is, if there is one.'.....Must be there because you see the evidence? I'm tempted to make a joke about a non-god particle gene.
What evidence of a "suicide gene"?
Evidence of the results. Causality? Is there genetic material causing this?
It isn't just the weapons of war, it's a battle of resources. It is said the the Ja.panese blunder at Pearl Harbor was to attack ships and planes instead of oil storage tanks; the U.S. would have been hard pressed to come back with a counter-offensive. Technology is probably more of a danger than atomic weapons. What do you think will happen in the United States when oil becomes unavailable at any price?
So you're saying, people commit suicide, therefore there's a gene for it? Is there a walking, breathing, and looking gene as well? Is there a talking gene, or any other gene for the thousands of other actions that we take? Your question is completely non-sensical.
Higuest, I was asking! Do you know the difference between declaring an asking? You're in the defensive mode, dude. It's a warlike response. Is there a genie for that? BTW, I'm the same as you in that deportment. Is it genetic?
Evolution has nothing to do with advancement. Its motivators are survival and reproduction.
Yes, you asked "have they found the suicide gene", not a suicide gene, which denotes a thought that there is such a thing. I ask for evidence of a suicide gene, and you come back with "Evidence of the results. Causality? Is there genetic material causing this?". The only thing I can glean from this incoherent babble is that people commit suicide. Coupled with your earlier statment, it is safe to conclude that people commit suicide, and this is evidence for a suicide gene.
If you don't like people reading into your posts, try being coherent and state your position in the beginning instead of spouting out non-senseical drivel that needs to be read into.
hawaiiguest, the gungho geneticists seem to believe genes EXPLAIN everything. So I pose a question using their suppositions and you call me a moron??? You have a case of the nasties. I can see you have a long and joyful future ahead.
"the gungho geneticists seem to believe genes EXPLAIN everything. "
This is just a straw man argument, and is useless. Unless, do you have evidence of geneticists all thinking like this? Or even a plurality?
This is just a straw man argument, and is useless.
"the gungho geneticists seem to believe genes EXPLAIN everything." Few, if any, modern geneticists declare that genes alone (that is, completely independent from environmental factors) can account for any given phenotype. Genes can be correlated to phenotypes, but with a few clear disease-causing genes, these relationships aren't characterized as causal.
Oops. "...but with the exception of a few disease-causing genes....
I see, higuest. You were in the debate mode and I was in the fact-finding mode. Not same page.
You were, and still are, in non-sensical statement mode. You're not trying to find facts, you're just tossing out statements for an unknown purpose.
Yeah, Mud. I found the suicide "genie" in an empty beer bottle. I rub it and he comes out and kills himself. Makes great entertainment. I'm the hit at all my parties now.
@MUD: the suicide genie? i'm guessing you are speaking on humans killing themselves. that is both a simple and complex topic at best.
simple due to the fact most menaing over 90% fail to achieve their desired intent due to the self preservation mechanism built into our minds, no one wants to truly die if they can help it.
complex due to the fact at times when people become so depressed and lost some how that urge to survive malfuntions and that person achieves their objective. you hear about it in the news " such and such was found dead from self inflicted wounds" the news crew askes the friends, family and co-workers " did you have any clue such and such was going to harm themselves?" answer is always " NO"
that is what makes it difficult to understand is why and how these people can malfuntion in a way that no one else can even see a difference to prevent such a thing.
Scientists conduct years of research to identify how the cosmos and evolution works. They publish their findings and propose theories that explain the facts they discover to allow others confirm or dispute their findings.
I would like to hear some ID proponents explain exactly how ID works. How did it create the universe and life on earth?
No different than on your computer, push of a button or verbal command, and program does rest of it, Truth absolute God, is also remembered as a designer, a hindu, ignorant may not have knowledge of it. for more visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/
@hindu, sorry, I don't speak hindubabble.
Their answer pretty much boils down to god of the gaps, and magic, same as every other god argument out there.
Some decades after completing my formal education, I decided to take a university level course in organic chemistry . I found it so fascinating that I continued on to biochemistry, which was even more fascinating. When you consider the intricacies of some of the things that go on in a human body, it is hard not to be amazed and wonder how it came about. Don't close your mind quite yet.
