August 28th, 2012
10:37 AM ET
Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique
By 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.
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.
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.
All you need to do to know there is a God is to get outside in nature and look with wonder upon the world around you and ask yourself if indeed this all happened by random chance.
Who said random chance? How is it random if it must obey the laws of the Universe?
That was tomas Aquinas' sctick nearly 1000 years ago. It's cute and whimsical thinking but science it's not.
And ask why so many innocent women and children die a meaningless death every day. Religion is just not rational, plane and simple. Thats why you can't argue with them. They have no grasp on reality. How could they , they'er messed up.
I have and it did...well chance and the application of natural laws.
Invoking god to explain nature or anything, does not answer the question, it just moves the question up one further level and compounds it with many more questions. The simple question of "how was the universe created?", the the invocation of god expands into, "how was god created?","How did god create the universe?","how does god make immaterial souls interact with a material world?","how does god control the universe, when everything appears to evolve perfectly fine on its won according to the laws of physics?", etc.
Occam's Razor states that the simplest answer is most likely the correct one. In this case the simplest answer is that god does not exist.
The null hypothesis is that god does not exist. Since there is no evidence to support the existence of god, the null hypothesis holds as the logical position, to abandon this position without evidence is to delve into insanity.
Out of curiosity, when you are out looking around "with wonder upon the world around you," does that include looking at this:
or this: http://www.secretstodefeatingdisease.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/anencephaly.jpg
or this: http://pregnan-cy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Common-Birth-Defects3.jpg
or this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Child_with_Smallpox_Bangladesh.jpg/230px-Child_with_Smallpox_Bangladesh.jpg
and honestly saying "wow, what fascinating and wondrous parts of god's great plan..."
Or do you just mean for us to go look at rainbows and kittens and fluffy wuffy wabbits as evidences of a loving god?
God creates man. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Man chooses to think he himself is God and imagines he is no longer accountable. Man turns on God and begins a visceral irrational hatred of Him. Evidence of this abounds everywhere. For those who do not believe in Him, what's all the hatred? Eventually you'll find out if you were right.
Here is science from the word of God: Job Chapter 36, verses 27-28.
More science from the word of God: Job Chapter 26 verse 7
If your really messed up mentally then religion might be right for you, but if your brain works fine iI suggest thinking for your self and let the kids discover their own reality.
I think it is nearing the time to take these debates to the streets and not just online.
We need to start challenging people in person who comment about religion. The day that the common reaction of people becomes to laugh at the ridiculous belief in gods without evidence, will be the day we stop hearing people professing these irrational beliefs.
It takes an immense amount of ignorance to call the process of Evolution, enacted through changes in DNA, magic.
Once more I am utterly horrified by the level of ignorance imposed upon Americans by religion. these people are still living in the dark ages.
We really need to start taxing churches. The selling of lies really should not be tolerated on the scale it has been allowed. This is the biggest con in history.
Can I get a R'amen!
Well said, Scott!
"We really need to start taxing churches. The selling of lies really should not be tolerated on the scale it has been allowed."
Yeah, we should just shred the First Amendment while we're at it.
Evangelical, your irrational thinking pervades all levels of your consciousness. the first amendment guarantees your right to practice your religion. It does not guarantee your right to have me subsidize your religion with my tax dollars.
I have been touched by his noodly appendage!
Please cite for me the legal reason why taxing churches would be equivalent to shredding the First Amendment? That also gives us freedom to assemble, and yet we require permits and fees to do so; freedom of the press, yet we tax newspapers; and freedom of personal expression, yet we tax individuals. What is the legal basis for your claim that taxing churches is something that in any way could or should be construed as a weakening or violation of the First Amendment?
Or did you just emotionally react and attack the notion because you personally don't like it without actually thinking through your claim or the basis for it?
As an Atheist, I find mocking faith as an intolerant act. Atheists are victims of intolerance every day, and yet fighting intolerance with more intolerance is a very futile act of desperation. It is tantamount to ignorance; the one thing many Atheists claim to overcome. Unless we can fully map the brain, no one can truly legitimately replicate the feelings of others, and yet many claim to "legitimately" know others are deluded. This relentless exchange from the most militant members between ideological poles only galvanizes more ignorance; more unwillingness to respect and attempt to understand the view of others. Let's keep faith (or lack of faith) outside the public space, remind students that the Scientific Method is not there to ask why, but to make sense of the reality we understand, and it does not have to conflict with any theistic belief since this is the only subject matter that actually deals with the "why", unlike the Scientific Method. The answer for peaceful communion does not exist in Atheism or Theism, but in the only thing we should all believe and respect – Secularism.
