February 11th, 2011
07:55 AM ET

Kentucky Senate passes bill to teach Bible classes in public schools

From CNN Louisville, Kentucky affiliate WLKY

Frankfort, Kentucky - Bible classes could be taught in Kentucky public schools under a bill that's made it halfway through Kentucky's legislature.

State Senator Joe Bowen wants Kentucky public school students to have an opportunity to take classes about the Bible.

"No doubt about it, the most important book ever written and obviously, it's had so much influence on our society and all of western civilization," Bowen said. Last year, former State Senator David Boswell introduced the same bill. It passed the Senate, but died in the house. Bowen defeated Boswell last November.

Read the full story from CNN Louisville, Kentucky affiliate WLKY.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Education • Kentucky • United States

soundoff (1,056 Responses)
  1. 420greenwest@gmail.com

    I would not allow my kids to be enrolled in the class and am disappointed that my fellow americans would consider taking such a giant step backward. We need to move away from religion and start using logic. We did not come from a god who knows all, we need to press the darn government to reveal what they know about aliens and our true origins.

    February 12, 2011 at 1:07 am |
    • David Johnson


      Remember, we are talking bible bellt here. You can still find people who handle snakes and convulse on the floor. Science is considered evil and Creationism rules.


      February 12, 2011 at 7:29 am |
  2. fsmgroupie

    I'd love to be in that bible class. The teacher could surely explain to me just how Noah found the time to travel to Ausralia to bring back a couple of kangaroos and all the food they would need for the next nine months.

    February 12, 2011 at 12:06 am |
    • Q

      And of course...explain how they returned once the boat docked on Mt. Ararat. Clearly, after traversing Asia, they swam across all that open water with koalas in the female's pouch and a platypus on each of their heads.

      February 12, 2011 at 12:36 am |
  3. Aaron

    I think that classes centered around teaching the Bible should not be allowed in public schools. There are many reasons to why this is a bad idea. First the lawmakers should abide by the separation of church and state. Since public schools are part of local, state and federal governments there is no place for the teaching of the Bible. If someone wanted religious materials to be taught they could easily enroll in a private school that would gladly teach the beliefs of their liking. Also this differs from say a religious study class because those classes teach many aspects of many different religions, but a class dedicated to teaching the Bible only would obviously be centered around religions centered around the Bible, namely Judaism and Christianity. Also since it is taxpayers who will be ultimately be paying the teachers who teach this class, I along with many other taxpayers would not be comfortable with tax money going to teaching where they have no place in a public school.If this class was offered there would also be a clear bias in schools to teach only certain religious, to fix this they would also have to add classes that teach other books like the Qur'an and if this were to happen there be too much controversy. All in all this idea is morally wrong on many levels and not implicating this would stop many problem from occuring.

    February 11, 2011 at 11:41 pm |
  4. Jim

    If You would do a little honest Research & Reporting- The Bible WAS taught in Public schools until 1960's There was Prayer in Schools & There was NO One back then crying about " Separation of Church & State" Why is every one SO AFRAID to READ the Bible-
    Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth- – I guess you all like to pick & choose what you want to obey-It is wriiten Thou shalt not commit Adultry- You do it anyway Thou Shalt not Murder- you do it anyway- Thou Shalt not steal- You do it anyway
    You refuse to teach the People right from wrong & then you all scratch your heads when your teenage daughter gets pregnant, Your son joins a gang & does drugs, Etc, Etc, Etc, Etc, Etc, Etc, Etc

    February 11, 2011 at 11:00 pm |
    • Observer

      No one believes every word of the Bible; they just pick and choose whatever agrees with their own prejudices. That's why there are so many Christian hypocrites who pick on gays while ignoring all their adulterous (according to the Bible) friends who divorce and remarry.

      February 11, 2011 at 11:05 pm |
    • fsmgroupie

      just like sarah palin's daughter?

      February 12, 2011 at 12:18 am |
    • LivinginVA

      Statistics don't back you up. The areas of the country with the highest church attendance also have the highest crime rates. Folks interviewed in jail self-identify as Christian at a higher rate than found in the general population while Atheists are underrepresented. The countries in the world with the lowest crime rates tend to the be the ones with the highest percentage of atheist/agnostics.

