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. blah9999

    The most blatant proof of evolution is the fact that human beings have different physical characteristics across the globe. Chinese people look different than African people, etc.

    August 27, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • sbp

      Problem is that creationists admit to variation, but pretend there has never been observable speciation. Which is flat out wrong. It has been extensively studied and observed.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
  2. Dina

    The Bible Does not lie ... Lets not start this again ... not all people will agree you will always have differences especially when it comes to evolution. Get over yourselves those of you who want everyone to think that we evolved from monkeys. Its never gonna happen !!!

    August 27, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • Dan

      There is no statement in the bible that indicates evolution does not occur.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • MeinNJ

      It's because of people like you that this country is so F'ed up.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • AncientAliens

      Dina... you poor thing... the bible is no different than L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics... a joke that stupid people took literaly and created a religion from it

      August 27, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • TX Red

      Well of course the bible doesn't lie. It's just a book.

      The people who wrote it lied though. That or they just didn't know any better.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • birch please

      What are you talking about. Have you actually ever read the bible. It says that there were snakes at the start... there were not even eukaryotes.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • YouareanApe

      Obviously you haven't eveolved in your thinking any..

      you are an Ape, it's actually not that bad.. get over it

      August 27, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Brixzz

      That's Nye's whole point... That kind of thinking keeps us in the dark..backwards and stagnant...

      August 27, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • Travis


      Mr. Nye would agree that we did not evolve from monkeys. We do however share a common ancestor with monkeys. Creationism or intelligent design (they are the same thing) are religious ideas. Utterly without support I might add. The problem with these ideas in school classrooms is twofold: 1. It is not science; and 2. They violate the Establishment clause. Lastly, teaching creationism makes children ignorant, which we should all oppose.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • Which God?

      D@mn it Dina. Get them shoes off, get back in th kitchen, cook my meal, then get back in the bedroom!

      August 27, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
  3. Drew

    As a former "born-againer", I can tell you that too many "Christians" simply do not think for themselves. They believe WHATEVER their pastor/preacher tells them without question, and believe that questioning is somehow akin to being unfaithful or sinful, therefore that intellectualism is suspect. The GOP has figured out how to use this to their advantage. It's disgusting. Ignorance is bad for this country, but the GOP ALWAYS puts party before country.

    August 27, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • SarahPalinLovesYou

      Who Drew on your chest, Drew? You "WERE" born again Christian and now you're not? If you once believed in Christ and made a statement to Christ Himself, do you think you can now just "bow out" of the gifts you received from salvation? No one will believe you Drew, and I shall Draw on your chest just that. No I can say I Drew on you.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
  4. Slappy_McGiggles

    I have one question about Christianity. If the Ten Commandments that came before Jesus states that "Shall not covet they neighbors wife", then why did God choose a married woman to have his son? Isn't that going against God's own law?

    August 27, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      God(s) created Man and Woman ... so why did God(s) even need to impregnate anyone!? Something smells fishy?!

      August 27, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Anonon

      And it's Mary's slit methinks

      August 27, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • sbp

      Why is the wholly omnipotent being for some reason limited to existing as "1 nature and 3 "persons". You would think a Trinity implies physical limitation.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • tselvemonkiesj

      Mary and Joseph were not married at the time of conception.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • WellWell

      Mary was not married when she was chosen to bear God's Son. Joseph was directed to take her as his wife after she was with child. I hope this clears up your confusion.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
  5. Colin

    Oh my creationist friends, proof of evolution is all around you. Now, before you declare me “stupid,” “evil” or part of a worldwide conspiracy to deny the truth of your talking snake theory of life on Earth, please take five minutes to read this.

    The classic definition of a species is that two members of the same species can breed and produce fertile offspring, but cannot mate with members of a different species. A human of any race can mate with a human of any other race, but none of us can mate with a chimpanzee, for example. So, all humans are in the same species, but we are all a different species to chimpanzees. Easy stuff.