Im pretty sure the reason atheists "mock" religion is because it has been and is being used as a weapon for too long and people are fed up with the costs in progress and peace. Atheists don't sit around laughing at religion.
perhaps this idea is what you are articulating:
"The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer." – Albert Einstein
Secularism is all well and good, but a good many the 78% of Americans who are Christians deplore secularism. They are intolerant of anything that is not Christian.
Rule of law is all well and good so long as the 'law' reflects 'right' as seen by the society. As morality shifts in the society, the 'old guard conservative religionists (meaning status quo, not necessarily political) want laws to reflect their beliefs, not necessarily that of the wider society. What then?
Religious delusions are not a self contained danger.
Faith requires one to believe without evidence, or in the presence of evidence to the contrary. This suppression of the minds ability to logically reason leads to belief in untruths, that send ripples of distortion into all areas of study and examination. This in turn leads to social and political decisions based in misinformation. The end result being the unnecessary suffering of all people.
@Godoflunaticscreation – It is pretty difficult to genuinely consider an argument being introduced with such an absolute statement about a reality we barely understand. I have seen religion being used to manipulate. I have seen religion being used to encourage. I have seen religion being used to excuse selfish behavior. I have seen religion being used to pacify the overwhelming misery some people have to live with. I have seen religion both saving and destroying people. Whether we see it as a crutch or a weapon, it is not for us to "liberate" people from religion, as it is not for them to "save" us from damnation.
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV – I really cannot disagree with you, but the scenario you depict seems to me as the essence of what I am saying but from the other side of the coin, except it is invoked by a majority (which is much, much more terrifying).
@ScottCA – Faith is about personal interpretation, which implies all evidence you need for your beliefs is in one way or another already existent within you (regardless if others see it as delusion, heresy, etc). Faith is orthogonal to Science, and the problem stems from people wanting to mix them up, not because they exist. Claiming that the existence of religion eventually yields suffering for ALL people is a pretty bold statement, and with bold I mean outrageously unfounded (which ironically contradicts your vanguard for evidencing). First of all, we have yet to foresee the end of days for people, so no matter how much we speculate, we do not really know if the perpetual propagation of religion can destroy us all. Second, religion has spawned many things through human history, both good and bad, so there is not objective pattern (that some pay attention to either extremes is different) that can be shown. In conclusion, the people we should fear the most are the ones simplifying reality with absolutes, as we barely know anything about the universe (which for us is an absurd amount of knowledge) to claim with absolute certainty things were, are, and must be a certain way.
Amazing how many adults still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, in one way or another.
If you got something to say about Thor then say it to the hammer!
Let us remember that Darwin himself admitted that he was high when he came up with the theory of evolution.
Thats a religious practice that evangelicals still use today, in other forms.
And I'm sure none of the men during Biblical times were on any substances when they heard the voice of God speaking to them... or saw a burning bush.
Substances are gateways that many religious people use to feel more in touch with the higher beings they believe in. So your point about Darwin being high is...?
Absolutely false evangelical. You're just lying, a sin in your religion I believe. Let me guess, you never read anything by Darwin, have you?
And your boy JC got high a few times too
The more interesting thing to say about Darwin and his writing and his own beliefs in what he found and wrote about is that someone today can go out and reproduce Darwin's work. Anyone can amass the evidence that supports evolution.
Science can follow the DNA in populations and analyze the mutations of nucleic genetic matter to follow migration of populations over thousands of years back to common ancestors in Africa. They can correlate their findings with data found in geological digs.
The Earth gives up its evidence with careful research, such as the end of the last dinosaurs being caused by a nuclear winter following the impact of a large body near the Yucatan. The presence of a thin layer of iridium around the world at the same depth of age of sediments points to ancient events. The evidence can be found again by other independent researchers.
