Bill Nye slams creationism
August 27th, 2012
11:31 AM ET

Bill Nye slams creationism

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='EricCNNBelief']

(CNN)–Famed TV scientist Bill Nye is slamming creationism in a new online video for Big Think titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children."

"Denial of evolution is unique to the United States," Nye begins in a YouTube video posted on Thursday.  The video quickly picked up steam over the weekend and as of Monday morning had been viewed more than 1,100,000 times.

Nye - a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program, "Bill Nye the Science Guy" - said the United States has great capital in scientific knowledge and "when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everyone back."

"Your world becomes fantastically complicated if you don't believe in evolution," Nye said in the Web video.

Creationists are a vast and varied group in the United States.  Most creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

In the creation account, God creates Adam and Eve, the world, and everything in it in six days.

For Christians who read the Genesis account literally, or authoritatively as they would say, the six days in the account are literal 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution.  Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.

Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique

The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for the past 30 years.  In June it released its latest findings, which showed 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.

During the 30 years Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years.

Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins

"The idea of deep time of billions of years explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, itself inconsistent," Nye said in the video.

"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine.  But don't make your kids do it.  Because we need them.  We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future.  We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems," he said.

Creationists' beliefs about the origins of the Earth are often a narrow focus, based in large part on religious beliefs, and while they reject evolution as "just one theory," they often embrace other fields of science and technology.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

In "The Genesis Flood," the 1961 book that in many ways help launch the Young Earth creationism movement in the United States, the authors write: “Our conclusions must unavoidably be colored by our Biblical presuppositions, and this we plainly acknowledge."  Their goal for the book was to harmonize the scientific evidence with the accounts in Genesis of creation and the flood.

The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859.  By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution.

"In another couple centuries I'm sure that worldview won't even exist.  There's no evidence for it. So..." Nye ends his video.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Creationism • Science

soundoff (14,640 Responses)
  1. Chip

    A lot of charges leveled against creationism here. Just wondering if the evolutionary adherents can answer some questions since they are so willing to ask them.
    1. How did inanimate objects become animate?
    2. Where did the original material that began the evolutionary process originate?
    3. If something has to be observable, measurable, and repeatable to be considered scientific, who has observed, measured and repeated the process of evolution?
    4. If every evolutionary advance is supposed to be cause by a chance mutation of the previous, lower form of life, how come every mutation done in a controlled scientific experiment has produced negative results – not a single improvement even in a controlled environment?

    August 29, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      1. What? Like dancing rocks?
      2. It was there in the oceans. Evolution does not explain how life began, just how things change.
      3. Observed and measured began with Darwin and countless examples since. Repeated, see 4.
      4. I don't believe your assertion is true at all. Others can provided specific examples. Evolution experiments have been performed on viruses and fruit flies.

      August 29, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
    • Chip

      @ NOT A GOPer
      1. Not dancing rocks, but rocks that become lizards, or dust particles that become amoebas.
      2. Evolution is referred to as the science of origins. It's a cop out to refuse to explain where the stuff came from but deny absolutely any possibility of a Creator.
      3. Observed and measured began with Darwin and countless examples since. Evolution has NEVER been observed, measured, or repeated by anyone. It has only been postulated.
      4. Mutations have been attempted, but EVERY one of them has produced a negative result. For instance, the fruit flies you mentioned. They managed to produce a third eye, but the flies were blind. Certainly not a positive mutation. And that's in a lab. Evolutionists postulate that these mutations scientists find impossible to duplicate in controlled lab conditions somehow happened by chance in unfavorable environmental conditions.

      August 29, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
    • sbp

      1. and 2. The study of abiogenesis is working out that problem. Not that you would believe the research.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
    • sbp

      4. The reason your corn is extra sweet is evolution. Man made. Not resulting is speciation, but genetic manipulation resulting in an inheritable and beneficial result. Too many examples to list. Not that you would believe the research.

      And this dang thing won't let me post a response to 3, and I can't figure out the word it's banning yet.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      2. "Evolution is referred to as the science of origins. It's a cop out to refuse to explain where the stuff came from but deny absolutely any possibility of a Creator"

      It doesn't offend me if you believe that a creator started life and evolution was his mechanism of 'creation'.

      Evolution only describes how living things change over time. It does not explain the first formation of life – that is abiogenesis and as Chad is attempting to here, feel free to have a separate conversation about that, but the two are different.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:08 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      4. Mutations have been attempted, but EVERY one of them has produced a negative result. For instance, the fruit flies you mentioned. They managed to produce a third eye, but the flies were blind. Certainly not a positive mutation. ....

      Some one posted a discussion on modification of a virus of some kind. I don't have a cogenent example ready to give you. I'm sure someone will oblige you.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:11 pm |
    • donna

      NASA has an excellent site to address the origins of life. If you aren't up for an actual class or book, you might want to start there.

      Regarding #3, Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time, and it's happening all around you. It's constantly observed.

