August 27th, 2012
11:31 AM ET
Bill Nye slams creationism
By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
(CNN)–Famed TV scientist Bill Nye is slamming creationism in a new online video for Big Think titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children."
"Denial of evolution is unique to the United States," Nye begins in a YouTube video posted on Thursday. The video quickly picked up steam over the weekend and as of Monday morning had been viewed more than 1,100,000 times.
Nye - a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program, "Bill Nye the Science Guy" - said the United States has great capital in scientific knowledge and "when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everyone back."
"Your world becomes fantastically complicated if you don't believe in evolution," Nye said in the Web video.
Creationists are a vast and varied group in the United States. Most creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
In the creation account, God creates Adam and Eve, the world, and everything in it in six days.
For Christians who read the Genesis account literally, or authoritatively as they would say, the six days in the account are literal 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.
Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique
The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for the past 30 years. In June it released its latest findings, which showed 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.
During the 30 years Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years.
Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins
"The idea of deep time of billions of years explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, itself inconsistent," Nye said in the video.
"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems," he said.
Creationists' beliefs about the origins of the Earth are often a narrow focus, based in large part on religious beliefs, and while they reject evolution as "just one theory," they often embrace other fields of science and technology.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
In "The Genesis Flood," the 1961 book that in many ways help launch the Young Earth creationism movement in the United States, the authors write: “Our conclusions must unavoidably be colored by our Biblical presuppositions, and this we plainly acknowledge." Their goal for the book was to harmonize the scientific evidence with the accounts in Genesis of creation and the flood.
The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution.
"In another couple centuries I'm sure that worldview won't even exist. There's no evidence for it. So..." Nye ends his video.
soundoff (14,640 Responses)« Previous 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 Next »
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.
The Bible is true.. look at all the miracles... evidence...also read Benny Hinn's book where he quotes Scripture
by scripture over 300 prophecies that come to pass in the New Testament and shows chapter and verse where
they came true. If there were only 10 or so that came to pass in the Bible that would be one thing, but over 300
cannot be a coincidence. I hope you read a Case for Christ and get saved before it's too late.
List 20 examples.
its really easy to get prophecy right when the bible was written hundreds of years AFTER the fact
It's just like Nostradamus.. you can pick out any verse and match it something that happened and say.." SEE , it's true." We must move on from this or we will be doomed as a people. We will end up destroying ourselves over these delusions.
Poor guy, you have bought into a bunch of nonsense.
Hmmm there is no god it's as simple as that. Why do otherwise intelligent people believe in such silly fairy tales they know can't possibly be true? Do you still believe in Santa Claus too? The easter bunny. Is it possible that jesus rode a t-rex?
Benny Hinn? Seriously? This is all nonsense.
"The Bible is true.. look at all the miracles... evidence... over 300 prophecies that come to pass in the New Testament and shows chapter and verse where they came true."
Prophecy: Matthew 1:23
Fulfillment: Matthew 1:25
Oops. Couldn't even get out of the 1st chapter of the 1st book of the New Testament with that whopper intact.
Here's something to remember: "A cake is a miraculous fulfillment of a prophecy called a recipe."
Face it. If you KNEW what the ancient prophecy called for, and you were trying to con the suckers, wouldn't you make sure you had some way of faking it? Or, if you weren't able to pull of a successful fake, make sure that all the stories written about it got doctored to make it seem as if you DID?
Here's a prophecy from me. If it comes true, will you acknowledge that I am magical and possessed of the deep, hidden secrets of the Universe? I prophecy that sometime in the next 3 pages of comments on this blog, someone going by the handle "Atheism is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things" will post a message that comprises, in its entirety, the words "Prayer changes things."
there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that god now or ever did exist. If you think there is cite on single shred ( the bible is not evidence not by a long shot if you think it is look up the definition) of evidence where is it? No one has ever produced any evidence of any gods. People used to believe that Zues made lightning , we know better now. What I can't understand is why people think modern religion is any different than people believing in zues....
Hers what it boils down to: people are afraid to die so they make up stories so that they don't have to die. We realize our own mortality and don't really want to accept it so we lie and say we don't have to die. It'sm been going on forever. we know better now but still cling to fairy tales. sorry but thats the way it is.
Name one verifiable miracle. Just being mentioned in the fucking bible is not verification.
I have a deep faith in God and I believe in evolution. The more complex and wonderful the universe is, the greater the creator. At least that's my view. I don't believe in hell or organized religion either. The problem with the religious right is that everything has to be black or white.
And if you don't agree with me, that's okay too.... I'm not gonna be like them.
