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.

"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?"

"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."

"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.

"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."

"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!

"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.

"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. Rufus T. Firefly

    With every major professional scientific organization, public science educators, and nearly every professional biologist, paleontologists, geneticist, anthropologist, zoologist, geologist (on and on) coming right out and saying "It is shockingly misguided to accept creationist claims, and it is an outright embarrassment to our country," it is amazing how many people come scrambling forward to proudly proclaim "I'm one of those idiots! Over here! Over here!"

    August 29, 2012 at 11:32 pm |
    • clavin

      Rufus, belittling others doesn't make your argument correct. Louis Pasteur (creationist) was ridiculed for believing microrganisms were in the air, and "everyone" new he was wrong, lol. BTW, he disproved spontaneous generation, care to explain your faith statement about life from non-life? Didn't think so, lol. And could you be the first to answer my question below? Didn't think so.

      August 29, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Denial of evolution in this day and age is worthy of belittlement and ridicule. Creationism is not a radical new idea as with Pasteur, it is a tired old idea. It is a thoroughly discredited idea. The history of science is a history of discovering that things are not the result of magic.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:00 am |
    • Blane

      Believe in God and through His Son Jesus you will be saved.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:13 am |
    • tallulah13

      Saved from what? Reality?

      August 30, 2012 at 12:21 am |
    • Blane

      Saved from hell due to your wicked nature.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:25 am |
    • tallulah13

      Feel free to prove hell actually exists. Feel free to prove your god actually exists. And hey, while you're at it, prove that not believing in something for which there is no proof is "wicked."

      August 30, 2012 at 12:35 am |
    • Zeus


      Your going to be tortured in hades for all eternity, you wicked, pathetic excuse for a human.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:45 am |
    • Simran

      Actually Rufus, someone argued with me that Creationism should be taught because it is accepted by the majority – well, i guess we should start rewriting our textbooks based on Polls!!!
      What are we heading towards – An American Idol???

      August 30, 2012 at 12:48 am |
    • Jeff Williams

      """belittling others doesn't make your argument correct."""

      True, But the facts do. And these facts are available to everyone.

      At some point it has to be clear to rational, thinking humans that the faithful have no clue of what we are learning from science, and have no desire to know. Choosing to remain ignorant is grounds for derision. Sorry.

      August 30, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
  2. clavin

    oops, post below wasn't finished!!!

    You people are so closed minded sometimes, yes, Darwinian evolutionists... You don't get it. And sadly, rarely listen long enough to try and understand the argument. Real creationists DO BELIEVE in "change" which by definition IS "evolution". In fact, Edward Blyth (yes a creationist) helped develop the idea (I think he called it conservitism) before Darwin. Darwin had his book on his shelf. True, Creationists that don't understand (just like Darwinian Evolutionists) may say they deny it, but they really don't understand the issue! Change, YES it observable! Bill Nye don't tell us we don't believe in change, we do! The crux is, the TYPE of change! That is where you 'evolutionists' are clueless of science (sadly many Creationists too). Darwinian change tries to ADD NEW genetic information to the offspring over time via mutations, goo to you type. BUT, REAL observable science has NEVER shown this, and none of you can show ANY examples of that. Change (yes meaning evolution) WITHIN kinds of organisms IS observable science which we see all the time in offspring. You can shuffle the genetic information to the offspring (from the parents) FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS with mutations all day long but you will never get new information! In fact, offspring DNA is linear at BEST but in almost all case REDUCES genetic varation over time. Small changes going the WRONG way will never give dolphins echolocation. For ignorant people, think of it this way. If I had two movies, Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back it doesn't matter how many MILLIONS OF YEARS or Millions of copies I make I will NEVER have Return of the Jedi!!! I can mix, repeat, delete, the first 2 movies FOREVER but without NEW information you cannot get NEW scenes no matter how I manipulate it even by mutating the videos!!!! This is what we see in real observable science today...this just in...all organisms on this earth give birth to organisms within their kind... Surprise!!! Sure, those that are closed minded will resort to name calling, that is what happens when they can't give an example in real science in the present! And please don't give me the usual pathetic attempts such as superbugs becoming resistant (loss of info), 4 winged fruit flies (repeat info), etc. Watch the Darwinist call names, ignore or switch the topic, etc. It just irritates me how BOTH sides don't understand it and therefore just bash... And btw, I teach science in a public setting with a major in science and a masters. "Change" is REAL science, but lets be clear, NOT Darwinian types of change, which by the way is why we don't see half rodent/on its way to monkey type creatures or half pine tree/??? you fill in the plant mystery, lol

    August 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Read Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True". It is a comprehensive study of evolution with plenty of examples. It's a quick read and easy to understand, even for people such as yourself, who are confused about evolution.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:19 am |
    • Simran

      You may be a teacher of science, but I dont know how you mix Darwin with gentic variation. Darwin proposed NATURAL SELECTION as the mechanism of evolution.