      And #4, You are wrong about a lot here. First, natural selection is not an accidental or chance process. Second, are you familiar with dogs, cattle, birds, etc? The food you eat comes from cattle specifically bred to produce high volumes of meat. Dogs- I mean really, do I need to explain this? We breed them for specific traits SUCCESSFULLY.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:12 pm |
    • sbp

      3. It IS being observed.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:12 pm |
    • sbp

      3. Continued. In particular, where populations were separated into different environments and subsequent generations followed.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      did you find your offending word?

      I have a list if you need it.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
    • sbp

      3. Continued again till I find the word being banned: Changes noted and eventually were shown to be sufficient such that cross-breeding no longer yielded viable offspring.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
    • ArthurP

      "4. Mutations have been attempted, but EVERY one of them has produced a negative result. For instance, the fruit flies you mentioned. They managed to produce a third eye, but the flies were blind. Certainly not a positive mutation. And that's in a lab. Evolutionists postulate that these mutations scientists find impossible to duplicate in controlled lab conditions somehow happened by chance in unfavorable environmental conditions."


      Natural occurring mutations in humans:

      Six fingers, common in India, some are malformed, like Elizabeth I, some are not and work like a normal finger.
      Third nip.ple in women will actually produce milk after pregnancy.
      Webbed feet & hands
      Organs reversed in the body (heart on right side)

      and those are only a few found in people is only in people.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • sbp

      3. (last) In other words, not just adaptation within a species, but to an extent where speciation took place. Not that you would believe the research.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      most common for me to overlook are:
      t-it, c-um, sp-ic, h0mo, sm-ut

      August 29, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
    • sbp

      Yeah, thanks, it was doc-ument. Sheesh. I once couldn't figure out the problem with "JD c-um laude." Frustrating.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      yep, really tricky ones for me have been soph0more, transmu-tation, ti-the, circ-umspect, hosp-ice

      The filter is bloody ridiculous. 'ass ramming' is just fine but better not say inst'tute.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:30 pm |
    • b4bigbang

      @donna: you *do* realize that the type of evolution you described [re dog breeds, etc] is *not* disputed by Intelligent Design proponents?

      Indeed, it took human intelligence [a form of ID] to cross-breed dogs and achieve a desired result.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:36 pm |
    • donna

      b4bigbang- do you know how to keep comments in context? Why don't you read the question I was replying to? It asked about HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION.

      My response was accurate and appropriate regardless of who believes in what.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
    • sbp

      B4, "that kind" of evolution WAS disputed by Chip, who purports to be an ID proponent. We can't very well respond "hey Chip, you don't actually believe that." And it didn't require humans to cross breed within a species to obtain a "desired" result. Only to obtain the particular desired result that HUMANS wanted. Which would not necessarily be adaptations that the would be advantageous to the species. There are plenty of examples of adaptations within a species that are beneficial and are NOT man-made, as well as plenty of examples of speciation. What you can't expect (and which many posting here seem to expect) is speciation that skips from, say, fish to cow. As opposed to fish, to a slightly different species of fish, to a slightly further different species of fish, etc...

      August 29, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
  2. Arvoasitis

    Some comments on education by Israel Scheffler (1972) seem apropos:

    "A society committed to the democratic ideal is one that makes peculiarly difficult and challenging demands on its members; it accordingly also makes stringent demands of those processes through which its members are educated."

    "[The democratic ideal envisions] a society which sustains itself not by the indoctrination of myth, but by the reasoned choices of its citizens, ..."

    "To choose the democratic ideal for society is wholly to reject the conception of education as an instrument of rule; it is to surrender the idea of shaping or molding the mind of the pupil. The function of eduction in a democracy is rather to liberate the mind, strengthen its critical powers, inform it with knowledge and the capacity for independent inquiry, engage its human sympathies, and illuminate its moral and practical choices."

    August 29, 2012 at 8:42 pm |
  3. donna

    Cq, Very true! And that's funny what you said about the big brains. They do allow us to imagine a lot! : ) They (big brains) also made it necessary to give birth "prematurely" which is why our babies are so helpless compared to other ape babies who have more physical ability when they are born.

    On the subject of our closest relatives, have you read much about the bonobos? People talk about our kinship with chimps a lot, and they used to think chimps and bonobos were the same species. We know now that they aren't, but we are just as closely related to bonobos as we are to chimps.

    Proportionately, our bodies are more like bonobos than chimps. And they have very different behaviors than chimps too- specifically they are a fully bi$exual species, and they use $ex as a stress reliever and to strengthen social bonds (like humans). They are also matrilineal (female dominated culturally). Because of all of that, they have been really dismissed by the mainstream for a long time. Fascinating animals!

    August 29, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
    • Cq

      We too are fascinating animals. 🙂 I had forgotten about the premature birth observation. If we weren't intelligent enough to do C-sections we'd be on our way towards extinction.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:22 am |
  4. b4bigbang

    "In another couple centuries I'm sure that worldview won't even exist. There's no evidence for it. So..." Nye ends his video.