A law of nature or facts of geological events does not depend on whether or not an individual changes his mind about what he wrote, if someone else can and does duplicate the work with the same conclusions.
Of course Atheism love the internet and any means of passing information. Religion dies when ignorance is extinguished. The information age will bring an end to religion as it is known today. No religion can hope to hold people in ignorance and irrational belief when information has become so readily available to everyone.
We could see a new religion being born of the internet and the craving for more input from everywhere.
Think of how we are now focused on Hurricane Isaac hitting New Orleans on the anniversary of Katrina.
Are our soothsayers today on the Weather Channel?
I read your article about the 5 reactions to Bill Nye calling for evolution to be the only theory taught in school regarding the origin of life and I would like to add a 6th reaction.
My reaction is that evolution is not actually science and is instead a belief system. If you talk to converts to evolution they typically hold a rather basic belief that all their logic rests on, it goes like this: I believe that there is no God or super smart god like aliens, I believe that life exists, random chance as described in evolution is the least unlikely way that life could have come into existence therefore evolution is true. I exist therefore I evolved.
I believe from a purely scientific perspective there are several flaws in evolution as a theory that are under-reported and I will now list them.
1) Evolution is not forward science like all other science with the exception of the big bang. Normal science makes a claim (theory), tests that claim and then publishes that claim to others who are free to test that claim which describes how reality will work in the future. There is a component of evolution that is future science, this is the part of evolution that has actually been verified like all of normal science. Small mutations, such as those in dogs from wolves is actual science, claims can be made and verified. But most of evolution deals with what already happened and not on how things happen in the future and this is different from all science minus the big bang.
2) Evolution isn't falsifiable. Ever notice the lack of numbers in evolution education? Numbers are falsifiable. If I predict 3+-1 and you get 5 I am wrong and my theory as written is not correct. Evolution takes data that doesn't match what is predicted and uses it to change the theory and argue that the theory is now even stronger than before because its now consistent with even more data as if failure to predict is a sign of strength. The reason goes back to the core belief, I exist therefore I evolved.
3) Evolution holds that if you start with a monkey and you have enough generations with enough population and a constant rate of mutation you will eventually get a human. This is because they believe that small mutations are likely and small mutations can move you between a genetic population called monkey to a genetic population called human. This assumption makes a claim that instead of 2 populations that are stable (monkey, human) that instead there are a series of populations that are able to reproduce and are fit enough to make it through at least one generation that exist between monkey and human. This is a massive claim presented without conclusive proof, there is proof of populations between human and monkey but not of a path between the two that doesn't require quasi magical mutations. Quantom theory via wave interference has shown that under certain conditions some things are actually impossible or as near to impossible that it would take a semi-magical event to witness. Evolution is making millions and millions of claims that things are not impossible without sufficient evidence. These claims become less and less magical the more populations are witnessed via fossils between human and monkey but genetically the gaps are MASSIVE.
4) Evolution depends on the rate of good mutations vs bad mutations. Good mutations in this context create diversity without compromising survivability too much for the group. Bad mutations cause genocide or destroy the ability to tolerate diversity. Aids is an example of a near genocide mutation introduced by a virus, that has no impact on the ability to reproduce, has a delayed action and could possibly wipe out an entire population. Evolution depends on the rate of good vs bad mutations being in a certain range but they don't communicate this or assign numbers to the required range because then it would be falsifiable.
5) If evolution is true, then its likely its true all over the universe. The possibility of super evolved super aliens that evolved millions of years ahead of us or even billions leaves the possibility of god like aliens very real. If this is true then wouldn't it make more sense that aliens were involved in our "evolution"? There only exists a small range where evolution is so likely that it happened but not so likely that it happened somewhere else first and thus likely didn't happen here without outside influence...
6) Evolution is very very unlikely. Going from non life to a mutating life form is nearly impossible. Going from a single cell to a colony that survives millions of years is also nearly impossible. The different highly evolved functions that exist should have different highly evolved anti functions if all things were equal. There is a lack of symmetry necessary for evolution to exist and a discreet path way between every known life form and a single ancestor or multiple ancestors with multiple magical spontaneous evolutions. if you attached numbers to how many years you would have to wait to see it happen again I think everyone would be convinced in super intelligent aliens or God.
7) Evolution preaches magic. Evolution depends on the the big bang to explain where all the material doing the evolving came from. The big bang is a magical event. It exists outside the realm of science as it has no cause and created energy out of nothing. A big bang that created a universe where evolution could exist and mutations that create diversity are more likely than mutations that destroy diversity and energy is created out of nothing with no cause.....Such a big bang is just a fancy name for God anyway.
Evolution may be true. Evolution may be false. But evolution isn't real science and certainly isn't a scientific fact. Rather evolution is a necessary religious belief for anyone who has already decided they don't believe in God or super intelligent aliens.
If atheists were willing to actually look at the scientific facts admit that they have a miserable track record for predicting new data and actually judge evolution on its merits more people would be open to learning about their religious theory about the big bang god and how it created a universe that evolved people like you and I.
Personally I think the lack of the intelligent aliens theory is very telling on who is close minded...
You just want attention.
there is so much wrong with what you said about evolution, it's hard to know where to start. it's like you are purposely not looking for the answers.
Did you cut and paste all that or did your own demented mind come up with that all on it's lonesome.
you actually went to the trouble of writing this? Or did you copy paste here?
No one will read this here – it's too long.
And by the way, evolution is not magic.
Wow that was a very long winded display of your ignorance. It is clear that you have studied very little in regards to science or the natural world from your comment.
Please attend school again. ignorance of this level is very dangerous for all around you.
"But evolution isn't real science and certainly isn't a scientific fact. "
You are just plain wrong.
Typical tripe. This reads like a brainwashed 6th grader's justification for creationism.
Could not agree more. If the universe has been around for trillions of years prior man, then why is it again so irrational to believe that a supreme intelligence had a part in designing our race? The absolute lack of a discussion that and outside influcence was possible, if not entirely probable, only goes to show just how biased the religion of evolution is in is so-called hypothosis testing.
"big bang god and how it created a universe that evolved people like you and I." Should be "people like you and me".
I am the grammar policewoman.
@Here a Little, There a Little,
For me the debate here is not about God or not God. If you believe in God and can reconcile evolution as God's plan for his 'creation' great. That's a pragmatic and reasoned approach.
For me the discussion is about the notion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
What do you believe?
Charles Darwin knew his theory on evolution was flawed by a lack of evidence. In his own words here is what he said:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Now here we are 180 years later after Charles Darwin first started to work on his theory and the geological record is even more incomplete now then they thought it was back then. One of the major flaws is there is numerous "missing links" depending on which species you are trying to trace back through its evolution. The classic being humans evolving from apes. Only we are missing atleast one link between the two. So to believe in the theory of evolution you must believe that there is this missing link that we just haven't found yet. But how long have we been looking and still found nothing in the geological record? Some people will point to the early fossils and skelotons of man that have been found saying here are parts of the missing link. But in the bible it says that man lived to be over 800 years old before the great flood.
Either way evolution is not true science but a belief, just as believing in God is a belief. Get over it everyone.
Darrin Taylor, no, evolution is the truth. It is a science. As such it is testable. It is not a guess. There is no evidence whatsoever for a single creation of each species. Just because you or others hide behind religion does not mean you have any scientific legs to stand on. This is a scientific issue, nothing else. If you don't believe in evolution you are basically uneducated. There is no debate about evolution in any biology discipline. There are debates about details, and broad upper hierarchy phenomena, such as where natural selection creates higher order interactions that influence structure outside of natural selection, but to put your long winded blather up there is ridiculous. You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about
So, in a sense, you are arguing that something cannot possibly come from nothing. Therefore, evolution and the big bang theory couldn't possibly be true. And everything that we know today was created by God, so it explains how everything got here and is the way it is.... but that fails to explain one thing... If you can't get something from nothing, but God is the creator of all... how did God come about in the first place? So, God had to have come from something before him since he could simply not come from nothing, right?
Hmmmmm..... It seems you can't verify anything you just tried to agrue... in the name of God or evolution, so your windy comment was really unnecessary.
Darrin again: Yes it is testable, yes it is falsifiable. You have absolutely NO backup to your statements to the contrary. You've taken only what you think can happen, not what the entire body of evidence shows. Your ridiculous comment about (number 3) monkeys spawning humans is absolutely false. Evolution makes no such claim, so your comment here is nothing but pure hogwash. You imply that evolutionary science predicts the outcomes of natural selection. It makes no such claims. You keep on pushing this misinterpretation because you don't want to go on to the real evidence that ALL beings have descended from common ancestors. You state nothing about modern genomic science that makes any sense whatsoever.
Your comment about good mutations vs bad is ridiculous. There are no 'good' or bad mutations. Either the mutation adds to, has no effect on, or detracts from fitness (the number of offspring). That's it. Most mutations are neutral or are 'bad' (your term) and thus culled from the gene pool. Read something about it before you go spouting off.
Your comments about evolution being unlikely are trashed by millions of tons of scientific evidence. You've not given one scientifically supportable statement so far (number 6)
The Big Bang is not magic, nor is evolution (although some cosmologists insist on an evolutionary narrative of the various universes they posit). Absolutely false statements from you round and round.
To reiterate, evolutionary science is the foundation of all biology, even small, close minded biologics like you. You imply close mindedness. There is nothing close minded about science. You want people to take your musings as equal in weight to detailed scientific experiments and evidence (of which you know absolutely nothing, because 2/3 of your comments are based on your contention there 'are no numbers' when in actuality there are many many numbers. You're trying to pull the wool over others' eyes, a true sin in my book. I suggest you start with "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. Then you can go on to other more challenging books that will give you line and verse about where to find all the numbers you claim don't exist. Grow up. This isn't something you can 'vote' on.. Being open minded does not mean accepting nincompoop logic like yours. I always ask: Would any church be so 'open minded' as to give their pulpit over to a scientist every sunday, equal time? I think not. Your longwinded argument was tedious and uneducated to its core. Not one statement about actual evolutionary theory was correct in your entire statement. Thus, you've taken something someone else told you and ran with it, despite it being quite vapid of any scientific, logical or rational weight.
Since many of those rambling paragraphs are scientific misunderstandings and simply not true or not what evolution claims at all...can you please share with the class your scientific credentials to say so boldly that a scientific theory accepted by more than 99.99% of working life scientists with advanced degrees and studying in the field every day is so woefully invalid and obviously incorrect? Because scientists who study this for a living certainly don't agree with your findings.
Neither can be truely confirmed. So I proved the point I wanted to. Both are faith based.
A theory starts with a question of whether something is one way or another, and then the scientist goes looking for evidence to support the one conclusion or the other. The body of evidence that is amassed can then prove the one assumption or the other.
The history of Einstein's theories of relativity took years to amass evidence sufficient to show they were correct in the description of how the universe works. It was evidence from total solar eclipses that showed Einstein correct in predicting bending of light by gravity with his theory of relativity. More recently, a large body of evidence now supports his theory and no one has found evidence to disprove it.
Someone who has studied physics knows about the table of the elements and may even understand that the heavier atoms came from the fusion mechanisms in the heart of stars where lighter atoms are being fused into heavier atoms.
What is interesting to suppose is that the atoms in each of us may have come from exploding stars creating super-novae.
Experiments have created complex molecules by adding energy to them in liquid suspension. The building blocks of life may all have come from simple hydrocarbons.
Learning of how human cells divide and replicate with their genetic material gives one the start of understanding how mutation can occur in Nature with mistakes in the duplication of DNA by messenger RNA.
Reports of how catastrophic the presence of a few molecules of thalidomide can be for the earliest form of fetus as blastula – a globe of cells – can show how fragile is life. Should we just pray or should we continue to search for the causes and cures of cancer?
Our cult is better than your cult – just ask us!
Thor would smite this puny Jesus character.
Please look up and define:
Law of independent assortment
Law independent segregation
Hardy Weinberg principle
Gibbs Free energy
The Central Dogma
Just read as much as you can concerning these topics and enjoy in the wonderment of creation.
Man's growing opposition to God has nothing to do with his so-called enlightenment through "science." Jesus was not hung on a tree by the naturalists of the day. He was executed by those He made, on a tree that He had created, on behalf of those He had been born to save, who are blinded to this very day by a self-righteous pride that suffocates any hint of humility or remorse. It is our hatred for God that fuels our rejection of Him. In its inception by Newton and many others, observational science revealed the incredible underpinnings of God's creation. It still does so, unless your ideological hatred of God as your Creator demands that it doesn't. The evidence of a Creator is Creation itself, as the evidence of a builder is the building. Or did we make ourselves? Perhaps that is the evolutionists' next claim.