      While I could not find stats on it, I'll bet you that Buddhists are also majorly underrepresented and they don't follow the Bible.

      February 12, 2011 at 8:01 am |
  5. Jenn

    OKay, I do want to say the a 'religions' class aka a course of study that is to learn things about ALL religions and non-religions Atheists and Theists IS A FAR BETTER idea.

    February 11, 2011 at 9:52 pm |
  6. Jenn

    Religion .... State....–> SEPARATE! How many of these people would flip out if LGBT stuff was being made into a class to be taught like Biology and social studies? We have churches and temples and etc that are the appropriate place to teach children...thats their job not PUBLIC schools.

    February 11, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
  7. Me

    I tried to read through the comments.

    I have no problem offering a religious class – my problem is more in the lack of choice to study other religions, which i'm sure will happen in some areas. In addition, how many of the teachers are going to give unbiased grades? For example, a thinking student signs up for the class to gain a greater understanding of the religious text, the student, however, is not christian. If he or she speaks out against christianity, how well received is that going to be? It depends on the teacher, surely, but how many violations will there be? Is the state going to make some sort of manditory curriculum that is good, or just say the class can be taught?

    A good curriculum for this class, being bible only, might be to include arguments against the bible as well as for – and also including some sort of paper or research project to compare bible-based religion to other religions. The class can be made a proper class in this manner, but somehow, I doubt this is going to be the outcome.

    Without the choice of learning about other religions as well, this class, though voluntary, may be perceived as the school pushing christian teachings on the students. The very reason one cannot hand the 10 commandments in the courthouse isn't because things like "thou shalt not kill" is bad – in fact, it is illegal – but because things like "thou shalt not commit adultery" and "thou shalt not covet (anything that is your neighbors" conflict with the actual laws of the country. While most believe you shouldn't do the first, definitions between christianity sects can differ greatly. And being jealous of things others have is simply not a legal crime. One is allowed to have feelings, including jealousy.

    Teaching instead a "religions of the world" class or something similar, which includes not only the major religions of the world but some of the lesser – but still substantial – religions and belief systems might just help people understand others a little bit better.

    February 11, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
  8. thurisaz26

    I was in a class similar to this in NC. We were the first class at the school to take a course on the Bible and World Religions. I am a Christian, but I really enjoyed learning about all of the other faiths. The portion on the Bible was taught as literature, as it should be in school. If I want a devotional, I can go to church or Sunday school.

    Also, knowing the text of the Bible is crucial to understanding the history of Western culture, but even more so for any sort of literature class. I can't tell you how many allusions my classmates have missed because they weren't aware of the text of the Bible. Learning about the Bible in an objective matter has nothing at all to do with issues of church and state. Nothing.

    February 11, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
    • LivinginVA

      And if it were a Bible and World Religions class, it wouldn't bother me so much......

      February 11, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
  9. Ed W.

    Are you kidding me?

    "No doubt about it, the most important book ever written and obviously, it's had so much influence on our society and all of western civilization"

    Are you serious?

    Most important book ever written? That is an awfully presumptious statement and one that is ONLY an opinion. If parents want their children to learn about the bible, let them do that at THEIR church. There is NO acceptable reason why state and local taxes should be spent on hiring a teacher for something that is not the state's area of responsibility or concern.

    If Kentucky starts teaching Christian Bible classes then I want to see classes on Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Baptists, Seven Day Adventists, Scientology, Hinduism, and every other religion out there. Hells bells, I want them to teach a class on Atheism, agnosticism, and every other choice out there.

    This is utter BS. Anyone wonder why our country is so low on the global ladder when it comes to education? Kentucky and every other idiot state like them...thats why.

    USA you embarass me more and more everyday. Wake up.

    February 11, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Ed W, the Bible is the most important, not to mention most fascinating book ever written. I doubt you ever read it, just as I am sure you will never read any of the other books you are complaining about, just so you can voice your complaints.

      All of you make it difficult (not impossible) to have an intelligent conversation about Jesus' truth when you have never read it, pretend that you have, and then continue to write your complaints so you can have something/anything to complain about.

      February 14, 2011 at 2:01 am |
  10. 425

    Very bad idea. VERY bad.