    What? Another couple of centuries? Why so long? Darwin's theory has been taught in most all the universities since 1880 and we're told another two centuries?

    Oh I get it. This kind of prediction is similar to the cover illustrations of Popular Mechanics in the '50s promising all of us George Jetson type "flying cars" in the near future.

    Don't hold your breath people......

    August 29, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Is that the best you can do, b4? Complain about some specific of his prediction for when people will finally stop believing in a fairy tale with no evidence? How is it that a muslim terrorist and a christian snake handler can come to any conclusion that they want to about god but yet they MUST come to the same conclusions about math and chemistry? Why is god the author of confusion when it comes to his own nature and will?

      August 29, 2012 at 8:40 pm |
    • b4bigbang

      Is Nye's 200 yr prediction based on hard evidence or faith?

      August 29, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Neither, and why in the world is your god such an azzhole that he makes the facts in the natural world completely disagree with both of his accounts in Genesis? Why can a person believe anything about god, but they must believe in only one way about math and chemistry. You seem to think that the dilemma goes away if you ignore it, but it doesn't. Why is your god lying in either the bible or the fossil and genetic record? Is he just that type of sicko, or what?

      August 29, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
  5. ArthurP

    Creationists are so insecure in their faith that they have to use bast.ardized and obsolete scientific 'facts' to bolster it.

    August 29, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
  6. Philip

    Simran, Philip did not disappear he was having his evening meal (in the UK) then watched TV for an hour. Neither, to the best of his recollection, did he say your claim that Jenner was opposed by the clergy was nonsense. He pointed out that the groups which opposed vaccination were not confined to the clergy and not all clergy were opposed to vaccination. As for your comment, ' the more I read about Christianity, the more I wonder how stupid can it be? Everytime I think this is where the line gets drawn, every time they cross it', it is an example of pure prejudice. (1) You refer to 'Christianity' without defining what you mean by "Christianity'; (2) You then refer to 'they' implicitly identifying 'they' as Christian without explaining who 'they' are within a Christian context. In the context of this thread 'they' could be anyone or 'they' could be creationists and even you must be aware that many Christians are not creationists or literalists. Similarly one does not need to be a Christian to identify the real and unanswered criticisms of 'natural selection'.

    The subject is far too broad to discuss here but I would refer you to David Stove's brilliant dismantling of Darwin's theory of natural selection in 'Darwinian Fairytales' published in 1995. Stove was an atheist who was critical of organised religion as well as Darwinism. In addition, you may want to consider Mary Midgley's outstanding 'Evolution As a Religion' (1985) which described evolutionary biology as an ideologically driven philosophy posing as 'science'. Certainly neo-Darwinists won't like
    the way the myth of 'selfishness' which lies at the heart of the theory of 'natural selection' is exposed as shallow and unreal.
    Of course, both books were written for intelligent readers so I'm not certain how many on this thread would be able to understand them, particularly those for whom an open mind is a foreign concept.

    August 29, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
  7. One one

    About the big unknowns and big questions:

    Science: we are gathering evidence, it seems to say XYZ, but if new facts emerge, we will revise our theory to accommodate the new facts.

    Religion: We know The answers to the big questions, god did it ! We don't have facts to prove this but we have an ancient book of myths that says it is so.

    Now, who are you gonna believe ?

    August 29, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • niknak

      If you are a fundie, then of course you believe the second one.
      No matter what the evidence is, you blindly believe in the fairy tale as told to you by the people you trust.
      These types of people never think for themselves, they just blindly go thru life paroting what others tell them to think.
      When I think of a religious person, I think of sheep.

      August 29, 2012 at 7:56 pm |
  8. justmetoo

    I say we all bury the hatchet. I believe in God and evolution. Friends?

    August 29, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Of course. The issue is with god believers who claim that they have more knowledge about evolution than those who have spent their entire lives studying it whether they are believers or not.

      August 29, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @justmetoo –

      Believe in god if you choose, but you shouldn't believe in evolution...you should accept the theory of evolution as supported by the probability of evidence. There is a profound difference.

      August 29, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • One one

      Yes, friends, only if the believers keep their hocus pocus mumbo jumbo out of our schools, legal system, and public square.

      August 29, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
    • saggyroy

      I never hear of scientists raping boys or blowing themselves up.

      August 29, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
    • niknak

      If you believe in imaginary beings, then we can't be friends.
      When an adult believes in fairy tales it is creepy.
      And I can't be friends with people who are creepy.

      August 29, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
    • rpnewman7

      So niknak, you could not be friends with Martin Luther King, Jr, Gandhi, Mother Teresa or Barak Obama along with 84% of the human race.