There's nothing wrong with believing in a creator, but are you really going to deny a process which we can actually observe in a petri dish?
You really need to go and re-read your bible brother. If that is what you get out of what a simple man was saying about his AND our divinity, then I pray for you.
The problem is people believe it has to be one way or the other. The Theory of Evolution doesn't disprove Creationism, and Creationism doesn't disprove Evolution. The Theory of Evolution at it's very basic is nothing more than a process through which changes happen on a genetic level. We know it is happening. We can see it with our own eyes. Evolution doesn't define the beginning, but it might help us find where it all began. Creationism speaks of the beginning. The Bible, IIRC, doesn't get into specifics of what we looked like when we were created other than their being a man and a woman. For all we know Evolution has shaped us since the beginning.
It's ridiculous for either side to act like they know it all. We know Evolution happens over time. But Evolution is not the answer to where we came from. It's the answer to how we got to where we are. Creationism might be the answer to where we came from, but it doesn't disprove evolution was a process God set in motion.
the notion that God created life is different from what most people understand as creationism.
You are correct to say that evolution does not explain how life started. God or not God, whatever.
To most people, "creationism" however is the literal interpretation of Genesis, that the world is less than 10,000 years old. That 46% of Americans believe that is terrifying.
Thought exercise and I'd love to hear your answer:
Let's say that the Bible said "the sky is red." Every day for your entire life, you go outside, look up, and see a blue sky. You ask your friends and neighbors and family what color sky they see when they look up and they all say blue. Later, someone comes up to you and asks you, "what color is the sky?" What do you say? Do you insist that it is red because the Bible says that it is, or do you defer to your own daily experiences and observations of the sky and say that it is blue?
I think we need to do away with the mindset that it is some how acceptable to entirely ignore science. People with absolute belief in something are the ones who commit atrocities
I thought Science was about finding absolute truths...
But these so called "truths" are always subject to re-evaluation if new evidence calls them into question. The same can rarely be said of religion
This belief blog really does not belong on a news website that discusses facts.
unless we are to discuss religion as a curious social phenomena of believing in irrational mythologies.
Religion is a parasitic meme infesting humanity.
there are newsworthy events in the religious sphere, no?
It never ceases to place me in horrified awe, to see the level of ignorance religion has bred in the US. It is the same terror people feel when they see images of the holocaust, it is utterly discussing, and yet you are held captive by the sheer immensity of the horror that challenges all understanding to even comprehend how terrible it is..
That is a good way of putting it.
You need to read about Stalin. He ran an atheist regime where he killed MORE PEOPLE THAN HITLER. But, don't get me wrong, I think religion is hilariously wrong anybody with too much zeal can be equally bad.
Oh you found a guy. Good for you! How about a reign of thousands of years of cruelty and torture beyond imagination and scope. Thats Christianity, folks.
You are aware that atheism is not a belief system. It falls into the category of not believing in the bogeyman. So Mr Stalin's actions have no bearing on any atheists. Your religion and the dogma that was used to reign crimes against humanity on everyone your people could encounter, is a different story.
@Godoflunaticscreation You are not reading what I wrote. It's hilarious.
I didn't see the humor. Sorry.
It's hilarious you keep prodding at me like I am Christian when I am obviously atheist, by my comment, which you are not reading. You are just as zealous as Christians and jumping to the wrong conclusions, like they do.
its not christianity its man you are angry with. its easy for you to take it out on God/Jesus when at the end of the day you are angry at a person. I am sorry you are angry. I hope you find your way.
Im zealous? Sure thing Mr model of piety. I realized you weren't atheist but commented anyway.
It is Christianity to blame. The things they did are condoned in the bible so don't give me that cop out.
According to Bill atheists love the internet....scrolls down to comments...LOL. In reality most people have a particular faith while on the internet where anyone can be anything, religion gets bashed. I feel bad for all these delusional imbeciles who think they are astronomically smarter simply because they reject religion. Get a life. For some people religion actually helps people to remember their past wrongs and find ways to earn redemption. Rejecting religion wont save the world..In fact Im pretty sure more people will resort to violence and murder as there is no fear of eternal hell after death. Just prison which sounds a lot better than hell.
