 |
|
|
|
 Commenters were fired up about Bill Nye, creationism and evolution.
August 28th, 2012
10:37 AM ET
Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critiqueBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - Bill Nye does not think that children should be taught to deny evolution, and a YouTube video of him explaining why has gone viral. The CNN Belief Blog's report on the video has generated around 10,000 comments and thousands of Facebook shares since Monday. There were some broad themes in the comments, reflecting a debate that is largely unique to the United States. While Christianity is booming in Africa, Asia and Latin America, creationism is not, Penn State University religious studies professor Philip Jenkins writes in his book "The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South." Here are five schools of reaction that have emerged in comments: 1. Those using this controversy to bash religion Atheists love the Internet, as we've chronicled on the Belief Blog. While they may be a small portion of the population, they seem to make up about half our commenters. It was their chance to join with Nye and cheer him on:
2. Those who say wait a minute, being a creationist isn’t necessarily being anti-evolution Lots of folks from the theistic evolution camp came out to say that believing God was involved doesn't automatically make you anti-evolution.
3. Those who say that science is stupid and that young Earth creationism rules Young Earth creationists, who believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old, appeared to be out in force in the comments.
4. Those who say Nye should stick to his area of expertise This tweet was the most polite remark we could find on this subject. Other comments and tweets, not so much.
[tweet https://twitter.com/watsup1101/status/240168918109523968%5D 5. Those who say CNN is cooking up controversy where none exists Lots of people suggested we were generating a story instead of covering one.
For the record, plenty of other news outlets covered this story, pointing out that Nye's video was posted on YouTube just before the Republican National Convention opened. Turns out that Nye taped the segment awhile back and had no say in when it would be released. Thanks for chiming in. The comments are open here, and you can always hit us up on Twitter @CNNBelief. soundoff (2,811 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 Next »
Next entry »Dolan to pray at Democratic National Convention
« Previous entry5 faithy players to watch at the Republican National Convention
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
If'n its a goog thang why does they calls it evil loo shun?
I've studied evolution extensively. There are animals in transition today, look at the skink family of lizards. Some look like regular lizards. Some are long with short legs, some are really long with really short legs, some are really long with just stumps where legs used to be and some are really long and have no legs. They are following the same evolutionary path that snakes did. You can look this up, skinks are evolving into snake-like reptiles, it's just so UTTERLY obvious.
Look at otters, sea otters, seals and sea lions, walruses, manatees, whales etc. Each is in a different stage of evolving into whale-like creatures.
It takes millions of years for evolutionary changes to build up enough to where one species becomes another.
The Catholic church accepts evolution and sees the Old Testament as largely symbolic.
Evolution is a fact. Get over it.
Thanks Luis, it's nice to see some intelligence on this board, rather than pure ignorance....
Unlike some of the comments in the story you can't actually believe (honestly) in both creationism and evolution. That's just a coping system to allow you to to convince yourself that what you say you believe is reasonable when in fact it isn't.
Exactly. Well said.
What worldview isn't a coping mechanism? As it relates to a persons ability to accept some the world's difficult truths, evolution offers little, and certainly no hope. The response of hopeless people in desparate situations is more worrisome than hopeful people who feel accountable for their own actions. If my DNA sucks, what are my options?
It certainly isn't what "creationists" believe, but you can believe in a God who created a universe with a set of natural laws that lead to the evolution of us.
At one point in time people thought you couldn't believe in God and believe that the Earth travels around the Sun. Now, Christians have no difficulty believing both. Nye is right; In a few hundred years, Christians will have no difficulty believing in evolution either.
Atheists who see evolution as the nail in the coffin of religion will be no more correct than those who thought that proof that the Sun didn't stand still in the sky was. Religious understanding will evolve now just as it did following Copernicus.
There may not be a lot of true atheists, or admitted agnostics in America, but I think the numbers of "I don't give a crap about religion" people are approaching the numbers who do give a crap.
Religion is losing its grip, education to seeing to that. It's something that can't be stopped, same as evolution...
If people think we came from star dust,why do they also think its crazy to believe God made man from the ground? To think life does not need a creator takes faith because not even the smartest scientist on this planet does not know.
Atheists wish to non-atheists to convert to atheism and leave the "fairy-tales behind us",but most religions state something is wrong with mankind? So this "leave religion behind,advance mankind" is more like an atheistic fairy-tale.7% of mankinds wars were causes for a religious reason.