      August 29, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • b4bigbang

      excellent judgement rpnewman7.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
  9. John

    I've just done some basic homework for you Jesus fanatics who either never took a science class or flunked 2nd grade basic science. Hint: definition #7 is not the one used in the phrase "theory of relativity", "theory of evolution", "germ theory" or "Newton's theory of gravitation". So...now you have no excuse to keep throwing out this straw man for consider yourself educated on what a scientific theory is. Lying for Jesus is just making you look more silly than you already do and you're fooling no one except your fellow ignorant funDUHmentalists.

       [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA

    noun, plural the·o·ries.
    a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

    a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

    Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

    the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

    a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

    contemplation or speculation: the theory that there is life on other planets.

    guess or conjecture: My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.

    August 29, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • JesusNotReligion

      So something is there but it just hasn't been manifestly proven yet, is that what you are saying? So are we! Just change the "some THING" to the SomeONE...

      August 29, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
    • JesusNotReligion

      p.s. to my above post...The "manifestation" I am speaking of is the 2nd Coming Jesus Christ, who already "manifested God in the flesh"

      Biblical proof text: 1Tomothy 3:16
      "And without doubt great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (and will return in manifest GLORY)...


      August 29, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • JesusNotReligion

      You won't find "1 Tomothy 3:16" in your Bible but you will find 1 Timothy 3:16 (my apologies)...

      August 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      There is no such thing as biblical "proof". Until you can show that what is in the bible is true then you are mistaken.

      And please dont use circular logic that the bible is true because the bible says that it is true.

      August 30, 2012 at 8:39 am |
    • JesusNotReligion

      Badger...You dont think I am trying to convince you, are you? I am here to boldly proclaim the gospel of salvation. If you don't value it, and don't believe it, that is between you and the God I serve. If us Christian's weren't out here for you to attack you'd either be watching Magilla Gorilla (which shows my age) or picking the fleas off your primate friends back...and then you'd die...Good luck with all that, though I do honestly (all joking aside) hope you will do as Jesus commands: "repent or perish".
      Trust in JesusNotReligion instead of yourself going around and around in circles...


      August 30, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
  10. ArthurP

    There is only One God it says so in the Bible and he loves us.

    OK so why is God so vindictive, he seems bent on killing and getting everyone else to kill for him as well.

    That is the God of the Old Testament the God of the New Testament is kind and loving.

    So there are two Christian Gods then. A vengeful one and a nice one.

    No There is only One God it says so in the Bible and he loves us.

    OK so why is God so vindictive, he seems bent on killing and getting everyone else to kill for him as well.

    That is the God of the Old Testament the God of the New Testament is kind and loving.

    So there are two Christian Gods then. A vengeful one and a nice one.

    No There is only One God it says so in the Bible and he loves us.

    OK so why is God so vindictive, he seems bent on killing and getting everyone else to kill for him as well.

    That is the God of the Old Testament the God of the New Testament is kind and loving.

    So there are two Christian Gods then. A vengeful one and a nice one.

    No There is only One God it says so in the Bible and he loves us.

    Oh, I get it now, he's bi-polar.

    August 29, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • save the world and slap some sense into a christard today!

      " . .Oh, I get it now, he's bi-polar. . ."

      Oh don't say that, then the creationists will just say that that means he is in everything between the poles. lol.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      No, tri-polar.

      Don't forget the pervasive spirit.

      Truly a pan-dimensional being.

      August 29, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
  11. mama kindless

    I see this other recent cnn article ent'itled "Massive sinkhole opens in southern Louisiana bayou". That's creationists' pride being swallowed. That junk had to go somewhere. my goodness.

    August 29, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
  12. Moby Schtick

    In the spirit of the evolution deniers here, I'd like to ask a question:

    If buck teeth stagnate orange peels why is nocturnal stone mason almond shavings?

    August 29, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • JesusNotReligion

      Because a non sequitur does as a non sequitur doesn't do – and a reduction to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum) only seeks to prove a lie true with with a greater lie. Like evolutionist's do, no?

      Did I get it right?

      August 29, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
    • Anon


      August 30, 2012 at 12:15 am |
  13. Philip

    Lisa wrote, 'Except that the problems with mass killings only popped up after Stalin assumed absolute control onto himself, against the original philosophy of Marx.' I can only assume you're unfamiliar with Marx's philosophy and Russian history or you're to the Left of Attila the Hun and believe Stalinism was an aberration rather than the mainstream which Mao believed. Read about Stalin's murderous role in the civil war to acquaint yourself with reality. FYI – your attempt to misrepresent is futile. I was not defending the Spanish Inquisition, I was demanding historical accuracy. Demanding the latter does not imply support for the former. For the record not all those killed on 9/11 were Americans. That does not imply support for Al Quaida, conspiracy theorists or the state of Israel – although, giving your 'reasoning' you might think so.

    August 29, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • ArthurP

      It is not really her fault not knowing this. You see Russian/Asian history is not covered in the Bible. It stops about the time of Caesar and no supplements were ever issued.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      there's no question that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were vicious thugs who ruled by intimidation and fear, killing millions of people. So did the Catholic King of Belgium Leopold II in the Belgian Congo, killing eight million people through oppressive forced labor before 1912.