Well, so far all I have heard is some hindubabble and it's so complicated, it must be god.
I'll take those responses as "god created everything with magic".
Creationists, unless you can come up with specific mechanisms, beyond magic, don't expect much support for your position.
Yes it's amazing. That tells us absolutely nothing. It does not point to a creator, let alone a specific one if that's what you believe. All that is is anthoer take of the argument from ignorance.
Fair enough, I meant don't close your mind to wonder.
I don't see how one could close their mind to wonder.
I see you have not yet met some religious fundamentalists or overwrought atheists.
True, closing your mind can cause you to believe in things that you have no reason to believe in. Keep your mind open and skeptical so you don't fall into believing in something purely out of desire.
ID doesn't actually do any science. All it does is structure childish criticisms of evolution and spread them amongst the faithful in order to give them hope in an infallible Bible.
If god is perfect and created us with ID, we should be able to live forever as long as we keep supplying our bodies energy and nutrients. But instead, our bodies inevitably fail, get sick and die.
This appears to be unintelligent design.
hinduism, absurdity of a hindu, denier of truth absolute, Truth absolute God, created us in beauty, perfection and gave spirit of human a body with a gift of a choice for a limited time, one may seek it to be forever and be truth absolute himself god, No, No, No, designer has control over his design, never other way around, live with it hindu's, ignorant's, your dreams in your hindu Judaism , filthy secularism have no value, but nothing more than dreams to be truth absolute, God yourself. For more visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/
If God exists and created everything, death was obviously a deliberate choice. The living tissue of all animals is made up of a type of cell called "eukaryotic," which is designed to age and die, as are we all. God could have designed us with prokaryotic cells, which have been around for at least a billion years longer than eukaryotic cells, and which do not die unless they are killed. Unfortunately, if we were made of prokaryotic cells, we would know nothing about se.x and would have to reproduce by cloning.
Oh and if you really want to see intelligent design at work, look no further than Brooklyn Decker.
Hmmm... finally, the first argument on ID that is within the realm of possibility. :D
It is hinduism, criminality of hindu's, criminals, use and abuse of gift of truth absolute, God "THE CHOICE" with limited freedom, not for ever, soon to be over for every one of us. for more visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/
I'd love to ask Ken Ham what "purpose" does he tell kids they were created for ? Creepy and delulsional. Eyewitness account indeed ! LOL
How is evolution going to get anywhere when it can't even build a protein without it unraveling, or for that matter, proteins wouldn’t even be able to take their final conformation in the first place.
Go take a course in it since you don't have any idea what you're rambling on against.
And if it did, would you be willing to accept the truth of it or would you claim "conspiracy" or perhaps find another way to dismiss it?
The comment above that I made actually belongs in the string below. On its own, the comment has no meaning. Please see the string below. Sorry about that.
Because it eventually did. Countless unraveling proteins were probably synthesized, but were obviously eliminated. Only the raveling ones survived and propagated forward. Is this simple concept just too fucking complex for you?
Uhm, why is Bill Nye's video linked twice and the Creationist rebuttal not linked at all in a story about the Creationist rebuttal video?
I don't care what view you support, but the media needs to play fair.
Perhaps it is one of God's miracles, the sparing of our sensibilities from creationist nonsense?
@Wade, I saw the creationists video and trust me, you don't want many people watching it. It's full of so many misconceptions and fallacies it only makes creationists look uneducated. There's far more value in the "idea" of a rebuttal being out there without anyone actually watching it. That way, many will assume it's full of valid points.
Would evolution have been able to cope with the sun being just a little bit closer to the earth where the temperature would range from say 105 degrees at the low end on up to 200+ degrees with everything else being the same, the same elements, the presence of water, etc. In other words, would life have evolved under those conditions? I would think that evolution should have been able to cope with that – correct or not correct?
Hard to say, but life exists just fine in extreme conditions. Extremophiles are awesome. Worms living in nitrogen ice; bacteria and complex life in super-boiling, toxic sea water. Glad I could help; you're welcome.
But don't many proteins begin to denature at 105+ degrees?
I guess. Do you have a point to make some day?
Hmmm. Are you going to posit that the sun is perfectly placed at the "correct" distance from earth so that evolution would occur as it has, ID?