    I am a high school freshman (not in Kentucky) who is an open atheist.

    And while 90% of the time everything's fine, I am sure that I would get bigoted hate if there was a Bible class.

    Teaching mythology as fact is wrong.

    If we taught the controversy in science by presenting evidence for evolution and ID, by the way, the lesson would go like this:

    "The main theory concerning the origin of all species is called evolution. It is backed by 90% of PhDs, plus almost a century and a half of science, the entire fossil record, multiple experiments including Miller and Urey, plus scientific observations made within our own lifetimes.

    On the other hand there is creationism. This theory is backed by this one book. No one knows who wrote it, and it contains no reason for it to be credible besides the fact it says that it is. Plus many people read it.

    February 11, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      425, you buy into some guy's theory about being evolved from apes just so he could dispute Jesus' truth and you call yourself open minded?

      I find all of you incredibly closed minded about Jesus truth that you never bothered in your lives to read on your own or if you did, have no clue to it's meaning because it takes a lifetime to read His truth. Yet, you search the net to find other closed minded opinions that match your own and that's all the justifications you require.

      February 14, 2011 at 1:47 am |
    • Q

      HeavenSent – Most people who accept evolution do so because they understand it is supported by actual physical evidence, e.g. your hobbled together 2nd chromosome, your possession of a defunct gene for egg yolk protein, the evolutionarily and phylogenetically consistent distribution of parasitic genetic elements in your genome, etc. The population genetics and biogeographical evidence indicating the impossibility of descent from the Ark bottleneck. The well established fossil record demonstrating discrete and progressive forms including our own homind lineage (now new and improved with Neanderthal DNA sequences confirming their distinction from H. sapiens). This list goes on and on and of course, you reject all of it given your a priori faith, but nonetheless, the evidence stands on its own record of having been tested and consistently and concordantly supported by every relevant scientific discipline. That your personal and purely faith-based assertions are shown to be inconsistent with this evidence does not const-itute an effort to undermine "Jesus' truth". You keep using that word ("truth"). I do not think it means what you think it means...

      February 14, 2011 at 2:18 am |
  11. JT

    Kentucky – the state with the creation museum that touts that the earth is 6000 years old and the Flintstone theory that humans and dinosaurs inhabited the earth at the same time. They are now using tax payer dollars to build a replica of Noah's Ark. They should be ashamed of themselves. They seem hell-bent to keep themselves ignorant.

    It's hard to believe that George Clooney and Johnny Depp are from there. George should forget about Sudan and go rescue his home state from the Taliban.

    February 11, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      JT, actually the Bible teaches that this earth age, (mind you I said THIS earth age) the one we currently live (there was another age called the first earth age, prior to this one that was millions of years old and God destroyed it) is about 14,000 years old. You have to understand, that a day in our Lords is 1000 years of man. Genesis through Revelation explains how God destroyed the world in the first earth age due to 1/3 of the angels following satan ... the start of this earth age and how Jesus came to walk among us, along with what happens in the 3rd earth age which will be when Jesus returns, the day of the Lord (1000 years of man) and then judgment. As far as what man calls dinosaurs, that too is written in the book of Job 40:15-24. God was telling Job about these magnificent creatures so Job knew why he should humble himself because God created all.

      Of course, this is only the basics about His truth.

      February 14, 2011 at 1:35 am |
  12. Observer

    @Steve the real one,

    What is "the public square"? It shouldn't be a government building unless ALL religions have equal access to display their symbols and beliefs.

    Why isn't everyone's home and place of worship enough for you? Nearly everyone would support that. Why should you be allowed to try to force your beliefs on others in public? Where is respect for other people?

    February 11, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Ever heard of the "Great Commission"? Jesus Himself taught in PUBLIC! A better question is why do you fear Christianity?

      " Why should you be allowed to try to force your beliefs on others in public"? A little dramatic are we? How is sharing the equal to forcing? You don't want to be a Christian, don't be one! Jesus never forced himself on you! Yet you don't seem to mind FORCING evolution on kids in school!