      The incompetence of Stalin and Mao at trying to manage countries monolithically with Communism led to the deaths of even more millions people through famine, in the Ukraine in 1932-1933 and in China, particularly during the tragic 'Great Leap Forward'.

      The notion that they "permited" themselves to kill so ruthlessly because Marxism presumes the elimination of mind control by the church of the proletariat is a circvmstantial conclusion. I don't pretend to understand their minds.

      Totalitariansim is not a philopsophy. It is the behavior of tyrants. Hitler's Germany was categorically NOT an atheist state and his minions were not atheists. Nor was Leopold II of Belgium.

      Communism failed. The notion that it failed because of atheism is a silly oversimplification that reeks of McCarthyism.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Which syllogism is more apt?

      Stalin and Mao killed millions.
      Stalin and Mao were atheists.
      Atheists killed millions.

      Hilter, Stalin, Mao and Leopold II killed millions.
      Hilter, Stalin, Mao and Leopold II were autocratic tryants.
      Autocratic tyrants killed millions.

      Both could be construed as being accurate, but the second is more 'true' than the first.

      August 29, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • Cq

      I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
      More true because you can add a lot more names to the tyrant list.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
  14. Anon

    Welcome to 'MURICA the land of the brainwashed zombie Jew worshipers.

    August 29, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • ArthurP

      Don't you mean:

      Welcome to 'MURICA the land of the brainwashed armed to the teeth zombie Jew worshipers.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Worship the American pantheon of: God, guns, mammon and divine exceptionalism.

      It's the law!

      Well, actually it's not, but close to half of Americans wish it was.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
  15. JG

    I'm just curious... why are monkeys still monkeys if they were supposed to evolve with us? Based off of the theory of evolution, we came from them didn't we?

    I'm lost here, someone help me out!

    August 29, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • Moby Schtick


      It's really quite simple, and you can easily research such basic questions on even very general sites such as Wikipedia. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor; humans did not evolve from monkeys. Research. Get education. Go for it.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Lol

      I like the "I am not GoP'er.."s response below..

      If god created man from clay, why is there still clay?

      August 29, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • One one

      Did you ever notice how similar we look to monkeys than say, jelly fish? Why do you suppose that is ?

      August 29, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • JG


      You are so insightful! Thanks for the heads up on where to find good quality information, because Wikipedia is such a realiable source... I mean, it's not like anyone can just go on that sight and manipulate the data, right?! I mean Wikipedia does only post facts, right?! And I really like that Wikipedia has a verification process to ensure that the information posted is correct!

      You must be a master researcher! That must be why you are so intelligent. You encourage me to get educated and I will do so on a more reliable site! You motivate me to be better.

      1 more thing since you know so much: Who is our common ancestor?

      August 29, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      They have evolved in to hindu's, ignorant s, they look like human but not any different hindu, ignorant than their god, monkey.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • JG

      @One One

      No I haven't. And while you may look like a monkey... I don't. I'm sorry to hear about your terrible disfigurement. I hope you get better.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • Moby Schtick


      Well, it was such an absolutely stupid question, I figured Wiki would at least point you to the basics. If you want the facts, then go search them out. Seek understanding. That's what the wisest man in your bible said. Why not give it a shot? Are you really suggesting that it's a decent argument? Because if so, why are there still bicycles if we have cars, why are there still propeller driven aircraft if we have jets, why are there still books if we have Kindles?

      August 29, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @JG – "why are monkeys still monkeys"

      Seriously, that's parody, right?

      August 29, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • MikeA

      Chimps are our closest relatives. We split from them around 6 million years ago.

      So 6 million years ago there was a pre-chimp-pre-human species. Some of those evolved and eventually became chimps. Some evolved and eventually became humans.

      We know we are closely related to chimps because our DNA and chimp DNA are both full of identical markers that show our relatedness. As we compare human DNA to species more distantly related, genetic markers differ more and more.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • One one

      @jg, if that's the best reply you have to offer, you fail. Try reading "The naked ape"

      August 29, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • JG


      Now that is silly, inanimate objects don't evolve you silly billy! You are correct, wise men do seek knowledge based off of their own ambition for knowledge.

      A knowledgable man such as yourself should have realized that I didn't insert any information on my stance on faith. Is that your immediate response... I had a simple question... and you go on the defense right off the back. Slow down buddy, not everyone who is not in expert in evolution like you doesn't have to be automatically categorized as the opposition.

      I will now accept your apology whole-heartedly.

      I hope you are having a great day by the way!

      August 29, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • Cq

      Think of it this way. Obama is a distant cousin of Palin, Limbaugh, and Bush, but he isn't child of any of them. Monkeys were changing too. Go back far enough and you won't find any monkey fossils for us to have evolved from.