And therefore =God?
Sorry for the duplicate post up above. But anyway, I will ask again.
Could "creation" have been better with more of the universe habitable to people, or with fewer examples of bad design, or without disease-carrying organisms, or with humans being able to make their own vitamin C, or any number of other things that point to an imperfect "creation" supposedly the master work of a perfect creator?
"But don't many proteins begin to denature at 105+ degrees?"
105 deg F or C? if F... then deserts such as the Mojave must be completely devoid of life....
Regardless, Thermophile's describe a group of organisms that can thrive at temperatures between 80–122 °C, such as those found in hydrothermal systems
As Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son has already mentioned, it appears that for evolution to work, the sun really has to be the right distance from the sun.
Isn't that amazing?
Let me ask another question. Lets use the same type of example again, where everything on earth is exactly the same as it is now (even the temperature is back to normal) except for just one thing. This time, we will have water contract when it gets cold just like most other substances do. And I have the same question again, would evolution be able to cope with that? In other words, would we have any life on earth if the only difference was that water contracted when it got cold?
Despite all the evidence you're saying evolution hasn't happened? Based on smoke and mirrors? You'll have to do way better than that.
THe thing that bothers me so much about this argument is that it focuses on the earth being the habitable zone and how "perfect" that is. As far as we can tell, life can only happen within the habitable zone because the only life we know of so far is on earth and needs liquid water. The goldilocks zone is just the right distance where water neither freezes or boils off.
The real question you have to be asking yourself is can life exist without a blocker like Jupiter? The other Jovian planets have been blocking comets, and asteroids and other large objects that could strike earth by either taking the hit themselves or yanking them into its orbit. Because of that we've experienced a very serene period where we aren't being bombarded.
water doesn't contract – so pipes don't burst in a thaw?
What your asking doesn't really make sense within the context of evolution. Asking if life would exist if one thing were changed and how evolution would handle it is two separate questions. Evolution only studies what happens to creatures once they are around, we also must trust that if those things were changed and life is still around, that evolution would create creatures to withstand their environment and flourish. The how doesn't exactly matter.
ID, what you don't seem to get is that evolution is not proof of some "intelligent designer" placing everything just so, as if it were setting the dining room table. If the sun were closer or further away, so what? There are millions of suns in the universe. There may have been millions of planets elsewhere that sustain life forms completely unlike any we have seen. We evolved to fit this planet. Not the other way around.
If all those factors are not present – distance from a heat source, protection from asteroids, water, etc. then maybe life cannot exist or survive. But that is distinct from evolution.
bubba's left foot
"water doesn't contract – so pipes don't burst in a thaw?"
The water only COMES OUT of the pipes after it thaws...
What's your point? Yes if the earth were a little closer or further from the sun, life would either be vastly different, or not have been able to even begin. So what? Get to your argument from perceived design and stop wasting everyones time.
I suspect it will have something to do with our being so special and unique, and therefore, this planet was expressly 'designed' for us.
I suspect it will have something to do with our being so special and un iq ue, and therefore, this planet was expressly 'designed' for us.
Sorry for the double post. Wonky site.
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
Real brief, but if water contracted, the oceans would freeze and there would be no life on earth. I know you know that but I wanted to mention it for those who may not know.
I’m not saying evolution is proof on some intelligent designer as I do not believe in evolution. What I am saying is that life is a lot more fragile than what we think and that conditions have to be exactly right for life to exist. What are the odds of both of those items I just mentioned being present at the same time? I think it is absolutely amazing. But I would like to add one additional item and that is: people keep saying there is no factual proof that God exists. I have to disagree with that. I just mentioned two items of proof above. However, the proof is endless and some of that proof is right in your biology text books. Logic and programming to me are the main theme found in biology. Programming is really evident in the design of all proteins and in the metabolic pathways. Your proof that God exists is in the very material you read and work with every day.
"As Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son has already mentioned, it appears that for evolution to work, the sun really has to be the right distance from the sun."
No, for life to exist as we know it the planet has to be the right distance from our sun. This has nothing to do with Evolution however.... so whats the point your dancing around.