      February 12, 2011 at 8:13 pm |
  13. RS

    If teach bible in the public school, then the other religion's class should in the public school too. Religious equality。
    It is easy that people can go which every church they want to study, There are not a controversial issue。Peace for everyone.
    That is church for. Not pubic school for. It is for teach science and Basic education。

    February 11, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  14. Meg

    I think that if a school wants to have a bible class that is fine but it should be optional so the people who are not in that religion can opt out and take a different class instead

    February 11, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
    • MikeTheInfidel

      Except that the taxes of the people who don't believe that religion are still paying for the class to be taught.

      February 11, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
  15. Eric G.

    Perhaps religious history should be taught in a Sociology class?

    February 11, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • WhatIsTheWorldComingTo

      I (*gulp*) agree that there should be some comparative religions being taught and that they belong in a sociology or philosophy class. Religion is not FACT about the world (genetic diversity cannot come from one breeding pair and virgins do not have babies). Religion is an OPINION about how life should be lived and gives certain people consolation that their lives matter. I do think it's important to learn as much as possible about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. It is ignorance of each other's ideas that allows us to be judgmental and intolerant. When we can say "your ideas are silly", we are only a step away from saying, "and WHY is it that my ideas are not silly?"

      February 12, 2011 at 12:04 am |
  16. Observer

    If they want to teach children about religion, they should offer a course in comparative religions.It shouldn't be the school's job to pick up where Christians have failed to indoctrinate their children.

    February 11, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • Steve the real one

      Surprisingly I partly agree with you. Parents (in some cases) have failed! As I said before Christian hertiage should be primarly taught at home. HOWEVER, it should NOT be prohibited in the public square!

      February 11, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
    • zamboni

      Steve the real one – I partially agree with you. I do not think that any religion's history should be prohibited from public knowledge or from public schools and that it is up to the parents to teach their heritage and beliefs to their children at home. I have read some of your other posts. What I do not agree with is when teaching becomes preaching and other religions are ignored. This isolates children with different beliefs and misinforms children of the reality that there are others who do not believe in what they might be taught. It is not a public school's place to tell children or emphasize to children what religion they should believe in. That is what a private religious school is for – or Sunday school – or church is for.

      February 11, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)


      What you don't understand about Christianity is Jesus taught in public and not just in the temple! He took the message to the streets! Just read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and you will clearly see that! After that you can read about Paul's teaching, starting in Acts! RARELY was it in a building!

      February 12, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
  17. zamboni

    No. No no no no NO! This is not a good idea. Not unless they are teaching on the history of all religions...even ones that we call "mythology" now. If it is comprehensive and no one religion is spent on (or emphasized) more than another, then ok. I am agnostic, but well read. I have studied world religions and philosophy in college...enough to be an agnostic athiest. Kentucky and those who support this be warned – children are very impressionable and prejudice and hate are the result of ignoring the teachings and histories of other religions.

    February 11, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
  18. Eric G.

    Can someone please give me an example of a actual atheistic class that is currently part of a public school lesson plan? I have noticed an attack on atheists who have a problem with religious courses in public schools. Many of the posts have claimed that atheists only have a problem because it is the Bible being used. I am curious if a believer can name a class that is based in an atheist view, or one that specifically questions the existence of a god.

    February 11, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • NL

      Eric G.-
      In some people's minds any class that doesn't open with a prayer would qualify as furthering some nefarious atheist agenda.

      February 11, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • Christfollower

      Yes, it's called, "Everything taught in science class." Big bang, origin of life, evolution of species. I'm sure you've heard of it!

      February 11, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • TheRationale

      Well there's nothing to teach about atheism. It's the null-case of religion, that is, it isn't religion. They should teach about all religions in school, though, not just one. This Bible class seems verrry fishy.

      If you want a class on "atheism," you'd probably end up with a class on logic, which then proceeded to debunk religion. However, I doubt the religious voters would want anything to do with that.

      February 11, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • Eric G.

      @Christfollower: Where in the Big Bang or evolutionary theories does it even mention god? The theories you reference do not say "this is how it happened because your god does not exist". The theories you mention are supported by verifiable evidence. If you deny this demonstrative evidence, you are being dishonest. If you deny the evidence because you lack the capacity to understand it, you are making an argument from ignorance. Science is just science. Scientific theories stand on their own evidence. Verifiable evidence does not require a god.