      Try this mind experiment. Imagine you there were photos of your great grandfather taken every day of his life, from birth all the way to his final day when he died at the age of 100, say. Arrange them in order. Look at any photo of him and you wouldn't see any difference between his features from the photo taken the day before or after, but look only at the photos taken on his birthdays and you would see changes, right?

      Now, if you somehow managed to take photos of every direct ancestor he ever had, going back millions of years, you'd see something similar. Photos closer to his will look more like him than photos further down the line. Go back a thousand years and the photos close to these ancestors would look pretty close to them, but not to your great grandfather. The further down the line you go, the less "human" the ancestors would look. Somewhere down the line you'd say that they didn't look human at all, but more ape-like. Further still, the resemblance to apes, and even monkeys would disappear and you might think the ancestors looked more like some other kind of animal. The photos close to these ancestors would look pretty close to them, but not to your great grandfather.

      See how it works? There never were any "transitional fossils". Just a smooth flow of change.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • JG


      You have truly been the most help here...thank you for answering my question.

      @One One

      I didn't fail, you did, you failed to answer my question. I'm not sure what exactly I failed at. Please see MikeA above for an example on how to pass!

      August 29, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • Moby Schtick


      Perhaps you're forgetting that I remember you and your posts. Your question is basically that if something has an origin than the origin should no longer exist, and that's faulty logic. I gave you the answer, which you spurned in favor of criticizing a website that is fairly well trusted on such major issues as this one. Your answer exposed your motive.

      Read MikeA's and Cq's reply to you above. Then read them both again, then again, then once more, then go do some actual research. If you're genuine, you'll soon have the good sense to be embarrassed that you ever asked the question.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @MikeA –

      We even know how chimpanzees and humans became different subtribes:



      August 29, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • ArthurP

      If you are on the Internet and yet you cannot find the answer then you are truly lost and no one can help you.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
    • scienceISgod

      Alas, more ignorance about the theory of evolution. The theory does not say we evolved FROM apes, but that we share a common ancestor. That's why there are different ape-like species. The monkeys and apes that currently exist were not always here, just like us.

      August 29, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
    • donna

      MikeA, don't forget the bonobos who we are just as closely related to as we are to chimps!

      August 29, 2012 at 8:43 pm |
    • sbp

      People, people, surely you KNOW that JG is not interested in the answer. He already knows the answer. He already knows the question is a logical fallacy from the start. He will pretend that logic is illogical and vice versa for the rest of his life.

      August 29, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
    • donna

      "Alas, more ignorance about the theory of evolution..." hate to break it to you but the theory most definitely says that we evolved FROM apes. Hominoidea are all apes, not just modern humans and modern chimps, bonobos and gorillas, but all of our ancestors for millions of years.

      I think what you meant to say was that we didn't evolve from other modern ape species, but that's a very different thing from saying that we didn't evolve from apes.

      August 29, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      If Rock and Roll evolved from jazz, why is there still jazz?

      If a limb of a tree branches off from the trunk, why is there still a trunk?

      I have to believe the OP is a troll because I have faith in humanity that no one is actually that stupid.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
    • Primewonk

      JG wrote, " I'm just curious... why are monkeys still monkeys if they were supposed to evolve with us? "

      This, of course, is sheer fundiot buttery. How many thousands and thousands of times have these ignorant cretins posted the bull? How many thousands and thousands of times have folks explained the truth to these morôns?

      And then this nutter posts the exact same lie?

      Posters like this are an excellent example of what happens when you get your "sciency" sounding information from the "Pastor Dave's" of the world instead of actual s incentive sources. The problem with this approach is that "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as his minions.

      August 30, 2012 at 8:40 am |
  16. 633music

    What IS a certainty, those who have been duped into believing in the doctrine of evolution, extreme over simplification of....well, everything...
    Why do we have a tongue? Cause' we needed it. Why does it have taste buds? Cause' it was to identify dangerous foods.
    How did the human organism survive before evolution created the heart? Cause' it did.
    And the lungs, no good without a heart right? No, it worked back then.
    Spinal cord?
    Immune system?
    Circulatory system?
    Ditto, ditto. ditto.
    MASSIVE over simplification, shows you NOTHING of what you speak.
    Now, I am not arguing the fact of fiction of the Bible, just taking a look at evolution on its on merits.
    It is a silly cruel joke.

    August 29, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • One one

      What is a better explanation ? Every thing was created with magic ?

      August 29, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      You're not even asking a sensible question. It's like your asking why math shows that 4 bananas plus mustache equals nefarious cornrows. If you'd like to criticize, then fine, but at least make enough sense so we know where you lack education. Those who understand what the theory of evolution actually says don't disagree with it.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • 633music

      Yes, magic would be a better doctrine. Evolution is flawed in every way.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Moby Schtick –

      Come on, Moby. Your time is better spent than responding to the likes of 633music. Right?


      August 29, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • 633music

      @Moby Schtick Oh, you understand it completely yet cannot answer a simpletons basic question. Sound like a preacher to me.
      Just have faith....if you doubt, you don't love the lord.
      Homespun right?