Finally, you get to your assertion. Now can you actually prove a god has done anything? Talking about probabilities you have absolutely no dataset to draw from are just useless speculations based on made up idiocy. You don't believe in evolution, whoopdie doo, that doesn't change that it is an observed fact.
@IntelligentDesign: Really? your whole argument is to try and use philosophy to refute science??
Logic and programming have nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with intelligent thought.
Awww I'm being ignored. I wonder why that is?
hawaiiguest, I find it more entertaining, like a train wreck, that these arguments end up boiling down to are there gods or not, when the theory of evolution makes no assertion one way or another on the subject. And yet, it is seen as an affront to their religion.
The theory of evolution makes no comment on how life started on this planet, nor does it make any claims for or against gods, all it describes is what has happened to life on this planet since it started. As you say, " it is an observed fact.".
I'm sure we already know, but to sum up @IntelligentDesign's point, Life exist, therefore god. Which is the equivalent of saying, Apples have seeds, therefore god.
Does anyone else miss Chad?
Nope, and I will savor every second I don't have to read his idiocy.
@ID – You're engaged in pure post-hoc teleological thinking. That is, the underlying premise is that life was a "goal" and the universe must have invariably allowed this "goal." Your argument is analogous to looking at a puddle of water and then declaring the hole and/or the water was designed to "perfectly" accommodate/conform to the other, as opposed to water is inherently malleable and is simply conforming to its environmental shape/volume constraints. Regarding proteins, the very first response demonstrated the evolvability of proteins within extreme conditions. Yes, most proteins will denature when they encounter conditions beyond their normal environment (temp, pH, etc); however, if the natural history conditions provide a selective filter allowing only very stable conformations at higher temps, then you get proteins with stable conformations at higher temps. This evolvability is demonstrable both in the field and in the lab.
Hard to say. We would need to form a hypothesis and then test it using experiments. That could be a difficult task.
As I predicted, ID thinks that the only reason we're here is because some being put the sun and the earth in JUST the right places for us.
Of course, the dummy thinks that the fact that we're here is "proof" there is a "designer." It isn't. And that isn't what occurred as far as the evidence has shown us. But ID guy can't bear the thought that we're not that "special."
IntelligentDesign. Sorry to burst your ignorance bubble, but, look up extremophiles. It will be an education that you probably don't want but, well, tough.
Who knows? If it couldn't we wouldn't be here to observe that it didn't, would we?
Can cells really be constructed from this special set of proteins?
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
“There are millions of suns in the universe. There may have been millions of planets elsewhere that sustain life forms completely unlike any we have seen.”
I will play along on this one. If there were millions of planets elsewhere that sustain life, then the odds of life forms existing that are much more intelligent than us would be very, very, very high if evolution were true. Why is it then that none of these advanced beings have made any kind of attempt to contact us or be seen by us? Not a single one. Where are they? To me that is proof that evolution is not occurring anywhere in the universe.
I've wondered about that too. I'm afraid the answer may be sad. There may be fundamental limits to how far intelligence can develop and to what it can actually do.
Of course, the UFO enthusiasts, who are as fanatical about a scientific cover-up of alien visitation as creationists are of the supposed "evolutionist conspiracy", wholeheartedly believe that aliens have and are visiting our planet, going back to Bible times and even earlier. Ezekiel's "Wheel", for example. "God" may be an alien visitor, they argue.
More to your question, the distance separating us from alien intelligences would likely preclude any contact between us. It would take millions of years for them to detect us, and millions more for them to contact us unless they have technologies that can circ.umvent the laws of physics as we understand them. If we were to receive a signal from deep space all that could prove was that some intelligence once lived there many millions of years ago. They could be long since dead.
Another explanation may be that truly intelligent beings may be wisely careful not to advertise their presence to everyone who may be looking. Hostile behavior may not be a uniquely human fault.
So, throughout the universe there may be millions of planets with life at various stages of evolutionary development, from simple to a complexity we would not be able to relate to, but they're spread out and, odds are, too distant to have any contact with. If we were to detect signs of life on a nearby planet we would likely send a probe, right? Who is to say that such alien probes aren't orbiting our planet even now, blending in with all the junk we've sent up there?