      February 11, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • Shawn

      Christfollower, Over 95% of PhD’s believe in evolution. Facts and data have been collected and studied from all over the world that prove evolution is not a theory anymore it is fact. To teach a child to not believe in facts but to believe in ancient text is wrong. Science is fact religion is faith. Faith requires one to believe without facts.

      February 11, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • Christfollower

      @Eric G.
      First, they are all theories, as stated in their very names. Theories are stories scientists tell to fit existing evidence as best as possible. The problem is, now those theories are being put to the test based on the newest scientific discoveries/research in Astronomy and Microbiology (i.e. the age of the universe and irreducible complexity).
      The very nature of a naturalistic theory that presupposes an absence of God is Atheistic. Not just, "Not sure if there is a God or not," but a theory that tries to explain life, the universe and everything from a naturalistic world-view. It is only a recent phenomenon that scientists can't be taken seriously in the scientific community as a whole if they profess belief in a higher power and God help them if they try to publish a paper with the possibility of a supernatural event as a possibility. You don't see them out there, not because they don't exist, but because they don't get published.
      What would be wrong with telling the whole story in school, like presenting another theory of the origin of the universe and life- an intelligent designer? This is not teaching a religion. What are they afraid of? Why is it ridiculed, but theories like dark matter, multiverses, gravity creating something out of nothing, superstrings, wormholes are all accepted as viable possibilities just because they are thought out by certain people who hold to the correct world-view? Scientists that risk their careers every day by holding to ID have the same degrees from the same colleges as others who get press. It's not scientific to withhold a possibility just because it doesn't fit in with what you currently believe. A creationist perspective and a scientific perspective mesh together very nicely. Occam's Razor tells us it is far more likely that there is, or at least was, a designer at some point. Old bigotries die hard, I guess.

      February 11, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • LivinginVA

      Christfollower says "The very nature of a naturalistic theory that presupposes an absence of God is Atheistic. Not just, "Not sure if there is a God or not," but a theory that tries to explain life, the universe and everything from a naturalistic world-view. "

      Sorry, but I know plenty of people (including an uncle who is a biologist) who believe in the Big Bang and Evolution that also believe in God. They see the creation story in the Bible as allegorical (what is a 'day' to God?). They also point out that the order in which the Bible says things were created goes hand-in-hand with the order in which scientists believe things evolved.

      February 11, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
    • Christfollower

      I assume you are referring to Micro Evolution, which is a proven fact that describes changes in a species regarding coloring, shape of a beak, height. Neo-Darwinism, the revised theory of the evolution of the species (which says nothing of how life first came into being, btw), is on very shaky ground. Hoax after hoax from esteemed scientists have surfaced over the decades, all proven false. Nothing in the fossil record indicates evolutionary processes. Darwin himself said that if the fossil record does not hold up in the future, that his theory would become worthless. Well, there has been no evidence to support evolution found in the fossil record. Name one. Of late, any discoveries have all been attributed just as easily as an extinct species as to some missing link. Many species have become extinct. That doesn't prove evolution. How about that? We have literally found millions of fossils from thousands of sites, and none have shown to be some missing link. Where is your evidence. And don't refer to "mysterious smart people who have proved it." And what about the fact that DNA is a language, and the human cell has actual nanomotors and wheels and zippers and copy machines? Or that the whole theory of evolution is a minor issue compared to how did this universe come into existence, and how did life initially form? Weighty questions indeed.
      What is your proof? If you have none, seriously reconsider your belief system. Don't just hold on to blind faith.
      This is a discussion that can take up a lot of time and space here. It's really not needed. All you need to do is to question what you have been taught, look at all the evidence from both sides with an open mind, and honestly decide if you think there is not a possibility that there is a designer. If you find yourself looking at different evidence and you are saying, "I gotta find proof that I'm right," then you are not being objective. And when you come to the possibility that an intelligent designer could be real, being a Jesus freak is not far behind, my friend! God bless!

      February 11, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
    • Christfollower

      Don't want to argue semantics here. I will change my wording to "Belief in a theory that does not require a god of any kind at any time in the process" if you like.
      Either way, that is the only kind of theory an Atheist would hold to. So, yes, those are teachings that represent an Atheist world-view.