Looks like atheists are the ones still living in a fairy-world.
No offense, intended, Wut!, but English isn't your first language, correct?
Really? We follow the evidence. The evidence, thus far, shows nothing to advance your idea of a supernatural being and the mythology written in the Bible, or any other religious text. Also, less than 7% of wars in the history of the world were fought for purely non-religious reasons. You have your facts backwards.
Wow. The religious sound like f@#%ing idiots. "fantastical".
Not much of an improvement from you there pal!
Better read the Holy Bible.......starting with Genesis!!!
How old is the Earth ?
Complete waste of time...
I've read it, twice. Just ancient mythology from a primitive, bronze-age culture. Grow a brain.
Prayer changes things .
I'm completely healthy and positively functioning member of society, I believe in myself and I don't talk to a higher being for confirmation, direction and support. I feel I'm capable of it myself, and when I'm not I confide in close friends and respected colleges. Religion is for the weak and needy, fine if it gives comfort, but it answers very little in life. All humans have weak moments, its part of nature, it's too bad this is used as the primary vehicle for Religion to pray upon people minds.
To the creationists who say evolution has no evidence, how do you explain recent studies that showed natural epigenetic variation in Arabidopsis thaliana contributes to the genetic incompatibility responsible for post-zygotic reproductive isolation? If the Columbia-0 (col) strain is crossed with a Shahdara (sha) strain, some percent of F2 hybrids will show a reduced seed production of 80 to 90%. Subsequent analysis of linkage disequilibrium was able to identify two genomic regions–K4 and K5–that were responsible for the incompatibility. Additional fine mapping reveals that region K5 contains gene AtFOLT1, which will encode a folate transporter, and that region K4 contains a duplicate locus, known as AtFOLT2, but only in sha. Region AtFOLT1 is expressed in the col strain but not in sha, while AtFOLT2 exists only in sha and not in col. F2 hybrids will be incompatible only when there is no AtFOLT transcript present. Therefore, the best explanation is that it is the lack of AtFOLT transcript altogether is responsible for the incompatibility.
So without rote mentions of missing links or other talking points, how would you as a creationists deal with this piece of evidence for evolutionary theory as it relates to the epigentic possibilities of speciation in the Arabidopsis thaliana plant?
Creationists never took a single science class, let alone genetics. They have no idea what you are talking about.
They can't read your words. That's why they believe what they spurt.
You are confused. The majority of Christians and creationists believe evolution exists in every speicies including Man. We just don't believe the horse s–t that man came from apes.
That is EXACTLY what I thought.
Rob, how do you explain the Neanderthal skeletons found all over Europe? An Alien species from Mars? LOL!!!
@Rob-Texas:
So, no answer to the question above then? I mean, it deals directly with speciation– i.e., "macro" evolution, though that's just a silly term creationists use to draw a false dividing line between stuff they can't rationally deny and stuff they think they can get away with denying.
Speciation is the very mechanism that helped man diverge from his other great ape cousins, so I would love to hear how you debunk this evidence for such a mechanism. Would it help you formulate a rebuttal if I were to tell you that this research is the first case of a naturally occurring epiallele with a strong deleterious phenotypic consequence that has been steadily maintained by the generational progeny of crosses between strains and that has played a central role in the establishing of its reproductive isolation?
This is just great, I love it! I'm sure you just confused the "hell" out of some people.
Rob
This is still a point many creationists get wrong. Evolutionary theory does not say humans came from apes. It says that humans and apes came from the same common ancestor. While the majority of apes found a niche to fill in the enviorment they lived in and have not faced adversities to make them evolve further, humanity's original offshoot ran into various enviornmental changes that caused them to evolve in different ways to reach the stage of mankind we are at currently.
"This is just great, I love it!"
Thanks. I just get sick of the same half dozen talking points over and over and don't think most creationists understand the depth and complexity to which the evidence goes. A hundred thousand academic papers on evolution came out last year and all of them read like this. Fossils are what creationists tend to get all hung up on and that's almost a non-player in modern scholarship. We're down to molecular genetics and mapping specific gene divergences. DNA has provided a hundred times more (and better) evidence for evolutionary theory than fossils EVER have and when faced with what that evidence looks like they have no idea how to par.se, digest, or respond to it.
Why? Because they've been using the same outdated talking points for fifty years. All of which have been thoroughly explained and left in the dust a thousand times over. Their arguments are as archaic and dead as the transitional fossils they claim don't exist...