      August 29, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...as a matter of fact, with the last post of, "Yes, magic would be a better doctrine. Evolution is flawed in every way", I think 633music may be a poser.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • MIkeA

      What you are talking about are non-falsifiable claims. Those would be a problem if evolution relied on those (the way religion does), but that is not the case.

      For example, instead of asking why we all have tongues, why not ask why some whales have legs at the embryonic stage if they were specially created as water animals?

      Under evolution, it makes sense because whales evolved from land animals. Under a special conscious creation event, it doesn't make sense at all.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • 633music

      Hmmm.. posing?
      Evolution adherents sound like religious fanatics,

      August 29, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • 633music

      MIkeA wow, now I get it. Sounds like you were there when it happened...
      Over simplification, then again, I am uneducated...sounds a lot like that fake Trinity doctrine....faith without understanding.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • One one

      @633music, the problem is science works, magic doesn't.

      Have you noticed that you are now communicating with thousands of people as you tap your keyboard?

      Magic didn't accomplish that, science did.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Tom in ATL

      @Moby... "Those who understand what the theory of evolution actually says don't disagree with it." Kind of dopey logic there, huh? Those who understand GOD and actually know what the Bible says don't disagree with it. Hum, whose is better? You have to have something better than that. Or just keep piping on your religion of evolution and why it's better than knowing GOD.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • Moby Schtick


      People who claim to understand god disagree about every single idea about him as you well know. Those who understand evolution agree upon it and even come to the same conclusions from studying different phenomenon, processes, and entire disciplines within the field. There's some minor disagreement about various details, but they all agree on the theory and how it operates. That's the difference.

      Why does god allow so, so, sooooo much confusion about who he is and what he wants, but yet every believer of every different god and doctrine uses the exact same math and chemistry?

      August 29, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • One one

      @tom, they don't disagree ? LOL ! That must be why there are 35,000 sects of Christianity, because they all agree, LOL !

      August 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • Tom in ATL

      @ Moby... "disagree about every single idea about him" Give me an example.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
    • MikeA

      >MIkeA wow, now I get it. Sounds like you were there when it happened...

      Don't need to be there. Scientists can examine the differences between living animals and figure out that whales may have come from land animals. (They're mammals, for one.) Then they study and see other signs like legs at the embryonic stage that later disappear as part of development. (Why would an intelligent designer waste time with temporary embryonic pre-legs on an animal that lives its entire life in water?) Then they find ancient fossils that are similar to primitive whales, but they've got full legs. It all adds up. For people who aren't uneducated, this stuff really does make sense, and it is definitely not an oversimplification.

      But speaking of oversimplification, if you are uneducated, as you say, what puts you in a position to intelligently criticize something you don't really know about?

      August 29, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
    • 633music

      It is hopeless then.
      I ask a question and I am told I must ask it another way, so that is science...I get it, should have stayed in school.
      Oh and I love science, just understand its limitations.
      Not sure of many things, but one thing I am sure of, evolution is an atheists God.
      I have studied religion for many years, asked all the questions(wrong ones I am sure), and the faithful of evolution are true crusaders, the EXACT representation of the fake church people.
      Gotta have faith, gotta believe, not meant to be understood.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • 633music

      @MikeA Childish, condescending, and arrogant.
      Just words, no real answers.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Well good grief, Tom, pick one yourself. Name just one thing all god experts do agree on!

      How about, what his name is? Allah? Does he want you to follow Islam or Chrisitanity? Hinduism? Jewish? Which version of which one? How does one get saved? Should you kill in his name or lay down your life? What is required for salvation? Baptism required or just faith? Glossalia or devil-deceived?

      So called "god experts" disagree on everything and they have no way to tell who's right because nothing is based on measurement or verification. It's all just feelings. Jim feels speaking in tongues is evidence of indwelling. Jack feels going to a priest and confessing is the way to go.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Cq

      Sure, science has limitations, but so does religion, and I don't think you see how those limitations of religion play into this debate. Religion can't "prove" anything either. What's worse is that it ignores any evidence that contradicts it, and usually depends upon emotional attachments it beliefs. That's a recipe for faulty reasoning.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
  17. Bev S.

    Then who created the higher power??

    August 29, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • 633music

      Great question.
      Has nothing to do with evolution, but it is a good question.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Tom in ATL

      Who created the Big Bang?

      August 29, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @ Tom

      Why do you azzume a "who?" Why couldn't the BB be part of a larger process without a "who" involved? Why is the answer "big invisible magic sky wizard did it by speaking magic spells" better than "we don't know?"

      August 29, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
  18. Robyn

    Dear Mr Nye,

    I don't believe you are being FOX fair and balanced (TM)
    to the political that needs to promote stupidity in order to get elected.