“The distance separating us from alien intelligences would likely preclude any contact between us. It would take millions of years for them to detect us, and millions more for them to contact us unless they have technologies that can circ.umvent the laws of physics as we understand them.”
Yes, but when comparing us to higher life forms with more intelligence, they also should have much more knowledge and capability. Look how quickly we are advancing technology wise in such a short amount of time and we are doing this with inferior intelligence compared to what should be existing on other planets. I would like to believe that the barrier of travelling at the speed of light should have been broken by these higher life forms. If not, then again my point which is, maybe evolution is really not working anywhere in the universe since no life forms are intelligent enough to break the speed of light barrier.
o “Another explanation may be that truly intelligent beings may be wisely careful not to advertise their presence to everyone who may be looking. Hostile behavior may not be a uniquely human fault. “
Certainly these more intelligent life forms should be able to protect themselves from us with no problem. If not, then I again question why aren’t they intelligent enough to do that? It would appear again that evolution is failing to produce these supposed higher life forms.
ID, what would make you conclude that continued evolution necessarily results in higher intelligence?
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
Because the process of evolving to higher life forms is supposedly what happened on our own planet. Why would it be different elsewhere?
Alas, all the knowledge, intelligence and capability possible for mere physical mortals may not be enough to make faster-than-light space travel possible. Even if it were just think of how large the universe is. Even in the fiction of Star Trek only one quadrant of our galaxy is largely explored, and that assumes speeds that could get a ship across it in about 150 years.
Intelligent alien beings could protect themselves from us, but could they protect themselves from species even more advanced than they are? If they're smart they would have to be aware of that possibility. They may not even have similar motives than we have. We are curious, but others may not care about life elsewhere. Talking Star Trek as an example once again you simply can't just assume that all aliens would resemble and be motivated like us so closely. They may even be wise enough to just leave others like us be, without disrupting our lives.
"Why would it be different elsewhere?" Because "elsewhere" may be quite different from here, ID. Why is your imagination so limited that you must ascribe human characteristics to other life forms that may have occurred in very different conditions?
Still, there may be a limit to how intelligent a species could get. Our brains are already so large that, for the invention of the C-section, many of us wouldn't survive birth. There is only so large a head you can squeeze through a woman's pelvic bone. We might invent artificial intelligences to do the necessary thinking needed to accomplish what you're talking about but, if Sci-Fi has taught us anything, why assume that any biological beings could remain the masters of intelligent machines, and why would intelligent machines even want to contact inferior biological beings like the ones they overthrew? Face it, there are many, many, many possible reasons why extraterrestrial intelligence wouldn't be contacting us.
It's the religious mindset that does it. They can only imagine an all-powerful, all-seeing, and all-intelligent being like God sharing basic human emotions like love, hate, jealousy and so forth, as basically a human with god-like powers. So, why shouldn't aliens just be humans with better technology and advanced science to them?
It's like the old Sci-Fi of the 50's and 60's; flying cars and robot helpers, but never imagining women advancing past the role of housekeepers a la The Jetsons.
I’m not talking about human characteristics. I am only talking about intelligence.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am hearing from multiple posters that we are possibly at the top of the chain when it comes to intelligence amongst all the millions of planets that supposedly could support life. And while I could understand that there may be a limit to how intelligent a species can get, why can’t a new species evolve that has the capacity to be much more intelligent than we are? In other words, why has evolution hit the brick wall when it comes to intelligence, where we are at the top of the chain in the entire universe? If anything, the logic of saying that our intelligence is at the top of the list helps to support the idea of Creationism, not evolution.
So you're saying that since we haven't had confirmed contact with extraterrestrials, then that means there are none? That's just retarded logic.
1) What makes you think any other intelligent life, even if they are more intelligent overrall than humans, would even know or care about our planet.
2) Distance involved and time needed to travel even within our own solar system makes it a logistical nightmare.
3) What dataset are you using to determine the probability of other life being more likely to be much more intelligent than we are?
What this all comes down to is: there are only one of two options available:
1. We are at the top of the chain in the entire universe when it comes to intellect as suggested here which supports Creationism and not evolution.