    Indeed, it is often easy to tell that two organisms are of different species just by looking at them. Compare, for example, a dog to a horse. Where it gets a little complex, however, is where you have two organisms that look very similar, but are of different species, or two different species that look very similar. Dogs are a great example of both. Compare a lighter-coated German Shepherd to the wolf. They look very similar, but are of a different species. Likewise, a Great Dane looks very different to a Corgi, but they are of the same species, Canis lupis familiaris, the domestic dog.

    Why are Great Danes and Corgis considered to be the same sub-species (along with German Shepherds) but wolves and German Shepherds not? Same reason as humans. Great Danes, German Shepherds and Corgis can and will mate and produce fertile offspring, but virtually none of them will mate with a wolf, absent human intervention. However, and this is where evolution kicks in, all breeds of dog alive today descended from wolves. In fact, it is likely that they all descended, ultimately, from a small pack of wolves that were domesticated in the Middle East some 10,000 years ago. Some research suggests Manchuria as the location, but I digress.

    What happened was that humans noticed that certain, less aggressive wolves were handy to have around. They ate pests and garbage and alerted the camp when predators lurked nearby. So, humans began to intentionally feed and try to tame them. The tamer, less aggressive wolves were less afraid of human interaction and less likely to harm their human hosts. They, therefore received more food and protection, which gave them a breeding advantage, and they passed on this favorable trait, call it “tameness,” to their offspring.

    The tamer offspring were constantly chosen (probably unknowingly) for care and support and the wilder, more aggressive members of the litter discarded, perhaps for biting or avoiding humans. After hundreds or thousands of years of inadvertent selection for “tameness” the camp wolves started to become dependent on their human hosts and to even look different to their still wild ancestors. They lost the extreme aggressiveness that helped them in the wild, became less streamlined and tooled for the kill and had less adrenaline that causes aggression. In other words, they slowly became, in a sense, fat, dumb and happy. Doggie dough-boys. Girlie-men compared to their wild cousins, still red of fang and claw.

    These first domestic dogs were so popular with humans that their “use” spread and humans all over the globe – from Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maoris and other Polynesians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all began to use dogs. Then something else happened. Humans actually noticed that, if there was a specific trait you liked about your, say male dog, you could breed it with a female with the same trait and the offspring would inherit that trait. If, for example, a hunter-gatherer only ever allows the fastest male dogs to breed with the fastest female dogs, after many years of such selective breeding the resultant dogs would differ so much in body shape, leg length and, perhaps, lung capacity from their ancestor as to be considered a separate breed.

    No one set of offspring would differ greatly from its parents, but it will differ a little more from its grandparents, and even a little more from its great-grandparents etc., until we go all the way back to the original dog, which will be quite different in appearance.

    Bang – dog breeding was born. Humans selected for speed, resulting in the Greyhound, smelling and tracking ability (Bloodhounds) ability to herd sheep (Collies and Australian Shepherds) appearance (Dalmatians and Pomeranians) size (Chihuahuas and Great Danes) and a host of other traits.

    As with most human activities, as our knowledge increased, dog breeding improved and exploded in the 1900s, with the current 600 or so breeds of dogs all descendent from the original wolf. Many breeds of dog alive today evolved over the past few decades and did not even exist as late as 1900. But, every last domestic dog, from the Teacup Chihuahua in Paris Hilton’s purse to the Great Danes of European car advertisements, are the end result of selective breeding down different paths from the original wolf.

    While wolves can be induced to breed with some dogs, most breeds of dog do not (and likely cannot) breed with wolves for a variety of reasons, including allopatric and/or human induced separation and mating rituals. Not only that, but put almost any domestic dog in the wild and it would not survive a month. A wolf is much more likely to eat a Shih Tzu than bonk it. They are separate sub-species. In the struggle for life, the domestic dog species originated through means of selection as a favored race from the original wolf. If this last sentence sounds familiar, that is because it is. It is essentially the full ti.tle of Charles Darwin’s seminal work: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

    So there you have it, my Bible-cuddling friends. Evolution in motion. Undeniable, living in every suburb, licking ours face, fetching our sticks and messing on our sidewalks. Macro-evolution. A well recorded, understood, DNA mapped and uncontroversial case of evolution of one sub-species – Canis lupus lupus, the Eurasian wolf, into another, Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog.