The biggest problem with this whole debate is how ignorant Creationists are as to what "evolution" actually means. Also, those who say that Creationism and evolution are not "incongruent" do not understand what Creationism stands for either.
ONCE I WAS A TADPOLE BEGINNING TO BEGIN/ THEN I WAS A FROG WITH MY TAIL TUCKED IN/ NOW I’M A MONKEY IN A BANYON TREE/ NOW I’M A PROFESSOR WITH A P.H.D
ONCE I WAS A TADPOLE BEGINNING TO BEGIN/ THEN I WAS A FROG WITH MY TAIL TUCKED IN- Proven fact.
/ NOW I’M A MONKEY IN A BANYON TREE/ NOW I’M A PROFESSOR WITH A P.H.D- Impossible to prove based on archological evience.
Intelligence has changed over time as the human skull and brain matter has increased in size and density. Early humans were pretty dumb. So, going from money to PhD is quite a leap and an erroneous exaggeration.
Rob you seem to miss the billions of years of evolution in between. Sorry to have to tell you this, but the world is much older the a few thousand years...
To me, Bill Nye's opinion regarding the teaching of creationism today is similar to Galileo's attempt 500 years ago to persuade Catholic church authorities to NOT ban Copernicus' ideas that the earth revolved around the sun (instead of the church's insistence that everything revolved around the earth. For that, Galileo was persecuted by the church and it wasn't until 1992 that the Vatican formally and publicly "pardoned" Galileo. So Bill...just wait 400-500 years and perhaps you'll be reprieved by those who are critical of your current views! Although It is difficult to impossible to change a person's beliefs...especially when they've been raised and taught that biblical stories are true and fact. I think it's safe to say that if you are brought up as a Baptist, Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, or Buddhist, you generally hold those beliefs your whole life and teach your children to do the same. Religious beliefs are usually engrained in people and no amount of scientific logic, common sense or education will sway their views. Bravo, Bill, for your opinions!
Better read the Holy Bible....starting with Genesis!!!!!
Someone else's book. I doubt you've ever wondered why.
why?
talk about your evolution
well you know
we just haven't got the proof
talk about your charlie darwin
well you know
you can call his bluff
Try to make your lying theory
look like its the real stuff
hey hey
don't ya know if its all about evolution
you can count me out. Know its gonna be
exposed
know its gonna be
exposed
know its gonna be
exposed
as fraud
How dare you use Lennon's work this way. Shame on you.
You do realize that John Lennon was an atheist don't you? His song "Imagine" is about a religion free world
I dare. Try to stop me, you're a daisy if you do.
He is also a dead druggie and more aware than you just how wrong he was
The Man is so "Dead bang On The Money", In Canada we can tell you first... hand America is made up of 75% religious Freaks and Weaklings!
Take off Eh! You hosser.
I believe in both. We will never know the answer to that question. Who's to say that God wasn't sciencelike who put things together just to see what would happen. That might sound stupid and simple but for someone who's not as smart as the scientists, I boggles my mind that all this came from one particle. It also boggles the mind that there's a creator who created all of this but, I look at the beauty in the world and can't believe there's someone who had a hand in this. Also, I've had and have known people who've experienced something that can't be explained. I believe in evolution because they're finding proof that beings like us were around after we were allowed to evolve once the dinosaurs left the planet, (even though according to science there are some relatives of dinosaurs still around).
The biggest problem that I have with this story is that it is in the Belief Blog, implying that evolution is a belief system, but it is not. It is science. It requires no faith or belief whatsoever. Like any scientific concept, you have to look at the evidence provided, and either reject or fail to reject (accept in layman's vernacular) the concept based on the evidence provided. There is no belief at all involved. Evolution is a matter of science. Having it in the Belief Blog is an insult to evolutionary biologists, such as myself, who work to understand the diversity of life on the planet in a scientific manner.
We work continually with the misconceptions that evolution is a religion or belief system, or that creationism is a viable alternative explanation to the diversity of life on the planet. Having stories like this in a section specifically devoted to religious beliefs just undermines the hard work countless scientists are doing.
Evolution is a matter of science, not from Apes it isn't. Show us the proof. There is non and never will be because it is impossible. The elapsed time to cover the missing link gap is to short for there to be a missing link that evolved from point a to point b.
Why is unity omitted when discussing diversity of life?