2. Since there could be supposedly millions of other planets in the universe that support life (suggested by an earlier poster), then the odds are very, very, very high that not just one, but that many planets contain intelligent life whose intelligence far exceeds ours if evolution is really true. Those life forms should be able to do things that we cannot even fathom, the least of which, being able to break the speed of light. Therefore, we should have seen evidence of such life forms but have not seen any evidence at all, nothing. Since we have not seen any evidence, that tells me that evolution has failed to produce such life forms and is proof that evolution has not occurred anywhere in the universe.
If our intelligence really is at the top of the list then creationist's "intelligent designer" wouldn't be any more god-like than we are, right? Try selling that idea in the Christian bookstores, or at Liberty University.
It's entirely possible, however, that we could some day develop the technology to seed other planets with life designed to thrive there, but I for one would be most disappointed if our efforts resulted in the kind of poor design we see in our present nature, eyes with huge blind spots and nerves that take huge detours around hearts just to name two.
ID, what your argument boils down to is: I see no proof otherwise, therefore I conclude Goddidit. You think the fact that we've not been visited by intelligent life from other planets is proof of the existence of a god. Can you prove we haven't been visited by intelligent life from other planets?
I didn't think so.
I cannot 'prove' there isn't a god, but what you are saying is that in the absence of evidence against one, one MUST exist.
And in what way do you determine what they should and should not be capable of doing? You have absolutely no justification for saying that, and are merely using rhetoric to support and unsupportable position. I also noticed you didn't address any of my points specifically, and merely reiterated your previous assertion.
"Since we have not seen any evidence, that tells me that evolution has failed to produce such life forms and is proof that evolution has not occurred anywhere in the universe."
There is so much logic fail in this sentence it's astounding.
@ID: your numbers are off by a bit, it's not millions of planets, but trillions of planets. in recent years we have found more and more planets a few even appear to have water either in liquid form or trapped as gas in their atmosphere.
as far as intelligent life outside our own, if they have made it to a point further along than we have then yes they should have technology far surpassing our own.
1) if they have surpassed us then why mess with this back water planet?
2) if they haven't surpassed us then they are in the same boat we are which is trapped on their own world thus can't help each other anyway.
3) if we did recieve a signal from another world chances are they would be long extinct seeing even the nearest star is still billions of light years away.
4) breaking the speed of light is not only impossible, but not functional as far a space travel. people inside the ship wouldn't age but everyone you knew and possibly your whole world would be gone before you returned.
5) your god is an extra-terristrial thus you already believe in aliens, so no arguement there.
6) humans have barely made exploration of our own solar system, we lack the technology to search other worlds for life. there is a hypothsis that europa may have simple life under the miles thick icecrust. we will figure that one out soon enough, if we find funding for such an undertaking it would be nice to shut your creationists up............but you will adapt your story to include them in "gods plan" or the devils depends on your spin of things.
@ID: after reading more of your posts, i have to ask.
do you live somewhere really warm?
do you have a freezer?
have you ever attended a science class ever in your life?
water when it freezes EXPANDS. water doesn't CONTRACT when it freezes. if you have ever placed a bottle of cola in the freezer then forgot about it, you would know what happens even without a science class to explain why it happens. i find it amazing that their is truly a human in the industrialized world that doesn't understand the differences in the 3 states of matter, four states if you count plasma.
@ID – "Can cells really be constructed from this special set of proteins?" This question and its lack of any specificity betrays that you simply don't have the background to discuss this topic. But again, the simple answer to your question is yes. In the yellowstone national park thermal pools, there is an incredible array of organisms that live in near boiling temperatures. All of their proteins are necessarily thermostable and thereby, their "cells [were] really...constructed from this special set of proteins". Same is true of volcanic sea vent communities.
Yes, it expands and it is a good thing to otherwise the oceans would freeze. Please go back and reread the posts again. You will get a different meaning regarding what I said about water upon the second reading.
I stand corrected.
the idea that the bible is the word of god isn't a fact- its something you were taught to believe without proof and you do. its not science.
"its something you were taught to believe without proof and you do"
Correct. It has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with trust, trust that your parents aren't liars and would never mislead you. It's sad that just because a hundred years ago or so your great great grandparents were peer pressured into going to church and accepting anything the preacher said as God's word and started your family on a cycle of church abuse.