    There are many, many others examples of evolution all around us by the way. Even the most cursory of research into any branch of horticulture or animal husbandry quickly reveals that the size, variety, health, longevity and resistance to disease of most of our domesticated plants and animals were the thing of dreams as recently as 100 years ago. Indeed, biotech companies like Monsanto would quickly fall behind the market if they did not spend millions each year on Darwinian selective breeding programs. Why do you think horse breeders spend thousands of dollars to have a fast racehorse mate with their mare?

    Wheat is another great example, as are gra.pes. The species of wheat that we in the West use for bread only developed in the last few thousand years as a result of two episodes of sympatric speciation (different to selective breeding, but an agent of evolution none the less) and the various Shiraz, Char.donnay and Pinot Noir gra.pes we enjoy today, in the form of wine, were all developed and perfected in the last 100 years or so.

    So, Adam or Eve, the next time you kneel down in your church and take your weekly dose of the body and blood of your dead Jew, you might like to reflect on the fact that you are actually eating proof of evolution and washing it down with proof of evolution.

    “Body of Darwin?”


    August 27, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • 2/8

      LoL, man....you guys really need to stop. This is getting silly.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      the rate of posting is so fast that 'tract-o-matic' paste jobs are futile right now – no one will read them, so what's the point.

      Please give it a rest until things slow down. This one is too long under any circvmstances.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • sbp

      I would tackle the evolution of morality from a sociobiological standpoint, but I don't feel like typing that much for people who will refuse to listen.

      Shortcut – study altruism in prairie dogs.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • Ron from Jersey

      ...and the Cambrian explosion? where is the slow mutation?
      The eye: Evolution explains slow optical mutation in certain basic life forms but those basic life forms existed millions of years later than known complex eyes. Some serious undeniable flaws exist in Darwin's theory.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • nimitta

      Nicely done!

      August 27, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Sam


      Thanks for the Science lesson on breeding but I disagree that proved anything against creation. Creation isn't belief in food appearing in my cabinet because I just prayed about it. Creation is belief in a creator, God. Who made something out of nothing because of divinity. Now, since creation, has there been evolution in science sure, I agree things have learned to adapt but to say that we all just happened... I disagree. I do not expect you to change your mind but please don't miss the truth of creation because you are looking so far past it with "evolution".

      August 27, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • Robert

      You've described the mere assembly of chemical structures, not the actual insertion of life into a structure. God breathed life into humans. Until a scientist can show how these chemical structures can form a single organ, such as a lung, you're just playing with a Radio Shack science project set. The theory of evolution requires more faith than it takes for a Jew or Christian to believe in God. I surmise that most of the bilious attacks, especially on Christians, is due to the fact that atheists don't want to believe that God created them and, therefore, has a claim on them. It's much easier to deal with God if you can pretend He doesn't exist. That way, no one can tell you what to do; you can be your own god. If you had to believe that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing, then it would be less easy for you to dismiss Jesus' resurrection from dead. In both cases, Jesus created life from non-life. Look around you at nature–the heavens are telling of God's glory and majesty. (See Romans 1:21-22).

      August 27, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • therealpeace2all


      Your posting is strangely analogous to a kind of "Pascals Wager"

      Even 'if'... there is some kind of Creator/Creative Process, etc... or that which you call God, you are as suming that it is the God of the Bible.

      There could be countless ways in which this Creative Process works.


      August 27, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
  6. Shawn

    I have a scientific request Bill Nye. Please show me through scientific procedure a replicatable process for creating a single cell organism from inorganic material. I don't argue with the 'theory' of gravity because I can replicate its results and therefor have no excuse to be critical.