      February 11, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Q

      Christfollower- With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. There is no single "missing link", there are series of transitional fossils bridging between forms and there are plenty of examples. Every fossil found has conformed to the evolutionary predictions, e.g. no humans beside dinosaurs, no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian. It's very clear you have no experience in these topics and are parroting standard creationist arguments with a little ID pseudo-information theory thrown in. But just for fun, run back to AIG or ICR and find the answer for why the fossil record illustrates a discrete order of the major classes of vertebrate life, e.g. fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds, if they were all together both pre- and post-flood?

      February 11, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • LivinginVA

      I thought that part of the concept of "faith" was God refusing to offer proof – that we had to take certain things on faith, so I don't know why something that doesn't require a god is atheistic.

      February 11, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • Eric G.

      @Christfollower: Sorry, logic foul on the play. The Evolution theory and the Creationist theory are separate theories. Both make their own claims, meaning both have their own burden of proof. Both theories require that verifiable evidence supporting their claims be presented. Once the evidence is verified with repeatable results, the evidence becomes demonstrative. Evolution theory is supported by demonstrative evidence. Your denial of this evidence is an argument based in dishonesty or ignorance.

      On a side note.... If you could present verifiable evidence that Evolution theory is wrong, that does not prove Creation theory correct. You still need to provide verifiable evidence to support Creation theory. Do you have this verifiable evidence available for certification?

      February 11, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
    • LivinginVA

      Christfollower: I'm not being argumentative, just confused. I have in my family 1) A biblical scholar 2) A biologist who is religious and 3) 2 ministers. I have heard them ALL say basically that God does not offer proof, and that is where faith comes in. They don't think that scientific theories are atheistic they either think that God put those things in motion.

      February 11, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
    • Phil Lewis

      Very simple: Evolution The premise for Evolution being taught is that things evolved, were not created, therefore no existence of God.

      February 11, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
    • Christfollower

      @Q- Wow. Do you see how bigoted you are acting? Dismissing organizations that are affiliated with ID and Creationism on the sole basis that the info can't be trusted because they talk about the supernatural. You know why they exist, right? Because the scientific community will not publish anything they write because it doesn't match the currently widely-held notion that only naturalistic explanations are valid. These people who hold doctorates in many cases have been dismissed from their teaching positions at secular universities because they believe something contrary to the majority.
      Cambrian layers, cretaceous layers. They see a dinosaur fossil in a layer and say it is the cretaceous layer because they believe dinosaurs are 150 million years old. They find a human fossil somewhere else and say that layer is one million years old because they believe that is when they lived.
      There are a number of footprints and hand prints and fossilized fingers, metal tools etc in layers of cretaceous rock. If you find yourself saying that it must not be cretaceous rock, then you are doing exactly what most scientists do. Adapt reality to fit their theory.
      Again, please don't conclude that I am in any way attempting to use what I have said here as proof of something. It just shows that there are alternate viewpoints and evidence that have real validity.

      February 11, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
    • Christfollower

      @Eric G
      Sorry but if you have a theory (evolution), then the burden of proof is on you. You have to actively prove it true, otherwise it is just a theory.
      Regarding ID, I have no proof. I have very good evidence to support the theory, though. Of course you need to take the step to actually believe it, like you have done with big bang, evolution of species, bowl of primordial soup, etc. And to believe it, you would have to study the supporting evidence thoroughly, like you have done with evolutionary theory. Otherwise it is just a guess and a hope.
      Regarding Creationism, I have no evidence that would hold up in a lab. That's okay, because I am not trying to prove it to you in these posts. Just trying to introduce doubt in your theories, and show evidence that helps mine. The only proof to that is written in your heart.

      February 11, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
    • NL

      "Sorry but if you have a theory (evolution), then the burden of proof is on you. You have to actively prove it true, otherwise it is just a theory."
      Ah, but the evidence does support evolution. That's why it's the accepted theory. ID, creationism, or whatever you want to call it doesn't even come close to being supported by the evidence. It doesn't even try, really. All it does is try to raise a shadow of doubt that believers can emotionally cling to as reason enough to deny evolution.