Well Bill maybe you should take something from Oh say 100 years ago and carbon date it and publish the facts, then take something like I don't know, something from true evolution, millions of years and carbon date and publish that. Just a thought, I always liked that carbon dating thing you scientists came up with. I mean I know a thing or two about creation, but these "creationists" won't listen. Oh by the way, I invented humor too. Enjoy, see you later.
Hey, Boss? Sorry about that whole apple thing. I just wanted Eve to jump up and down trying to reach that apple! Wow – talk about defying the law of gravity! Nice job, Boss – you really ARE an Intelligent Designer!
Carbon 14 radiometric dating does not work for things that are millions of years old as the 14 isotope decays after 58,000 to 62,000 years. I know it's been a long time since you've decided to write anything to humans, but if you're wanting to get back in the game, you should know that the world has really changed in the last 2000 years. There are some great courses available for free on iTunes University and there are tons of books on the subject.
Irony? You seem to be arguing for the creationist argument yet you blaspheme by jokingly pretending you are God. So, that seems to indicate you are someone else entirely, someone who tells many lies.
Careful, Man – don't want to tick the Boss off – last time that happened he got so mad at humanity that he created reality television shows to punish people.
Hey God – I was here first. Butt out.
Eat lightning bolts, the both of you! I predate AbraGod and Spaghetti!
"Do we start with man's ideas, who wasn't here during man's supposed billions of years of earth history or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all?"
If man wasn't created until the 6th day, he wasn't here during the supposed other 5 days of creation. How do we know that it is true then?
Surprise, it's a fictional account to describe how the world was created. The version in the Bible is no different from the Hindu, or Buddhist, or Babylonian accounts in that here are people trying to come up with an answer to "why are we here and how were we created?"
As allegory there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. As literal fact, well... unfortunately the Book of Genesis doesn't describe ostriches, but that's what these creationists are.
Wow, that guy looks like Eb on Green Acres.
Well, maybe not Eb, more like his inbred cousin.
It's hard to take someone seriously when they have a three dollar bath mat on their head.
Fred. Recycling posts might work if the originals were amusing
Ad Hominem attack, Freddie-Poo. Now, is it true that all creationists are named Fred, in honour of their patron saint Fred Flintstone, a human who apparently co-existed with dinosaurs. Do you creationists actually believe that?
I find ridiculous your attack on his appearance in an effort to undermine his integrity. Shallow is as shallow does.
I see atheists making insulting comments on here about religious people.
Just thought I'd return the favor.
He still looks like an inbred idiot though, there's no denying it.
Still doesn't change the fact that he's right. And that just gripes your azz, doesn't it, Ferd Burfle?
Post by 'Fred' is an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.
Actually, Fallacy Spotting 101, the ad hominem fallacy does NOT apply to this situation.
I am not arguing for or against his position.
I am, however, pointing out how goofy he looks.
And he does look goofy, doesn't he?
@Fred – Your "tu quoque" fallacy is a subclass of the general ad hominem fallacy.
I'll bet he's way smarter than Fred.
This is not an example of a tu quoque fallacy, either.
Apparently, you don't even know what that is!
Silly rabbit...Trix are for kids!
P.S. He still looks like the village idiot.
@Fred – "I see atheists making insulting comments on here about religious people.
Just thought I'd return the favor."
This is the very definition of a tu quoque fallacy which, again, is a subclass of ad hominem.
@Fred – Add to your above stated rationale, the actual text of the original post, that is, "...It's hard to take someone seriously when they have a three dollar bath mat on their head."
You began with an ad hominem. Your latter rationale was to illustrate alleged atheist hypocrisy. I've read some of your other mentally contorted posts and you're hardly in any position to lecture someone else on logic. You were wrong when you started, wrong in your defense and factually wrong concerning the class and subclass of the logical fallacy you attempted to apply. You should consider sticking with coloring books and leave these types of discussions to grown ups...
Nice try, redzoa, but EPIC FAIL.
You 2%-ers can cry all you want.
It's time we take this country back from all you whiny losers out there.
The Democratic convention proves there is still a religious majority in this
country and all the Bill Nyes with all the bad rugs in the world can't change that.
So just sit and spin all you atheist crybabies!
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.