    Republicans could die out in the wild, if we don't disseminate ignorance widely.
    Then, they would only be left in isolated, synthetic environments for study and cataloging.
    Sort of like the smallpox virus. (and with similar safeguards taken to prevent their escape)


    A person longing for the days when we can be nostalgic about the end of dumbness.

    August 29, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  19. Mitz Rommel

    Any "believer" needs to read this one webpage: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

    An excerpt:

    By looking at amputees, we can see that something is wrong. Jesus is not telling the truth. God never answers prayers to spontaneously restore lost limbs, despite Jesus' statements in the Bible. Accepting this piece of factual information, rather than denying it, is the first step in understanding something extremely important about how prayer really works.

    Even if you take a liberal rather than literal stance on the Bible, this feels strange, doesn't it? You may not literally believe that "nothing will be impossible for you" nor that "faith can move mountains," but I think we can agree that there is something very odd about the way that God treats amputees. No matter how many people pray. No matter how sincere those people are. No matter how much they believe. No matter how devout and deserving the recipient. Nothing happens when we pray for amputated limbs. God never regenerates lost limbs through prayer, even though Christians believe that God is answering millions of other prayers on earth every day.

    Does God answer prayers? If so, then how do we explain this disconnection between God and amputees? What should we do with the piece of empirical data that amputees represent? We need to somehow explain why God would answer millions of prayers on earth, yet completely ignore prayers for amputated limbs. Let's examine the possible explanations one by one.

    August 29, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • sbp

      But, but, Prayer Changes Things.

      I mean, that guy comes here every hour to spambot it. He isn't wasting his life, is he?

      August 29, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
    • Tom in ATL

      "By looking at amputees, we can see that something is wrong."
      Are you implying that by looking at everyone else, nothing is wrong? Every human on this planet is broken and has many things wrong! None of us comes close to being perfect – perfectly healthy, perfectly honest, perfectly anything. So what's the point? Prayer is unconditional on GOD's terms. You can't blame GOD for not answering prayer. It's up to Him to decide how prayer works in your life. Your view of prayer is very limited, and you're putting an infinite GOD in a box. Not a good choice.

      GOD speaking to Job:
      Job 38
      4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
      Tell me, if you understand.
      5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
      Who stretched a measuring line across it?
      6 On what were its footings set,
      or who laid its cornerstone—
      7 while the morning stars sang together
      and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

      GOD can't be put in a box, and you can't explain how and why he answers some prayers and not others. But you can trust Him and know that He is the only way to eternal life in Heaven.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      The issue is this, why does god heal migraines and help christians find good parking spots at Wal-Mart but he can't heal any amputees? It's a good question.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • Cq

      Tom in ATL
      So, where are this foundation that God laid to support the Earth? Where's Earth's "cornerstone"? Doesn't sound like God actually knows that the Earth is just floating in space, now does it?

      August 30, 2012 at 12:32 am |
  20. ArthurP

    justmetoo: "Why don’t you start to believe in God? What do you have to lose?"

    Every Sunday morning for the rest of my life for starters....not to mention my sanity trying to reconcile all the contradictions.

    August 29, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • Mitz Rommel

      Good one, Arthur!.. sorry, I mistook you for one of them below. 😉

      Free yourselves from your political and religious masters... join the atheist movement! Let's make the world a better place. There is room for everyone over here!

      August 29, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • truth be told

      Follow the noble footsteps of atheists like Joe Stalin who murdered 24 million innocent people.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • Kirk

      truth be told
      Or perhaps Christians like Hitler who also killed millions? Or the Tzars, Emperors, Kings, and other autocrats who killed millions? Why don't you look at what they all shared, totalitarian control over their countries, as the cause for their brutality? Doesn't that make more sense to you?

      August 29, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • JG


      You scare me!

      August 29, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Tom in ATL

      Describe one contradiction.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • ArthurP

      There is only One God it says so in the Bible and he loves us.

      OK so why is God so vindictive, he seems bent on killing and getting everyone else to kill for him as well.

      That is the God of the Old Testament the God of the New Testament is kind and loving.

      So there are two Christian Gods then. A vengeful one and a nice one.

      No There is only One God it says so in the Bible and he loves us.

      OK so why is God so vindictive, he seems bent on killing and getting everyone else to kill for him as well.

      That is the God of the Old Testament the God of the New Testament is kind and loving.

      So there are two Christian Gods then. A vengeful one and a nice one.

      No There is only One God it says so in the Bible and he loves us.

      OK so why is God so vindictive, he seems bent on killing and getting everyone else to kill for him as well.

      That is the God of the Old Testament the God of the New Testament is kind and loving.

      So there are two Christian Gods then. A vengeful one and a nice one.

      No There is only One God it says so in the Bible and he loves us.

      Oh, I get it, he's like bi-polar then??

      August 29, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Cq

      Tom in ATL
      Here's a list of the major biblical contradictions, but there are other lists for all the things that the Bible just gets wrong without contradicting itself.


      August 30, 2012 at 12:37 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165
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.