    Charles Darwin didn't write a book called "The Evolution of Species" he wrote a book called the "Origin of Species" and that is my issue. I don't believe the world is 10,000 years old and I don't believe that evolution doesn't occur. I have a valid, scientific critique and so far science has not proven anything against it.

    No scientist has been able to prove through observation, hypothesis, prediction and replication a means for organic life to come from inorganic material. Until that is proven Charles Darwins 'theory' is in my mind, unproven.

    August 27, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Colin

      yes, unproven. The theory most scientists currently favor for the origins of life is called “abiogenesis,” the gradual emergence of life on Earth from non-living matter. To understand why it is thought that life arose on Earth from non-living matter, one has to understand some basic biochemistry. This is where you “talking snake crowd” have such a problem. You have to actually understand some very basic science, you can’t just rely on what you were taught at Sunday school as an eight year-old.

      All life is comprised of complex arrangements of proteins, fats and carbohydrates, all orchestrated by DNA and/or RNA. DNA/RNA and proteins are by far the most important components of a living organism, carrying out virtually every function in a cell. Fats and carbohydrates are generally simpler molecules and play critical, but subordinate roles in cells.

      DNA and RNA are made of five nucleotides – adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine and uracil. They act as the cell’s “mission control,” orchestrating the cell’s activities. Proteins are made of 20 amino acids. They are the workhorse of the cell – the nails, wood, steel beams and machinery that make the cell run. It is the order of amino acids in a protein that determine its shape and, therefore what it does. This order and shape of proteins is itself dictated by the DNA through RNA.

      So, in short, life is made up of complex arrangements of:

      The five nucleotides – adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine and uracil – arranged into DNA and/or RNA
      The twenty amino acids – that form all proteins, including enzymes and the other 100,000 or so proteins in a complex organism’s body.
      Carbohydrates – literally “water-carbon,” which include sugars and starches. These are much simpler elements than proteins or DNA/RNA and act as an energy source.
      Fats – also called lipids, these are important in constructing cell membranes.

      The simplest cells are prokaryotic cells. They exist today principally as bacteria. Stromatolites and other fossils from all over the planet suggest that, for the first billion years of life on earth, all life was simple, prokaryotic life. These cells consisted of a fatty cell membrane, like a balloon skin, with DNA/RNA, proteins, fats and carbohydrates on the inside. They had no nucleus. Cells with nuclei, called eukaryotic cells (which make up virtually all multi-cellular organisms) are much larger and more complex that prokaryotic cells and likely resulted from the early combining of prokaryotic cells.

      So, can a simple prokaryotic cell come into existence without the intervention of God, Allah, Shiva, Vishnu, Yahweh or any other divine/magic being?

      Beginning in the 1950s, scientists started trying to mimic the conditions on the early Earth to see whether some kind of “life-fairy” was necessary to get things started. In the most famous experiment of this era, the Miller-Urey experiment of 1952, Stanley Miller demonstrated that heating and running an electric spark through an atmosphere of water vapor, ammonia, methane and hydrogen for a few weeks resulted in these very simple molecules self-assembling into all 20 of the amino acids upon which life on Earth is based. This is a startling result. All 20 building blocks of proteins, which comprise over 99% of the cell’s functional structures, self-assembling without a magic wand from God, Shiva, Vishnu, Allah etc!

      The experiment was groundbreaking because it suggested that, under the perfectly natural conditions of early Earth, the building blocks of life can and will self-assemble. Indeed, it now seems that major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago would have created an even more diverse atmosphere than Miller used, including carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). When these were added to the mix in subsequent experiments, they have resulted in the creation of all 5 nucleotides, all 20 amino acids and basic fatty membranes and various carbohydrates. That is to say, with no magic/divine intervention, all life’s building blocks WILL self-assemble.

      But nails, wood, wiring and bricks a house do not make. Even the simplest life requires these building blocks to be arranged in very, very complex ways. In various experiments with various conditions, scientists have been able to create a wide range of cell-like structures of increasing complexity on the road toward a simple self-replicating organism. These creations are called protobionts or coacervates and if you “you tube” or google these terms, you will see many examples.