It's nice to hear from another member of the 32%!
The only kind of people that think they can have conversations with a "god" or a "devil" are religious dolts and schizophrenics!
D@mmit! I didn't mean for that to be a reply to you. Sorry!
you just got this atheist to scream AMEN!!! I am so relieved to find a voice of reason amongst all this nonsense
As an agnostic, I believe that Evolution and a belief in God are definitely compatible. .. Evolution and blind literal belief in the bible and evolution are not compatible. You can believe in God and not believe in religion. That's where the disconnect comes from.. you are putting your faith in a 2000 year old text written by men hundreds of years after the supposed events. How about putting aside the petty, intolerant, vicious, bigoted ramblings found in the bible and put your faith in God instead. Those who consider themselves religious are the one's who need to evolve in their thinking. Put down the book, realize that it's allegory and re-discover God and science as one. In a way , science is a way to discover God.
Amen to that.
Evolution is on the way out, and intense religionists (secular humanists) such as Bill have no tenable hold on the realities of our existence. Evolution provides no answers and has no solid evidence in any corner of the sciences and rational experience of what is going on around us and within us.
God created the world and everything in it. And Bill.
And retards like you presumably.
Evolution is on its way out?
You are completely an idiot.
Evolution is a fad like Justin Bieber I guess... I weep for this country..
Hmm evolution is on it's way out??? It's the single fastest growing ideology in the world. You are very mis- informed . There is no god plain and simple.
Man, how often do you read something besides the bible?
And yet again 1man commits the argument from ignorance in stating "there is no god".
Science is a medium, not a source, but a process to reach truth absolute of a matter, but hindu's ignorant assume it to be the source , to justify their hinduism, absurdity called evolution, truth absolute is the God, and creator of every one and every thing in existence. hindu's ignorant deny in their hinduism, ignorance.
Are you a real weirdo or a fake one? I'm having trouble telling.
You are an incoherent bigoted halfwit.
Pork Be Upon You, Paki Muslim turd!
You will find the absolute truth when you combine Hinduism and evolution to create Hindulution.
Really O. Your comment shows a total lack of understanding of cells and living systems. I suggest you learn more about how cells work.
Keep on looking at cells, a matter, like hindu's, ignorant s of hind, dark ages, matter can not form without a spirit, sof ware hindu's, ignorant s deny in th soul, filthy desire.
This forum format stinks....
Oh, that's the odor, I thought it was you!
Evangelical Christians have something wrong in their heads. Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution!
Which puts it right where it should be considering almost all Catholic beliefs (official)
Good point BibleTruth!
Gee, Wally, why is it that the world's most dominant religions are the ones that are CONFRONTATIONAL and claim that everyone who does not believe exactly like them will be TORTURED FOREVER?! Why do followed of such religions like to KILL people to convert them?
Why is it that these CONFRONTATIONAL religions all (or at least MOSTLY) come from the Middle East?
Why is it that Judaism so obviously ripped off ideas like heaven and hell from neighboring religions, like Zoroastrianism and Hellenism?
Why is it that the first mentions of any supposed "hell" in the Old Testament are merely the nonchalant underworld (Hades) which the Jews called Sheol? READ YOUR FVKKING BIBLE, BIBLE-THUMPERS and explain that one!!!
Why would any supposed "god" have been so derelict in duty as to deliver such an allegedly all-important message to his beloved planet Earth at such a late date (modern man is shown to have been on the planet for about 30,000 years accoriding to the fossil record, and Native Americans, for just one example, had NO WAY of even hearing about Jeebus for about 1500 years after Jeebus' alleged lifespan, etc.)
Gee, I wonder....
"why do FOLLOWERS of such religions..."
Science is logical, repeatable, and explains mysteries. Religion relies on blind faith, is not repeatable, and promotes mystery.
And we know everyone loves a good mystery.
The Bible is a collection of stories. The study of anatomy and physiology is a science.
A best seller too
You talking about Harry Potter?
the best selling book that nobody reads. haha.
Only to morons like you.
Bootyfunk just admitted he didn't read it, but he know it's not true. Your argument is falling apart...!
Have YOU read it? Or did your mommy read it to you?
In a mansion? Wow that's a leap. Believing in the Bible and believing it word for word are two separate things. I know Christians, Protestants and Catholics and I don't know know any that take it literally word for word. But please continue to assume i'm somehow rich and elitest
yup, you pick whatever parts you want to believe and leave out what you don't - convenient.
"this part isn't real - this part is. wow, this is easy!"
Well, that's true, but what you get is people picking and choosing – or cherry picking. The problem is who is to say what part is literal and what part is metaphor. It all becomes a mess very quickly – no matter how much faith you have.
JP, God is benevolent and patient and creates things for His good pleasure. It may be discomforting to you to think there is someone out there bigger than us, for that puts you in a position of accountability. We are all accountable and will have to give an account.
Your argument applies much better to man.
If God is all knowing why do we have to give an account?
Boing fits you perfectly!
There is no accounting stop fooling yourself. There's the law of nature and that's it. Ashes to Ashes dust to dust ...
On Come on Bobby at least answer the question. Here let me do it. God is man made, made in man's image, and knows no more than a mere man. My God will always be better than your God, because of the simple fact he's my God, logical right?
On this side of the Earth most of us wave a cross and honor him on Sunday, on the other side they get on fours several times a day to honor him. Both sides traditions are all MAN MADE. But let's fight about who's right, hell let's kill each other over it!!!
Bill Nye is the religious nut. Macro-evolution is the religion here. It's scientific (observable) evidence is very thin.
Yeah. A century thin. Dope.
Apparently, speciation is a censored word.
Hmm, maybe not. Speciation has been observed, studied and proven. In existing organisms.
I have a couple questions for this make-believe scientist.... What is it in the snow and hail that has been reserved for the day of war? What holds the nucleus of an atom together? These answers are in the Bible, and you're still trying to figure them out!
Yeah, the Bible explains subatomic particles and forces. What chapter are the muons and quarks in?
Please quote from Leptons 12:4.
Let us turn, borthers and sistas, to Second Muon Chapter nine verse twelve: "Yeah, and verily the light particle came forth from the vacuum uproariously and went out into the hillside and into the surrounding regions in a wave and yet, as a particle..
Moby, that is the greatest post I've read on any forum anywhere. Thank you.
Bobby if all answers are in the Bible, then should we stop all scientific research and just read it? Is that your solutions for all the worlds problems? Seems people have been doing that for years and years and all they end up doing is killing each other...
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools",
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
^ gibberish ^
Your point? Or would you rather just throw out random bible versus?
We now turn to the epistles supposedly written by Paul. The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy warns against the Marcionist work known as the Anti'thesis. Marcion was expelled from the Church of Rome in c. 144 C.E. and the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy was written shortly afterwards. Thus we again have a clear case of pseudepigraphy. The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy and the Epistle of Paul to T'itus were written by the same author and date to about the same period. These three epistles are known as the "pastoral epistles." The ten remaining "non-pastoral" epistles written in the name of Paul were known to Marcion by c. 140 C.E. Some of them were not written in Paul's name alone but are in the form of letters written by Paul in collaboration with various friends such as Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silas. The author of Luke and Acts, went out of his way to obtain all sources available and tended to use them indiscriminately, but he used nothing from the Pauline epistles. We can thus conclude that the non-pastoral epistles were written after Luke and Acts in the period c. 100 – 140 C.E. The non-canonical First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (written c. 125 C.E.) uses the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians as a source and so we can narrow down the date for that epistle to c. 100 – 125 C.E. However, we are left with the conclusion that that all the Pauline epistles are pseudepigraphic. (The semi-mythical Paul was supposed to have died during the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 C.E.) Some of the Pauline epistles appear to be have been altered and edited numerous times before reaching their modern forms. As sources they use each other, Acts, the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke and the First Epistle of Peter. We may thus conclude that they provide no historical evidence of Jesus.
And there shall in that time be rumours of things going astray, and there will be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base, that has an attachment…at this time, a friend shall lose his friends’s hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before around eight o’clock
"The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing."
Oh, for shit sake! Knock of the meaningless fucking bible quotes, please. They give zero credence to your argument.
yaa f'u creationists, nothing sadder than the commenters trying to justify there religion. You can do the same thing to with harry potter, star wars or any other fantastical crap. Don't mean to sound rude but there's nothing scarier than someone who holds onto there religion with a death grip; christian, islam its all the same to me. Morals good, extremism bad.
You don't mean to be rude, yet use the F-word. Way to advance the conversation.
Bill seemed to leave out the fact that evolution is a theory, not a fact.
Questions for evolutionists:
1. When did the very first living cell decide it wanted to reproduce?
2. When that cell made that decision, how did it know to invent DNA so that it reproduced into a cell similar to itself?
3. When did the cell decide it wanted a mouth to eat? How did it know how to grow one? For that matter, when and how did the first cell to have feet, hands, eyes decide it wanted them to feel, walk and see? In fact, what made the first cell to have eyes want to have eyes? How did it know itcould not see?
I watched a show onPBS about hummingbirds. A wonderfully produced show, but at one point the narrator discusses a particular species on one island where the male has a beak shaped like one particular flower, and it could not feed on the same flower as the female, which has a beak that fits another flower on the same island. The narrator said the male "chose" the one flower and developed a beak to fit. How absurd. Are we to believe that one male hummingbird, or a group of male hummingbirds had a meeting and decided that from that point forward all the males on the island would have one shape only, and specifically to fit that flower?
We could have fun with this all night, but the point is it takes much, much more faith to believe everything was created by chance. But you would never convince the folks who swear to everyone else they are the smart ones in the room.
You;re not arguing about evolution, dear. People who have even the slightest understanding of what evolution is look at opinions like yours the way a mathematician would a person who disbelieves in calculus but who thinks math is 4+banana=swing set.
Is this for real? You have to be joking! Are we being punk'd? Is that you Ashton?!
Another fvcking idiot who doesn't know the scientific definition of "theory" and thinks it means the same thing it does in casual conversation.
When you actually get an education, you azz, alert the media. You don't have one, therefor your post is meaningless and a waste of space.
"Bill seemed to leave out the fact that evolution is a theory, not a fact."
LOL. you don't know what a 'theory' is. i suggest you look up the scientific method. in the scientific community, theories are regarded as FACT, just like a law. the theory of evolution will never be a law - they are distinctly different, they answer different questions. seriously, you need to educate yourself.
all of your questions, which are childlike, can be answered on almost any site with information on evolution. for instance, it's unlikely a cell had a mouth. it likely absorbed nutrients. do some homework. use your brain.
Agree. Bill Nye is a man of great faith!
Your questions show your understanding is extremely shallow, but that's not surprising at all. Think about it, do all creatures have eyes? Do all have mouths? Are roots Mouths? Hmmmm must have all been created by Kim Jung II....
Yeah, 4+banana=swing set, that's got to be the best one of the night, BRAVO!
"Bill seemed to leave out the fact that evolution is a theory, not a fact."
Evolution — species changing over time — IS a fact. Observable in real time with bacteria. Docµmented in historical time by animal breeding and plant cross-pollination. Demonstrable in geological time from BILLIONS of fossils.
The theory ABOUT evolution most widely accepted is an updating of Charles Darwin's hypothesis that all of today's species descended from common ancestors due to natural selection based on best current fitness for constantly changing environmental circmmstances.
Really, if you can't tell the difference between the FACT of evolution and the THEORY of natural selection, should you be making a fool of yourself in public like this?
Seems I struck a nerve with the "smart people" in the room.
Knowing a theory inside and out does not make you smart, it just makes you familiar with the theory.
The faith the "smart people" must place in the theory of evolution is light years beyond the faith it takes to believe in God. But I have learned that the evoutionist are as committed to their faith as I am to mine. Arguing about it really gets us no where. If someone wants to look at a clay pot and deny a potter made it then nobody can stop them.
People can look at an automobile and see the intelligent design behind it, but cannot see it in the world around. Now THAT is denial.
If "science" means believing in that which can be demonstrated in the laboratory and duplicated.... or what can be observed in nature repeatedly.... Then answer this: Where does LIFE come from? What do we observe in nature or see demonstrated in the laboratory? That LIFE COMES FROM PREVIOUS LIFE. It always does. Can anyone show otherwise?
This is why I believe that life originally came from a First Cause, who is ALIVE. And I believe that is scientific.
Evolution does not answer the question of abiogenesis. Don't be stupid.
Which, as always, means you have to answer where did that First Cause come from. To say that it has always existed does nothing to answer that question, and only replaces honest inquiry with unsolvable complexity (also called nonsense); which is usually just a way of for one to be either lazy or ignorant and not keep searching for the actual explanation.
Evolution does not deal with where the first life form came from or what from it took. Evolution is about speciation, how life diverged.
Where the first life on earth came from is something we might never find out since the evidence is long gone for the most part. But our understanding of how it might have happened is progressing largely from work on artificially creating a life form.
File under Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. How many bones of ancient humans and our ancestors do they have to dig up to "prove" that the world was not created 6,000 years ago? And don't get me started on the dinosaurs...
Here's the funny thing...
If we (those believing in a Creator) are wrong, then we are just "worm-food" and nobody is the worse for the wear...BUT, if we are right, and God created the universe and the Bible is truth...then I really feel sorrow for those who think that we are the end product of a "big bang" or evolved from monkeys...just sayin'...