You're right. Religion is good because it makes you feel good. Therefore, it's real.
That's cool that it helps some people. But is it true? Some of us care.
almost all prisoners believe in God. So how did they end up in prison?
The point of this topic is not an argument with the 32% of Americans who synthesize a belive in God with an understanding that evolution is God's mechanism for his 'creation'.
The point of this topic is that there are 46% of Americans who seem to believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old!
This is ludicrous.
Stop projecting, GATOR. You may need threats of eternal punishment in order to be a good person, but most people don't. By all means, believe whatever it takes to keep other people safe from you. At least that gives you an excuse to believe in something for which there is no proof.
For your statement on rejecting religion to be true religion has to be the only thing to keep people from violence. However, there is plenty of evidence that one can learn to respect his fellow citizens without religion. It's funny that for some people they can learn to uphold the same morals preached about in the Bible without the fear of eternal damnation. I think that speaks more for the people that need the crutch of religion to keep them being nice to your fellow man than for those that don't.
The difference between the Bible and Dianetics is that the Bible is older and has more followers. Nobody has seen Xenu, nobody has proof that Thetans don't exist, nobody can definitely prove that the Galactic Confederacy does not exist. All you need is faith that those exist and, bingo, religion. I don't begrudge anybody their faith if they want that as part of their life but those holy scriptures are *not* items to be tied to an axe handle and buried into people's skulls. I genuinely wish those of faith would understand that. I don't need you to save my soul because my Creator would not deal in those kinds of absolutes.
divine magic sounds more logical to you?
Please then consider this concerning proteins, that are essential to the structure and function of all living cells. What are the odds of one protein occurring at random ? It has been calculated as 10 113. Mathematicians has said that anything above 10 50 is impossible. For a protein to form requires that 20 specific amino acids to be in a precise order, but there is a catch, for all must be "left-handed" amino acids, no "right-handed" ones allowed.
Then factor in some 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes within a cell. What are the odds of obtaining all of these at random ? One chance in 10 40,000, a possibility that even British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle clearly recognized as impossible, with him once stating that this is "the same as the chance of throwing an uninterrupted sequence of 50,000 sixes with unbiased dice!” (The Intelligent Universe, F. Hoyle, 1983, pages 11-12, 17, 23)
So are we given credit of life to chance?
so divine magic sounds more logical to you? if i can't figure something out, i don't make up an answer.
Even if you were to prove evolution was wrong or that abiogenesis is impossible or nearly impossible, that does nothing to prove creationism.
So you think that a living cell just pops into existence all at once from a soup of nothing but base elements. Can you not see the flaw in that.
Proteins don't "occur at random." They evolve. That's the point. It's not called "randomness", it's called "evolution." Different things. One requires selection.
Chemical reactions are not random. Each element acts according to its structure. There is no randomness.
they've already shown in a laboratory setting that if you take base elements/compounds and electrify the soup, you get amino acids. so i'm not really sure what this guy is talking about.
I find it interesting that so many of the arguments about "evolution" are really about abiogenesis.
Evolution DOES NOT explain how life got started. If you want to believe God started life and then it evolved, according to his plan, go right ahead. This is a pragmatic and reasonable approach.
If you want to believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then I suggest you are deluding yourself.
to okyourecool: not sure what you're point is, but if you are implying that the proteins and all the complexity arose only as the result of a creator because they are so very complex, then you've completely missed what evolution is all about. You need to understand the evolution of more and more complexity, the immense amount of time, and this: the one thing anti-evolutionists never admit is that evolution IS NOT RANDOM. Mutations can be random, or they can be caused environmental factors. The issue is, proteins don't just APPEAR as fully formed in all their complexity. It may be more instructive to point out that all life's proteins, from single cells up to us, use 20 amino acids, and all of the life forms all follow the same genetic code to build the proteins. This is one of the most powerful arguments for the relatedness of all life. And one that creationists simply are dumbfounded by...they have no idea what to make of it other than useless " that's God's plan" kind of comments, which show a lack of true intellectual honesty.