      This is still a far cry from a cell, but the important thing is that the experiments uniformly demonstrate that organic molecules have a natural tendency to clump together in increasingly complex ways under early Earth-like conditions. They are not being pushed into doing something “against their will”.

      Where it gets really suggestive is that scientists have been able to isolate what they believe to be some of the most primitive genes of Earth, by comparing the DNA of two organisms whose last common ancestor lived soon after the formation of the Earth. For such genes to be common to both such organisms, they must be very, very old. When these ancient genes produce amino acids, they are rich in the amino acids most common in the Miller-Urey and similar experiments! This suggests that these experiments do indeed reflect early Earth conditions and that life itself did arise under such conditions.

      The other important factor is that these impressive results have been achieved in laboratories over small periods of time. Imagine the whole Earth as the “Petri dish” and hundreds of millions of years as the timescale. Simple life gradually emerging from such a “soup” does not seem at all incredible, certainly not incredible enough that we in the USA have to give up and call the remaining gap in knowledge “God,” while our Indian colleagues do the same and attribute it all to the Lord Shiva.

      Scientist are also approaching it from the other side too, gradually stripping away at prokaryotic cells to see how stripped down they have to become for life to “stop,” while others continue to build up from coacervates and protobionts. The gap is narrowing as our knowledge continues its inexorable march.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      You're showing your ignorance Shawn.

      What you're talking about is called abiogenisis. Look it up.

      Evolution has been shown to be true over and over and over again in many different fields of science. Just because you dont understand science is no reason for you to be afraid of it.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Joel

      The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life in general, but the diversity of species.

      There are none so blind as those who will not see. Thanks for speaking fearless truth, Bill. (Mech E's represent! *fist bump*)

      August 27, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • David Bell

      Agreed. Notice how the atheists shy away from logic yet claim to be so smart. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist....

      August 27, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • ReasonableXX

      Darwin did not speak about or ponder the origin of life. As you point out his book was the "Origin of Species." Evolution simply discusses why and how we see such a wide variety of life and species on this planet. It has nothing to do with explaining how life originally began.

      Additionally, just because science hasn't made a discovery yet on any particular topic means nothing about what it will uncover in the future. Science is very young and there are still many questions to answer. There will always be many unanswered questions at any given point in time, but new answers arise from science every day.

      Science has answered and explained more about the world/universe in the last couple centuries than religion has been able to do in many, many millenia.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • Chicagothug

      Excellent post Shawn. I"ll bet a year's salary that the pseudo scientists can't answer That
      Christians do NOT believe that Creation was the END of the ongoing development and evolution of the world!
      Since the Creation there have been MILLIONS of organisms and sub-species added to each area of the taxonomoc register.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Mike

      Please show why demonstrating such a process is necessary. You say you accept gravity, yet no one has replicated the generation of a star from interstellar gas and dust clouds. Theory shows that gravity inevitably leads to the formation of stars. Likewise, chemistry inevitably leads to the formation of cells and life, given the proper conditions. What those conditions are is the proper subject of inquiry, not whether it happened. It's obvious it happened, just as it is obvious stars condensed from clouds collapsing under gravity. That we don' know all the details yet doesn't justify claiming it didn't happen, as you are.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • jabbyton

      Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean that some magical being in the sky is responsible for it.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • sbp

      You find this implausible, and yet a the mechanism by which the Nile is turned to blood being "magic" is a perfectly acceptable explanation?

      August 27, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Trevor

      Just because we can't explain exactly how sometihng works, doesn't maen that God did it.
      Centuries ago there were lots of things we couldn't explain. Now we can. So the mysteries attributed to God are actually shrinkng in number.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
  7. Sports Fan

    I am reminded of the steroid controversy in Major Leauge Baseball. We thought it was all over, and then in 2012 two big-time players were banned for 50 games; Melky Cabrera and Bartolo Colon.

    August 27, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
  8. If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

    ... and Pavlov's dogs keep salivating their religion nonsense all over these forums.

    August 27, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
  9. MZ

    If you believe in evolution your world becomes so much harder to explain. You have to explain how everything came to be from nothing with the help of no one. You also have to explain how there are virtually no intermediaries either alive today or in the fossil record between fish and reptiles and reptiles and mammals. There should be hundreds if not thousands, but there are virtually none. You also have to explain how you can have so many fossils of plants and animals that are allegedly millions of years old yet they are virtually identical to their descendants living today. The universe, geologic formations and the fossil record are best understood as being the result of the Biblical creation followed by a global flood.

    August 27, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Yes it's so much easier to believe a God(s) (who came from nothing or were always here) created everything from nothing. You logic is simply even more difficult to believe when you add this anthropomorphized being because then you need an explanation for it!!

      August 27, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Joel

      Wow, you are a f'n moron. Please don't breed.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Tom

      But of course, here comes the people defending the "sub"-theories of evolution... be prepared. lol...

      August 27, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Joel

      Religion = Idiocy

      August 27, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Mammoth1

      So the I dream of Genie magical wish approach is better? That's insane. Your argument is "I believe in purple elephants that fly." Is there any evidence to support your claim? No. Why? Because wishing for something to be true doesn't make it true and having faith in something no one can prove exists is insane.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • birch please

      Fossils are so last century..... How about the > trillions of genetic code that paints the tree of life and independently confirms the fossil record. Just because in the billions of years that life has evolved on this planet the puzzle pieces were not left to fill in the gaps for a internet blogger does not mean it is wrong.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Mark

      Your comment shows that you really know next to nothing about the fossil record and evolution.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • Trevor

      I wish you (and all the other who don't accept evolution) would read "The Greatest Show On Earth". Richard Dawkins devotes a whole section on first explaining what a theory is, in the world of science. And he only has a few lines at the end of the book about creationists. But, I think you are like flat earthers – you simply don't want to believe.

      August 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
  10. blam0h1

    Bill Nye the awesome guy.

    August 27, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Emma

      If you believe in Evolution; then is Evolution now complete. If so if all the gays were left in the world how would the world be populated. There is appointed time that each of us will die. If you believe in Evolution and you are right and I am wrong; then you would just die unto the ground for birds, and other animals to eat upon to continue the process of Evolution. But if I am right as our fore fathers who formed the laws of our land; then you will die and be judged. The Creator who you denied on earth will say to you, "Depart from me for I never knew you". It will be a scarry thing to fall into the hands of an angry God. I for one would not like to take the gamble. I would like to know what has turned you back. I feel at one time you believed there was a God. What evil event happen to change your way of thinking. I know it was Evolution just like William Jennings Bryon in 1925 said would happen when he spoke about the "Scoopes Monkey Trial. Read it all for your self. It does't take a rocket scientist to figure it out; just takes a little bit of faith in the Creator that our fore fathers believed in.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • Mark

      Of course, if the true god is Vishnu, then your belief in the Christian god will damn you forever. Are you certain that all the world's Buddists are wrong? What about the the hundreds of millions of Muslums? You better start worshiping them all "just to be safe".

      August 27, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
  11. Tom

    OK, OK. So let's say that the biology of evolution is correct from the first microorganism to us.... do you really think that the first DNA was really "formed" naturally, from chemical reactions hapenning on earth for billions of years? I don't. I do not think it would be possible to get to that point – I do believe that there must have been a creator (or intelligent design if you want...) that created the DNA – in fact, all different DNA of all species – I call that creator God. And He created us in his own image.
    Genesis 1:27: "...So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them"

    August 27, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Joel

      Only an intellectually-stunted idiot believes in the vercacity of a Bronze Age text, written at a time when everyone on the planet was so steeped in ignorance that they believed - to a person - that the Earth was the center, not just of our solar system, but of the universe. And you think this comic book answers all of life's weighty questions? Are you freakin' kidding me? What's your education level, high school?

      August 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • MeinNJ

      You don't believe that DNA organically evolved but you believe a man sitting on a throne in the sky magically put a man on the earth. Wow. Please don't breed.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • Tom

      Are are you so angry? Did that book say that you are doing something wrong? I bet it does...
      I'm more educated than you – Did you forget to include respect and maturity under education? You are a poor individual...

      August 27, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Derek H.

      You should do a little reseach because not only it it possible but there is experimental data to prove it as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

      August 27, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Tom

      I just read that – My conclusion: contanimated array of glass tubes and flasks

      August 27, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • AncientAliens

      Tom... my "bible" says that Hank (you "god") created all life from molds of play-doh. Are you saying my belief is wrong?

      August 27, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • Derek H.

      I really hope you are just a troll and honestly don't believe that a reputable experiment, which has been repeated countless times, was putting out false results due to contaminated glass.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      That entire pile of crap you called a post can be summed up in 4 words:

      Argument from incredulity fallacy.

      If that's too difficult for you, then suffice to say your entire "argument" is flawed.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
  12. Ron from Jersey

    Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people; usually for selfish personal or political gain hiding behind religion.
    Einstein said you ethier believe everything is a miracle or nothing is a miracle. One of the most brilliant minds on the planet: which path do you think he chose to believe?

    August 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      “The religion of the future will be cosmic religion. It will transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology.” – Einstein

      August 27, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
  13. Gary

    Most of what is in your grocery store is the result of evolution. Try to find a Granny Smith apple that is not the product of humans tampering with the evolutionary process.

    August 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
  14. Jim

    The theory of evolution ignores the fact that we are created eternal, spiritual, beings. Evolution does not bring the
    spiritual dimension into play at all. The real person is eternal, spiritual, and not physical. Our physical bodies die like
    the grass or plants of the field. Our spirit lives on one place or the other, but our body is gone. Died in the wool
    evolutionists like Dr Nye always seem to take the smaller view of the universe, when the theory of evolution fails
    the larger test.

    August 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Dan

      You incorrectly used the word 'fact' in your post.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      LOL do you really think your post is profound or anything like that? Making an assertion of "spirit" or "soul" without a demonstration that such a thing even exists, then blasting evolution with not accounting for your made up thing is just hilarious. Are you a poe? Seriously you're a poe right?

      August 27, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Jim

      Your spirit testifies that the spirit is real, thusly fact. Evolutionists need to recognize the spirit, and conscience when
      attempting to prove the theory of evolution. Your mind did not evolve.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Jim

      I did not say it was profound, however you must take your spirit into account, as well as your mind.
      Defending something so serious without considering the whole person speaks volumes about your
      view of evolution.

      August 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
  15. Science Slams Creationism, Bill Nye Points It Out..


    August 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
  16. JS

    I think what Bill Nye meant is that our knowledge of evolution is based on many scientific theories. Things like carbon dating depend on Quantum Mechanics our knowledge of the age of the universe is based on Relativity. If one denies Quantum Mechanics and Relativity then it becomes impossible to explain how computer chips, TV sets and GPS systems work. The point is that much of our technology is based on the same scientific theories that support evolution. You cannot selectively deny one component and keep the rest.

    August 27, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
  17. William

    Peace be upon those who follow right guidance:

    I am shocked to read that we as a society are still regressing to lack of reason and intellect. To have people declare this with their tongues (much less, a scientist for that matter) is a great disappointment. Yes, it is written that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. The word of interest here is "days". When we say that word, we may or may NOT be referring to a 24 hour day. We have to do due diligence and research the original text. The word day is mentioned in many contexts. Such as a 1000 years or 50000 years of our reckoning.
    So when we say "day' we are not really taking into account the concept of a day. The word in the concept of religious text is actually referring to an Age. God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days or Ages (stages of creation)
    Do yourself a favor and work harder towards finding the truth. Its out there!

    August 27, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • birch please

      ..... yeah but men and women still have the same number of ribs....