      "Regarding ID, I have no proof. I have very good evidence to support the theory, though. Of course you need to take the step to actually believe it, like you have done with big bang, evolution of species, bowl of primordial soup, etc."

      You may need to have faith to believe in what you call 'evidence', but faith is not required to accept the scientific explanation. If you take the time to study the subject from actual scientists it's quite easy to see why it's the correct explanation.

      February 11, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
    • NL

      Phil Lewis-
      Evolution does not disprove God. It just discredits the story that God created everything in a 'poof' of magic and it makes the story of an eternal being such as God rather unlikely.

      February 11, 2011 at 8:00 pm |
    • MikeTheInfidel

      Christfollower, if you have a problem with science, get off the internet.

      February 11, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • Jim

      Classes on Evolution- Science, All teach there is no God . We were not there When God Audibly Spoke to Moses & 600,000 Men as eye witnesses- We only have the Written record 66 separate books brought together in the Bible we protestants know today. Our law says a person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty – One of the Worlds best legal minds tryed & failed to discredit the witnesses of the old & new testaments.

      February 11, 2011 at 11:10 pm |
    • Q

      @Christfollower – I actually asked you to use those sources to answer the question I posed (to which you failed to respond), how is that bigoted? There have been no anomalous human artifacts found (which always seem to be "discovered" by creationists) that have stood up to even the slightest scientific scrutiny. The geologic strata and fossils contained therein are not in question as their relative order is accepted by mainstream science and ID/creationists alike. The difference is that while mainstream science can explain their order and make successful predictions of where particular mineral/oil deposits or transitional fossils will be found, ID/creationism cannot because the physical evidence simply doesn't support special creation, coexistence of the major classes of vertebrate life or anything remotely resembling a global flood. Guess how many commercial oil/mineral companies use "flood geology"? Zero, because it has no basis in reality.

      You're also parroting other falsehoods about ID/creationist "scientists". When their work is based on standard scientific practices, they have published in mainstream scientific journals just like any other scientist, e.g. Georgia Purdum, Kurt Wise, etc. ID/creationists are not fired from academia for their personal religious beliefs, e.g. Michael Behe, Scott Minnich, etc, but when they fail to receive grants or when they proselytize in the classroom (this pretty much covers all of the "Expelled" group). Given that naturalistic explanations are the only explanations which can be tested and used to make predictions, invoking supernatural causation fails to meet these basic requirements and is rightly rejected from scientific journals. A supernatural explanation which can explain anything and everything (e.g. "God did it") effectively explains nothing as one can never know when, where, how or if a supernatural force will act. While evolution can be falsified with actual new evidence (a true chimeric organism, a human fossil beside a dinosaur, etc), supernatural assertions cannot be falsified. Science does change its view when confronted with new evidence (e.g. gradualism v punctuated equilibrium, plate tectonics, etc). ID/creationism groups invariably affirm their religious faith positions first, declaring any contrary evidence must be rejected. Knowledge and technology cannot derive from such a vacuum which is perhaps why, despite millions donated for ID/creationism "research", they have produced not a single applicable mechanism, patent or novel innovation, only apologetics targeting non-science trained laypersons.

      From McLean v Arkansas to Kitzmiller v Dover, despite numerous opportunities to present their case, independent courts have consistently found absolutely no merit to ID/creationist claims asserting actual scientific evidence undermining evolution and that ID and "creation science" are not science but rather purely religious propositions. With all due respect, you simply don't know what you're talking about. That was clear the first time you offered the "just a theory" position.

      February 12, 2011 at 12:16 am |
    • Q

      @Jim – Science simply cannot a-ssert God exists or doesn't exist. Many people of faith accept the evidence for evolution, e.g. Francis Collins, Director of the National Inst-itutes of Health. However, science does offer consistent and concordant evidence from multiple disciplines indicating that particular faith-based positions on how the observable biodiversity in the fossil record and alive today came to be lack any validity. Direct observation is not a requirement for scientific study, e.g. forensics. Validated natural mechanisms which are observable in real-time can be tested against remnant physical evidence to confirm or reject hypotheses. Over time, the culmination of confirmed hypotheses leads to the ability to make more precise and more accurate predictions which is exactly the case with evolution.

      February 12, 2011 at 12:30 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Shawn, my, my, my, aren't you impressed with the PILED HIGHER and DEEPER.

      February 14, 2011 at 1:15 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Q, The Bible teaches that this earth age, (mind you I said THIS earth age) the one we currently live (there was another age called the first earth age, prior to this one that was millions of years old and God destroyed it) is about 14,000 years old. You have to understand, that a day in our Lord's is 1000 years of man. Genesis through Revelation explains how God destroyed the world in the first earth age due to 1/3 of the angels rebelling against God (sound familiar?) following satan ... the start of this earth age and how Jesus came to walk among us, along with what happens in the 3rd earth age which will be when Jesus returns, the day of the Lord (1000 years of man) and then judgment. As far as what man calls dinosaurs, that too is written in the book of Job 40:15-24. God was telling Job about these magnificent creatures so Job knew why he should humble himself because God created all.

      Of course, this is only the basics of His truth. If you, or any of your non-believers learned to read His truth as He wrote it, not how man wants to read it, you could help others in uncovering some of His still hidden truth that scholars have throughout history, been figuring out to be absolutes. It all has to do with going humble, shelfing your ego to the ways of the world, and then are able to see His truth as is written.

      February 14, 2011 at 2:20 am |
    • Q

      @Heaven Sent – As I responded to you elsewhere on this thread, the description of behemoth is hardly a convincing description of a dinosaur. The reference infers familiarity on the part of Job which again is clearly not supported by anything remotely resembling evidence. Your "gap theory" still fails to agree with the physical evidence contained within the fossil record and claiming you are privy to some higher level of "truth" simply by referring again and again to your personal and wishful interpretations of a book flawed in both is scientific assertions and its internal moral discordance doesn't really const-itute an argument. You speak of humility but don't appear to possess any with respect to your very limited understanding of evolution, its supporting evidence and why special creation fails. Again, while a nice collection of stories relevant to its authors' culture, the bible is not a scientific text as exemplified in Genesis 30:37-39. As allegory, it may certainly provide spiritual lessons for some, but it is not an inerrant, scientifically accurate account of the history of life on this planet.

      February 14, 2011 at 2:47 am |
  19. The One True Steve

    This isn't about teaching the bible in school. This is about, Joe Bowen, a Protestant and a Republican Politician pandering to the Religious Right to get votes. He knows the Governor Steve Beshear, a Baptist, and a Democrat would never sign it into law.

    It was irresponsible of Sen. Bowen to introduce this type of legislation. If it had passed, it would have been challenged in court (on 1st Amendment grounds), at great cost to the Kentucky taxpayers.

    Its obvious Sen. Bowen does not believe in Religious freedom for all Kentuckians, if he did he would have included all Religions. The Protestant Bible is different from the Catholic Bible (in the Old Testament, the New Testament is identical).

    Sarah Palin and the Tea Party would be outraged. This is another example of BIG GOVERNMENT intruding into the lives of private citizens. By introducing this legislation, Sen. Bowen is saying that Protestant Parents are not capable of guiding their children to God. The Protestant Church is not capable of education children about God in Sunday School. Sen Bowen believes only BIG GOVERNMENT can educate the children of Kentucky about God.

    Former State Sen. David Boswell introduced the same legislation last year. He was not reelected. Sen. Bowen should not be reelected.

    February 11, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
  20. Barbara Wiesenberg Manzo

    Since Western Civilization is largely built upon the Judeao-Christian model, then yes, in order for students to understand history and literature, they need a basic understanding of Biblical precepts, especially at advanced levels. Few children are brought up with religion any more, and lack the foundational knowledge children of past generations had. They are at a deficit educationally because of it. That said, teaching Bible should be limited to un-biased treatment, and it should be taught as literature with the aim of integrating into literature and history courses. In addition, all major world faiths should be touched upon in this course, and their written works compared with those in the Bible.

    February 11, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • LivinginVA

      That's exactly what my daughter's World History teacher does. They start a chart at the beginning of the year (Religion, major text, major principles, major holidays, where was it founded, when, 3 (creation, and two others) major stories from them etc). As they go through history they add religions as they get to them.

      February 11, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • gene

      How do they explain the missing parts of the bible that men had removed?

      February 11, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
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.