Why can't I believe in both God and evolution? Catholics do. Mormons do. Plenty of religions have no problem with evolution.
You said, "Here's the funny thing...
If we (those believing in a Creator) are wrong, then we are just "worm-food" and nobody is the worse for the wear...BUT, if we are right, and God created the universe and the Bible is truth...then I really feel sorrow for those who think that we are the end product of a "big bang" or evolved from monkeys...just sayin'..."
Major Pascal's Wager fail.
In effect, Pascal's wager states that while we can't know with absolute certainty whether the christian god exists, a rational evaluation should lead to a belief. If having to choose between believing (in the christian god), or not believing, the reward for being correct, and the price for being wrong, tips the balance in favor of believing.
It says, if you believe and are correct, you will gain heaven, while the price for being wrong is nothing. On the other hand, if you don't believe, it says you will gain nothing for being right, yet lose everything if you are wrong. So, belief results in a win/neutral, and non-belief in a neutral/lose position, tipping the balance clearly in favor of the "belief" position.
Why Pascal's Wager is a fallacy:
a) Pascal's Wager assumes that there are only two options.
b) Pascal's Wager assumes the christian god doesn't care whether someone actually believes, or simply goes through the motions.
c) Pascal's Wager discounts the price paid for belief before death.
d) Pascal's Wager vastly overestimates the odds for the reward and the risk of punishment.
Positing only two options is ridiculous. There are, of course, thousands of possibilities when it comes to gods. Based on the evidence available for these gods, it is not reasonable to assume one is more likely than any of the others. To increase the odds of a positive outcome of this wager, the believer would have to believe in, and worship, every possible god. Including the ones that haven't been invented yet. Aside from the drain on the available time, it presents the problem that quite a few of these gods are pretty selfish. They frown upon believers believing in other gods. In some religions that is enough to not be eligible for the reward (making the belief position a lose/neutral one).
Also, just going through the motions and pretending to believe may fool your community, but it can't fool an all-knowing god. It is very unlikely that anyone would gain the ultimate reward for simply faking belief (making the belief position a lose/neutral one).
The price paid for the belief position isn't nothing. It involves going through the rituals, day after day, week after week. It may have severe side effects on physical and mental health. Sex life suffers, too.
In estimating whether the cost of any given action is worth it, an evaluation of risk versus reward is in order.
Risk is (simplistically) the chance that a negative event occurs, multiplied by the cost of that event. As an example, being hit by a meteorite carries a very high cost (probably death), but since the odds are extremely low, the risk associated with it is low. Similarly, the chance of getting rained on is pretty high, but the cost is very low, representing also a low risk. On the other hand the cost and chances of, and therefore the risk associated with, a traffic accident are high.
The choice whether to mitigate a risk depends on, among other things, the severity of the risk, the cost of the mitigation and the tolerance of that risk. In the above examples, the cost to mitigate each risk are; exorbitant, low and high, respectively. Methods to reduce or eliminate the risk of meteorite impacts are cost prohibitive and far exceed the risk. An umbrella and a check of the weather forecast effectively mitigate the risk of getting rained on, and is easily worth the cost. Car crashes, and their after-effects are mitigated to various degrees by expensive technology (from street surface technology to driver training, airbags and traction control). People bear those costs to their financial ability and tolerance for the risk.
A similar reasoning applies to reward. The choice whether to pursue a reward is guided by the perception value of the reward, the perception of the odds of gaining the reward and the cost to pursue it.
In the belief versus non-belief question, believers tend to irrationally overestimate both the reward for belief, and the risk associated with non-belief.
You said, "Personally, I think it takes more "faith" to believe in Evolution, than it does in a Greater Intelligence who designed and planned everything."
Try no to think too hard. You're not very good at it.
You said, "As intricate as the human body is, with all its systems, defenses, and healing properties, it only makes sense. You don't look at the Golden Gate Bridge and think it just "magically" appeared–someone designed and built it. Our own creativity should be a clue to Someone greater than ourselves–don't you think?"
If thought you were able to process simple information, I'd recommend you pick up a science book.
That's called Pascal's Wager. Although good food for thought, is not actually an argument for the existence of God.
Science Guy: the Bible doesn't teach it. Those you quoted are picking and choosing and that's shallow ground
GW, The response you gave about "If we're wrong this, but if they're wrong that..." is a common argument used by Christian's called "Pascal's Wager." It's actually a logical fallacy. Here's an interesting response to it. http://jesuschristpooperstar.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/doubling-down-on-pascals-wager/