      August 27, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Doug

      Just because man penned it to paper (or carved to stone) doesn't make it truth. Moses is a rip off of Minos, Jesus a rip off of Horus, etc... Invisible sky daddies don't exist.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • realfoodpolice

      Funny, when a scientist talks about a day he's always referring to a solar day or the approximate length of time it takes the earth to make one rotation on its axis.

      **the earth revolves around the sun**

      August 27, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
  18. The Jackdaw

    Thank you Bill Nye!

    August 27, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
  19. Bob Pickle

    Nye calls for "scientifically literate" voters and taxpayers, and yet contradictorily makes the patently false and absurd statement that "There's no evidence for" creationism. If he is that scientifically illiterate himself, why is he called "the Science guy" and considered some sort of authority on any scientific matter?

    I have no problem with a scientist believing in evolution and trying to prove that that theory is true. But by all means, let's engage in the debate in an honest and non-discriminatory manner, with as open a mind as possible, free of bigotry, despite the drastic difference in religious presuppositions.

    I personally have discussed the question of the Po halo evidence for creation with not a few evolutionists, and not one has been able to propose a naturalistic theory for their origin that takes into account the absence of fossil alpha recoil tracks. Sure, there are evolutionary apologists that muddy the waters by suggesting that Po halos are really Rn halos, but that ignores the fact that Po-210 rings and Rn-222 rings are distinguishable in fluorite. Thus, no evolutionist today can conclusively prove that this important evidence for creation does not exist.

    I know that the above paragraph is over the head of the average reader, but this isn't: Soft tissue and high levels of protein found in fossil dinosaur bones point to a recent burial of those bones, since if these fossils were really 65 million years old, the soft tissue and protein wouldn't be there.

    In a court case there may be evidence on both sides, and both sides may try to discredit the other side's evidence, but one would have to wonder about a lawyer's honesty if he pretended that the other side's evidence didn't exist at all. And yet that's what at least some evolutionists are doing, as Nye has so well illustrated.

    August 27, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • sbp

      See Tom Bailleul

      August 27, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • birch please

      So at the huge mountain of evidence for evolution you choose to pull at a tiny piece of grass that can easily be disputed either way...... egocentric much?

      August 27, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Science Slams Creationism, Bill Nye Points It Out..

      "makes the patently false and absurd statement that "There's no evidence for" creationism."

      "There's no evidence for" creationism is science fact. Period. You and every other Christa r d out there MAKE S.H.I.T UP about there being evidence when there IS NONE. A pi.le of s.h.i t on the ground is not proof that Unicorns exist, it's proof that something just s.h.a.t on the ground, don't go inventing con.cl u sions about God when all you have is a bunch of s h.i.t in your hands. Study it, smell it, taste it if you must, but you are lying if you attempt to claim it's origin without a shred of actual evidence.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      Science does not “look to prove” its theories. It analyzes evidence and from that, extrapolates theories. When more evidence is gathered, scientists look to see if it still matches up with the theory. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. If it does not, a new theory is created. Science does not hammer evidence into preexisting ideas. That is religion.

      The “Po halo” is not evidence of creationism. It is an anomaly in the fossil record that requires further study. “Anomaly” does not equal “evidence of the divine”. A lack of complete understanding is not evidence of divine intervention; it is merely an area that science needs to look into. Your fossil anomaly will be explained by science, if it hasn’t already.

      As far as evolution goes, the process has been proven by science and there is no further debate. It is real, accept it or sound like a fool. The choice is yours.

      If you want to say “well, it’s only a theory,” I suggest you look up the scientific definition of the word “theory”. Don’t talk until you have.

      August 27, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
  20. Pokydoke

    I have never met a religion that wasn't based on fantasy and fiction. Organized religion in this country and the world for that matter is pulling us all into ignorance and stupidity, a pox on the population of humanity. All you holy rollers out there are just a bunch of fearful hypocrites unwilling to take responsibility for your own lives and actions. Your big sky Daddy isn't going to save you or forgive you and neither will Santa Claus, Superman or the Easter Bunny because they are all fictional characters. Grow up and take responsibility for yourself.

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