Evolution from apes is not possible. There will never be a missing link. There is a gap and that gap is to short a time for the evolutionary process to provide a missing link. That missing link would have had to have an evolutionary metamorphosis like no other has seen on this planet in recorded history. I believe everyone agrees that all species evolve over time. So until science can show this mystery light speed advancing evidence, it’s like trying to put a 32 ounce bottle in a 12 ounce cup holder. Just isn't logical!
Rob, you didn't even get out of the starting gate.
Only the ignorant say that man evolved from apes.
Go study the theory of human evolution and edit your post.
You obviously don't know what evolution is, pal.
Humans did not evolve from apes. Apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor. That is why that common ancestor no longer exists.
Like gorillas at zoos who suddenly walk upright.
But believing in magic is quite logical!
That is what Nye wants tought. So your are the one that missed the boat. I know what it means. You seem to be missing that most of the pro-evolution comments mean just that, man came from apes. Not that all speices evolve over time.
Rob, what is your biology background?
Rob, If you lived 2000 years ago I think you'd be shocked how different people looked then vs today...
"That is what Nye wants tought."
No, what Nye wants t[a]ught is actual evolutionary theory, not Rob's frightful misunderstanding of evolutionary theory...
The problem is that after you decide that faith trumps evidence the first time, it's much easier to decide that faith trumps evidence in other things as well. It goes on and on and the next thing you know you're running around telling people that tax cuts for the rich causes jobs to be created and Saddam had WMD's.
Show us this evidence Gonzo. There will never be any. See my post above yours. Quit listening to the media and believing it to be fact.
Evidence? Hell, it's History.
Rob, Lubbock Texas is a perfect example of what he Gonzo is talking about.
Rob Texas has no evidence. Read Richard Dawkins books: the evidence is there, you just don't want to see it;this is the problem with creationists. The extent of their evidence is their holy book. Nothing scientific about that.
@Rob: "Show us this evidence Gonzo."
I provided cursory evidence for an epigenetic speciation mechanism above, but you refused to actually respond to it. Will you do so since you keep begging for evidence and when given some won't engage?
Don't think there is much of an issue here apart from Bill's assertion that one's view on human origins is in some way a handicap to becoming competent in math and science. Seems to be a simple minded and contradictory excuse for our poor educational system. It is simple minded in that it overlooks too many other directly related issues to our failures. It is contradictory in that the heights of modern science stand on the shoulders of many brilliant scientist who were also devout Christians.
Did you have a point?
Yea Andy, I think Bill Nye's comments are a ridiculous waste of time, and seem foolish coming from such a bright guy.
CNN embarrasses itself by claiming that atheists are just a "small portion of the population.' We'll never really know, will we? Those who claim that there is no evidence for supernatural forces at work in the universe are among the most despised (according to a recent Pew Poll) people. There are many, many people I personally know who go to church, pray, and talk about "belief" who have told me that they don't really believe all the religious claims (or even that there is a God out there) but do so because their families do, or their friends go to that church, etc. When discussing the existence or non existence of a deity, the ONLY thing that counts is evidence. Further, those who do not believe in gods do NOT have faith that science knows everything. We do not make the claim (as CNN apparently does) that "unfathomable intricacies of every living thing on our Earth formed themselves completely at random." It's easy to see intricacies and complexity in a finished product and think that someone or something "designed" it. However, we know on the basis of observational evidence that natural processes can produce things that appear to have been designed but are in fact the seemingly "end product" of much change. CNN should know better than to jump on a bandwagon of ignorance just because most of the population claims to be religious. I guess autonomous thought does not extend to news outlets.
T: CNN embarrasses itself on a regular basis. I believe this is because of the nature of Internet news media. Evidently, real journalism isn't fast enough to get up on the Web in 'real-time' (or any other acceptable measure of time), sooo, we are left with 'teasers' that they pass off as new articles, with barely any substance or thoughtfulness to them.
In fairness to CNN, the other sites are just as guilty. Either that is the case, or real journalism is completely dead, and no force of God, or random act of nature (think 'energy') can resurect it.
@T-Max73,
on one hand you decry the notion that atheists are a "small portion of the population" and then speak of the Pew Forum.
The Pew Forum clearly indicates in their 2007 data that
Atheists .................... 1.6%
Agnostics .................. 2.4%
Secular unaffiliated ... 6.3%
I would say 4% is a small number. At best this is 10%, if you include the category of "secular unafilliated".
See:
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports