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

midwest rail:
"If you're watching 'The Flintstones' as if it were a documentary, you're doing it wrong."

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.

SteveHeft:
"As someone who is a born again Christian, (senior) mechanical engineer in the technology industry, and a firsthand witness of the risen Christ, I just want to say that Bill Nye is on the right track. It is understandable that both sides seem to be entrenched in their own position, but did anyone ever think that both are correct, and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle?"

candyapple:
"I believe in God, I believe in creationism and evolution. I think that we all came from one man and one woman (God created), and I think that the human race has evolved from this paring. I am a Christian and I love science, learning about our world, and I appreciate the contribution that science has made. But my soul/spirit also need God's love."

Veronica13:
"FYI, 'Science Guy': One can believe in evolution and creation at the same time. They are not incongruent.

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.

splovengates:
"As a creationist, why would I want to debate an evolutionist? It (is) all a matter of FAITH. You either believe, and have faith in, what Christians call 'THE WORD OF GOD' or not. No debate. TRUTH IS TRUTH WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

The people who perished in the Great Flood, in the Bible, didn't believe it was going to rain until it was too late. Better start knocking on the door of the ark before it closes."

L:
"Creationism isn't even taught in public schools. Evolution is. So if you want your children to have Christian beliefs, then you really need to home-school them or find a good Christian school. Unfortunately not the other way around!

Interesting:
"It seems to me that evolution requires just as much faith as creationism. You're just putting your faith in our human powers of observation and believe that what we have thought up based on those observations is correct. We've got a few hundred years at best, of scientific observation, that has now told us that one giant, explosive, random event started a chain reaction that, over billions of years resulted in humans, and flowers, and viruses, and dinosaurs. The belief that the unfathomable intricacies of every living thing on our Earth formed themselves completely at random seems just as fantastical to me as believing in a creator."

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.

Greg:
"Thanks Bill ... but leave the teaching of my children to me. ..."

[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.

Tony Montana:

"Another example of CNN's mostly one-sided reporting. No wonder Fox is (No.) 1. Hopefully CNN will put on both sides in the future if for no other reason than their ratings. Parts of the Bible are dated and contains metaphors. ***SCIENCE IS SIMPLY AN OBSERVATION OF GOD'S CREATION.*** Humans did not make the solar system, billions of stars in billions of galaxies. 'ET' didn't make the universe either. Even if 'ET' did what made 'ET.' "

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.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Creationism

soundoff (2,811 Responses)
  1. Agnostic Atheism is Healthy for Kids and Grown-Ups Too!

    It's really best for all people including children to have an agnostic approach to god, and an atheistic approach to all religion. It keeps things simple for kids, and let's them be all that they can be. They just need to be taught that some things, like all religion, are just made up by salesmen and politicians from long ago; and that other things, like god, we really don't know a damn thing about.

    Atheists have strong minds, so you don't see them running and hiding their misdeeds within some religion (and by doing so, disserving society).

    So instead of praying to make-believe people, get a good cup of tea and go on and sit down and collect your damn thoughts. My goodness.

    mama kindless

    August 29, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • TR6

      Mild skepticism is the best way to consider everything. Even when you are dead certain, in fact it’s especially important to be a bit skeptical when you are dead certain

      August 29, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • Adam

      Here here! Well said good sir or madam.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
  2. Atheist Hunter

    http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=7415
    Evolution....HA!

    August 29, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Evolution has evidence and science predicts events in the natural world with the highest degree of accuracy of any method.
      Religion has no evidence and predicts nothing correctly in the natural world.

      The is round not flat, the earth circles the sun, not the sun circling the earth, there is no heaven in the cloud, there is no hell at the center of the earth, humans evolved and were not deigned, and most certainly religion's prediction of an afterlife will turnout to be incorrect just as all the other predictions have failed.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
  3. ScottCA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIMReUsxTt4
    When listening to Dawkins and Pinker, you cannot help but feel more intelligent afterward for having taken the time to listen.

    August 29, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
  4. MistahBurns

    Many statements from the religious posters seem to describe their God as the absolute truth. I have a hypothetical situation. Assuming prior to your death you state that your God is the absolute true, one and only God. Upon dying imagine that you rose to heaven only to find that there is another God in charge of heaven, on that you had in your lifetime denied. This God happily embraces you and says “you lived a righteous life, accept me and be welcomed to my kingdom.” Would accept this new God, thereby denying the absolute truth you lived by, or would you deny him and spend eternity in nothingness? When you truthfully answer this question ask yourself what portion of your belief in God is the result of your fear of death and the necessity to believe that you can exist forever.

    August 29, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • captain america

      Since you are not in this country ray no one here gives a sh it what you do. There's your sign

      August 29, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      "Since you are not in this country ray no one here gives a sh it what you do. There's your sign"

      Very intellectual response...

      August 29, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • Atheist Hunter

      MistahBurns..........just another dreamer.

      August 29, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      Please try not to speak for everyone captain america / truth be told / HeavenSent / ! / just sayin / etc. etc.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  5. RayinCanada

    Let's make a deal. You creationists promise not to pray in my school, and my atheist ass will promise not to think in your church.

    August 29, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Careful if you make that deal, they will try to raise their kids entirely in church safe from thought and ignorant just the way they like them. It is easier to abuse people when they are ignorant.

      August 29, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Atheist Hunter

      We welcome you to come to our church and think. Come any time! You might find something there worth thinking about!

      August 29, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • What IF

      AtheistHunter,

      "We welcome you to come to our church and think..."

      That's precisely what I did (for way too many years) and it's why I do not believe that stuff anymore.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • Cq

      Atheist Hunter
      Would your church invite an actual evolution scientist in to debunk all the creationist misinformation parishioners may have picked up? You know, in the spirit of "teaching the controversy". I mean, if Christians can call for religion to be brought into the science class, why not have science brought into the church, or Sunday school class? Fair is fair, right?

      August 29, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • ScottCA

      When Dawkins visited a evangelical church in the US the head priest tried to shoot him and his crew with a shoot gun, all of which was caught on tape.

      August 29, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
  6. scottwoodportfolio

    Wait, agreeing with Nye is religion-bashing? Maybe someone else should be doing the analysis . . .

    August 29, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • Atheus

      Didn't you know? There is a WAR ON CHRISTIANITY! Can't take any chances. Gotta lump 'em all together and let God sort 'em out.

      August 29, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • Lisa

      Well, it bashes some people's religious beliefs, just as Christian claims of being the only way to salvation bash other people's religious beliefs, yet you never see them apologizing for doing that, do you?

      August 29, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
  7. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things .

    August 29, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
    • TROLL ALERT

      Please don't feed it, but feel free to wait and watch it say I'm "trying to suppress the truth".

      August 29, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
    • truth be told

      Actual interpretation of the troll alert remarks
      I am terrified of prayer and what it stands for.

      August 29, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • TROLL ALERT

      Good Boy, have a biscuit.

      August 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Troll alert. – LOL, Well played sir. Well played indeed.

      August 29, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
  8. ScottCA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdBJL1c7xUI&feature=related

    August 29, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @ScottCA –

      Thanks Scott. Professor Pinker is a mensch.

      August 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
  9. Atheus

    Lol, "if ET did, what created ET?" If God created the universe what created God?

    August 29, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • ScottCA

      "The problem with the religious solution [for mysteries such as consciousness and moral judgments] was stated by Mencken when he wrote, 'Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.' For anyone with a persistent intellectual curiosity, religious explanations are not worth knowing because they pile equally baffling enigmas on top of the original ones. What gave God a mind, free will, knowledge, certainty about right and wrong? How does he infuse them into a universe that seems to run just fine according to physical laws? How does he get ghostly souls to interact with hard matter? And most perplexing of all, if the world unfolds according to a wise and merciful plan, why does it contain so much suffering? As the Yiddish expression says, If God lived on earth, people would break his window." – Steven Pinker, Harvard Psychology Professor

      August 29, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
  10. Reality

    Only for the new members of this blog:

    Are you part Neanderthal? Read below. (this is no joke)

    Besides the dinosaurs and other fossils in our evolutionary process:

    You might be part Neaderthal and for $99 actually find out:

    As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
    https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

    " DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

    "Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

    Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

    It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

    For your $99 and a DNA swab:

    "Included in the markers we will test for is a subset that scientists have recently determined to be from our hominin cousins, Neanderthals and the newly discovered Denisovans, who split from our lineage around 500,000 years ago. As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia. It seems that our ancestors met, leaving a small genetic trace of these ancient relatives in our DNA. With Geno 2.0, you will learn if you have any Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in your genome."

    August 29, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • ScottCA

      It has been suggested that Interbreeding with Neanderthals occurred and may be able to explain some features found in people of European.decent, but I have not encountered evidence strong enough to back this hypothesis yet.

      A study to determine if there in evidence in DNA would be interesting.

      August 29, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
  11. ScottCA

    "The supposedly immaterial soul, we now know, can be bisected with a knife, altered by chemicals, started or stopped by electricity, and extinguished by a sharp blow or by insufficient oxygen." --Steven Pinker (How the Mind Works)

    August 29, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
    • Lisa

      It can also be fooled by all of those things as well as optical illusions, slight-of-hand, and similar things. Remember when Peter Popoff was exposed as a fraud by James Randi? Well, Peter can still draw in enough of a crowd of suckers to make a pretty lucrative living which only proves that you can lead a believer to reason, but you can't make her think.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  12. guest-cancer scientist

    Want a palpable example of evolution? Cancer cells that survive a treatment are possitively selected for and end up making up a larger segment of the population of the subsequent tumors. These new tumors are now resistant to the first treatment. Essentially, cancer cell populations can "evolve" past an environmental threat and then thrive. So if our malignant cells that are dividing rapidly can do it within a lifetime (usually about 15-20 years) what do you think could happen with millions of years of evolution? Is Monkey (or protosimian) to Human that big of a leap?

    I rather not get into the whole "God" fight, I just want the naysayers to understand that evolution has not just been observed and studied on finches in the Galapagos (Darwin).

    August 29, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • mk045

      The Italian wall lizard is a fascinating example of evolution, including new features. Check this out. And if you don't like Wikipedia, then scroll to the bottom and follow the links to the original sources...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_wall_lizard

      August 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
    • BubbaGump

      yes, monkey to human would be a huge leap (are the differences not obvious beyond the physical characteristics?) but the real question that has not been answered is primordial soup to monkey...please explain that evolution

      August 29, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • Huebert

      @BubbaGump

      By "primordial soup to monkey" do you mean the transition from non-living components to living single celled organisms?

      August 29, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • BubbaGump

      the more i think about cancer cells surviving chemo, the more i think this is a horrible example of evolution...the cancer cells do not evolve, they adapt and become resistant to chemo...and cancer cells are a perfect example of out-of-control cell growth, which is not a good example of an organized, controlled growth that would provide a foundation for something evolving to a higher level of existence...and let's not forget that cancer cells are rogue cells that had a starting point; i.e., a healthy cell

      August 29, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
    • BubbaGump

      primordial soup to monkey = nothing to a monkey; the question being, where did it start?

      August 29, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
    • Atheus

      @BubbaGump Adaptation is a necessary step in the evolutionary process. If you don't adapt to your environment, you don't survive to pass on your genetic material.

      August 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • Huebert

      The theory of evolution only explains how life diversified from it's common ancestor. How life came about from nonliving matter is called abiogenesis and it is still a mystery.

      August 29, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • blogger formerly known as Who invited me?

      Bubbagump
      Why do you think there was a beginning, or an end? The very question is very likely invalid if you understand the very nature of existance. If M theory is correct and there are 11 dimensions as the math would indicate, then the question becomes invalid as soon as you understand that time is one of those dimensions and as such one can be at any point in time, or on any timeline or not even exist within the dimension of time, Since we percieve 4 dimensions with our limited perseptions, does not mean that we do not exist in others, and it should be possible to travel within and between those dimensions.

      The question of when is only relative to the observer, and if you understand the nature of dimensions, linear time as we percieve it is not the only characteristic of that particular dimension. Beginning or end ? it is entirely probable that there is no such thing.

      August 29, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      "primordial soup to monkey = nothing to a monkey; the question being, where did it start"

      Answer: we dont know...and a book written and edited by a bunch of humans certainly doesn't have the answers.

      August 29, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • guest-cancer scientist

      @Bubba gump
      "the cancer cells do not evolve, they adapt and become resistant to chemo...and cancer cells are a perfect example of out-of-control cell growth, which is not a good example of an organized, controlled growth that would provide a foundation for something evolving to a higher level of existence..."

      1. What makes you think that evolution needs to be "organized"? It's entirely chaotic!
      2. Humans are not more "highly evolved", we simply are having our time running the earth because we have killed just about anything that could compete with us. If we were so highly evolved how come a virus (smallpox?) could wipe us all out?
      Here's an example, you might think that humans, with our large frontal cortex are more evolved than say... sharks. However, sharks have not had to change very much to survive in their world, while we have had to evolve a new way to walk and opposible thumbs for tool making.

      Einstein had a great example with sponges if you'd prefer that one.
      http://bytesizebio.net/index.php/2010/02/12/highly-evolved/

      August 29, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • Cq

      There are many examples of evolution occurring today. All the "theorizing" that's being done is focused on how evolution happens, not if it does.

      http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

      August 29, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  13. Joe Rockbottom

    Teaching "creationism" as science is bad because it rejects the actual scientific method in which a person poses a question and then develops data to answer the question. The answer may be yes or no, but the important part is to gather the data that proves or disproves the question. That cannot be done with "creationism" because no question about it can be tested or answered. As the "creationists" say, it is all faith – follow a book writtne between 3000 and 2000 years ago and don't question it. Indeed, the whole point of religion is to NOT question the dogma. Therefore religion and science can NEVER mix. Just can't work. Those who profess religion AND accept science eventuallly have to reject one or the other. Most who do this reject the parts of religion that conflict with the science they know to be proven. If they don't then they eventualy can't do science because they start saying that anything they don't understand must be done by a god and so can't be studied. That is just intellecutaly lazy. In science it is perfectly acceptable to say you don't know how something works but you do continue to study it to find out. That can never be done with religion because the dogma is set and not to be questioned. All a religious person ever does is wonder why a god allows things to happen – and never knows the answer (because it is the wrong question and so cannot be answered!).

    August 29, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
  14. Joe Rockbottom

    Teaching kids "creationism" as science is just child abuse. Granted that most will grow out of belief in gods by the time they leave high school, or if slow, by the time they leave college or actualy grow up and become truely educated, it will still leave them in conflict with what their parents "taught" them (not really teaching since it is false – kind of like if you taught your kids that cartoons characters are real). As such parents who "teach" their kids creationism are really not suitable for parenting. Who knows what other nonsense they "teach" their kids and screw them up for life!!

    August 29, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • Sarah

      Atheism is abuse at every level.

      August 29, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Please elaborate Sarah.

      August 29, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • hal 9000

      Sarah wrote: "Atheism is abuse at every level."

      I'm sorry, Sarah, your characterization of atheism is incorrect and seems counterintuitive. Perhaps I can help if you let me know how you arrived at this falsehood, one for which you have provided no foundation.

      August 29, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • Atheus

      Self abuse, maybe...

      August 29, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      "Atheism is abuse at every level."

      And christianity is indoctrination of our youth.

      August 29, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • Lisa

      Sarah
      What if parents are teaching their kids that the Holocaust didn't really happen? Well, there's more actual evidence for evolution than for the Holocaust. By denying evolution you are basically denying history.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • Jeff Williams

      """By denying evolution you are basically denying history."""

      ...and biology, and chemistry, and botany, and paleontology, and geology, and common sense.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
  15. Joe Rockbottom

    "One can believe in evolution and creation at the same time. They are not incongruent."

    Oh, yes they are. Anyone trying to meld"creationism" and an evolutionary theory eventually begins filling in the expected gaps in scientific knowledge with a "god of the gaps." That is, whatever has not been explained by science is claimed by creationists as something a "God" did. That is essenitalloy saying "I don't understand ihow it could happen so it must have come about by magic." Not exactly a robust, or even honest, intellectual mindset!

    August 29, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
  16. kenny

    There are a lot of angry people on this web site. Anyway show me one thing that has been proven about evolution. People on this site are so so so so uninformed. They believe such a dumb theory that hasn't proven in how many years. Well at least since Darwin.

    August 29, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Plucky

      At a minimum, have you never even turned on the Discovery Channel?

      August 29, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Genetic makeup changes over successive generations at a rate that cannot necessarily be predicted. Go to talkorigins.org and at least get some education. You might also want to learn what a theory is in science before you say something stupid again.

      August 29, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • Evolution

      Where have you had your head buried? There is so much evidence for evolution that it is not even questionable. Evidence from EVERY BRANCH OF SCIENCE demonstrates that all life on earth is the result of evolution.

      People with your poor level of mentality should not even be allowed to vote in this country. You and your kind are holding this country back.

      August 29, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • ME II

      Cross-posted:
      Although, science doesn't deal in "proof", the evidence is abundant:
      Endogeneous RetroViruses (ERVs), Human Chromsome-2, fossils like Ho.mo Erectus, the protein Cytochorme-c, etc.

      August 29, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • Simon

      Simon sez: stop using your brain

      August 29, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • Lisa

      kenny
      Many species are changing even as we speak to better suit new environments, diverging from their parent species. Don't be afraid that the science is too difficult to follow. There are a number of books written that explain evolution in very easy to understand terms. Give it a try!

      August 29, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • Jeff Williams

      """People on this site are so so so so uninformed. They believe such a dumb theory that hasn't proven in how many years."""

      Kenny, to any of us who marvel at what we're learned through science, your comment shrieks i g n o r a n c e and – above all – IRONY.

      You know absolutely nothing about evolutionary science yet state confidently that there's nothing to it. That's pretty dang arrogant. You f o o l no one.

      How about this? Buy a subscription to a science magazine. I'd recommend Popular Science. READ it. Learn about our world. There's an overwhelming abundance of knowledge available for you. Give it a shot. You might just learn something new.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
  17. Clyde M

    @theDevolutionist:
    "Really? Belief in evolution and ability to solve engineering or other scientific problems are inextricably linked? "

    In a way, yes. It isn't that belief in evolution, per se, is linked to solving other problems, but it is the mindset that one can "select" which reality they believe in that is.

    The empirical evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It is also robust, reviewed, repeated, utilized, understood, constantly advancing, and has no credible flaws or contrary empirical evidences that undermine the theory in any significant (or really even insignificant) way. It is as tight a case as heliocentricism or atomic theory and better understood than many other perfectly valid, readily accepted scientific theories (like gravity). The evidence is gathered via the same stringent standards and techniques, reviewed by peers in the same manner, and openly shared and utilized by others in the field constantly. Evolution is valid, complete, regular science.

    YET...a select portion of people still *choose* to deny it...NOT based on empirical evidences, but based on a) personal religious beliefs and b) "logic" they do NOT apply to other scientific theories. They continue to ask already answered questions, posit statements about the theory that the theory doesn't even claim, and just willfully ignore whole swatch of evidence as if it didn't exist. For example, despite MANY "transitional" fossil examples (I think we have whale evolution up to like 40 intermediary species now), they will say, bold-faced, that there are no transitional fossils.

    They are selectively deciding which science is and isn't real and not based on scientific finidngs, either. Just what the WANT to be true. What they BELIEVE to be the case. Not what the evidence actually shows. And when you have people who can just up and decide to willingly ignore, misinterpret, or deny valid empirical evidences as part of their mindset, then yes, THAT trait, THAT mindset will limit their ability to be quality scientists and problem-solvers in other areas. This isn't really about evolution. It is about the willing ability to ignore valid empirical evidence in order to hang on to pre-conceived beliefs and biases.

    August 29, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Plucky

      It was well worth reading through your post Clyde.

      August 29, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • theDevolutionist

      Sentence 1 has nothing to do with the remainder of your post, which is a decent defense of your belief in evolution (though lacking relevant examples of empirical evidence).

      August 29, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  18. Atheism is when you only accept things that have evidence

    Theism requires a close-mindedness in the act of ignoring the lack of reasons to find something to be true. It also requires a selective application of that suspension so that the theist only believes those unsupported beliefs that he or she want to believe.

    August 29, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  19. Adam

    If you're arguing for #2 here, you clearly want your cake, and to eat it too, and to have it be no calories, and have it cure cavities, and have it obscure the fear of death in the depths of your mind.

    It does not work this way, I am sorry to tell you. Pick a side.

    August 29, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Eve

      Did yiou eat that apple I left on the nightstand?

      August 29, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Adam

      Did you pick a side?

      August 29, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • owl96

      Its not picking sides. Was God incapable of creating a Big Bang with the purpose of it leading to human kind? All scientific evidence points to evolution. Did God plant that evidence to test us? I do not think so. Its all there for us to discover and marvel at His works. If you dive into understanding physics, you may discover that God created time. For God, there are no 24 hour days. He created us, and all creation is for our us. It just was not done in 144 hours.

      August 29, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • Adam

      Thanks for the reply owl.

      I certainly could not say that God didn't make the universe exactly how it is, and explicable by all the laws of science, and then rendered himself and any evidence of his existence completely invisible to the senses of human beings. That is possible! It's just a completely worthless hypothesis. It isn't even a proper hypothesis!

      It is akin to saying that opposite poles of magnets attract because of all that we know about magnetism plus the fact that Quizbort the Elder is sitting in an underground bunker on Pluto and clapping his hands. That last part doesn't actually ADD anything to the explanation of the mechanics of what we're describing. It could be lopped off completely and our understanding is just as good. Why add on useless presumptive garbage? This is precisely the sort of backwards steps that Occam's Razor does away with so elegantly.

      And the most accurate, parsimonious account for how the universe works is SCIENCE. If you want to say it's SCIENCE+GOD, then I would ask you why? What does it add? What purpose does this footnote on understanding serve?

      All answers to these questions point to the fact that you're already carrying this thing called 'god' around inside your brain, and that you're rather attached to the idea that this thing matters, and you're making an effort to comport our understanding of the universe so that this thing still has a place in it.

      I think this is detrimental. It does not add anything to the conversation. It is merely blind conjecture, which, when attached to realms of REAL knowledge and understanding, muddles and defiles these realms. We had to EARN our understanding of science. We didn't know a lot of things, and now we know a lot more things, and that took effort and sacrifice, and it continues in this project we call civilization. Adding an asterisk (stating "...because and invisible and undetectable God made it possible") to the end of every sentence in every book ever written is clearly absurd. If we can do without it, then what useful reason do we have to add it?

      I will recall a story of the french mathematician Laplace, who had just presented Napoleon with his treatise on the system of the universe. Napoleon was told that nowhere did it mention God, and asked the author regarding this fact. Laplace replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis."

      August 29, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      owl96, please provide citation of your ridiculous statements.

      August 29, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
  20. niknak

    One of the posts in the article said a perent needs to take their kid out of public school and home school them.
    Please please please take your kids out of public school and home school them you fundies.
    I want all your kids to turn out like Tebow so when it comes to getting the few remaining good jobs, my kids will get them and not yours.

    August 29, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Really....

      what is a perent? and what does kids being home schooled or going to public school have to do with getting good jobs... believing in creation or evolution doesn't have anything to do with jobs unless employeers discriminate against people on their belief in creation or evolution.

      August 29, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • the_dude

      Teebow may be a dimwitted, creation believing, crappy quarterbacking moron, but I think he's doing ok outside of that.

      August 29, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Observer

      the_dude,

      Speaking of dimwitted morons, you spelled Tim Tebow's name wrong.

      August 29, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Advertisement
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.