      Darwin never came up with the idea of genetic change. He proposed natural selection. And it is incorrect to presume that he found out everything. But he did lead the way. So please stop with mixing Darwinian concept and genes. Darwin himself was plagued by his inability to understand inheritance, and was dissatisfied by his own theory of inheritance, pangenesis and blending inheritance, because blending suggested that variation should be halved each generation and would rapidly be lost

      August 30, 2012 at 12:19 am |
    • Simran

      IIn 1883, A. Weismann (1834-1914) proposed that the germ plasm was separate from (and thus immune to influences from) the soma. Indeed, this principle is reflected in the "Central Dogma" of molecular biology. The "central dogma" of the NeoDarwinian view is that evolution can only occur by genetic change.

      1. In 1865 (only 6 years after Darwin's Origin), in an Augustinian monastery in Brno, a Czech town, Gregor Mendel discovered some of the "rules" of diploid inheritance. Mendel's work was not widely known until it was rediscovered in the 1900s. Mendel demonstrated particulate inheritance, dispensing with the problems of blending inheritance. This mode of inheritance was initially used to argue against natural selection being a strong force: Since variants or mutants observed by early geneticists had discrete effects, and species differed discretely, species could have arisen by discrete, perhaps systemic changes (perhaps with a direction determined by orthogenesis or other mechanisms).

      1. With the "Evolutionary (or Modern) Synthesis", Darwin's theory became reconciled with the facts of genetics, especially with the facts that (1) acquired characters are not inherited and (2) continuous variation has the same Mendelian basis as discrete variation. The theoretical foundations for evolutionary genetics were laid down in 1908 independently be Hardy, Weinberg and Tschetverikov, and subsequently developed by R. A. Fisher (1890-1962) and J. B. S. Haldane (1892-1964) in England and Sewall Wright (1889-1988) in the US. Additional work (e.g., by J. Huxley, T. Dobzhansky) brought these and other fields (like paleontology) together.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:20 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Boy, I hope you aren't actually a science teacher. By the way, what school did you go to where you can major in "science?" What field is your Master's Degree in?

      August 30, 2012 at 12:26 am |
    • Simran

      Natural selection will only cause evolution if there is enough genetic variation in a population. Before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, one common hypothesis was blending inheritance. But with blending inheritance, genetic variance would be rapidly lost, making evolution by natural selection implausible. The Hardy-Weinberg principle provides the solution to how variation is maintained in a population with Mendelian inheritance. The frequencies of alleles (variations in a gene) will remain constant in the absence of selection, mutation, migration and genetic drift

      August 30, 2012 at 12:29 am |
    • Simran

      So, basically, Evolutionary science as it stands today rests on the following:
      1. Natural Selection
      2. Biased mutation
      3. Genetic Drift
      4. Genetic hitch-hiking
      5. Gene flow

      So, as you see my dear, it is unreasonable to make passing judgements and declare you a major in science (BTW which science? what field?). It is okay to ask questions, but make statements??? Now, it would be utterly stupid of me to make a comment that quantum physicists have no way of proving such and such things. I would get kicked outrightly.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:37 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      "You can shuffle the genetic information to the offspring (from the parents) FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS with mutations all day long but you will never get new information!"

      I'm pleased to report, Calvin, that I have surpassed God and nature. I wrote a program that utilized mutation and selection pressures to find the optimal shape for moving maximal area around a corner (if you've ever tried to move a large sofa in a small house you've an idea what this is about). Random mutation together with selection did lead to increasing information about the shape – populations that converged to an optimal shape.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:37 am |
    • tallulah13

      I missed the part about him being a science teacher. I got bogged down in the utter stupidity of his Star Wars scenario. If he is indeed a teacher, it certainly goes a long way toward explaining why U.S. student are ranked so low worldwide in the subjects of math and science.

      August 30, 2012 at 12:38 am |
    • Simran

      Yup, my brother teaches Photonics and not one of his 7 students is an American!!! Iranian, Chinese, Philipos, Indian....not one American

      August 30, 2012 at 12:52 am |
    • redzoa

      "Darwinian change tries to ADD NEW genetic information to the offspring over time via mutations, goo to you type. BUT, REAL observable science has NEVER shown this, and none of you can show ANY examples of that. "


      Why do these desperate apologists make claims when they haven't the slightest clue as to what they're talking about? Have they no shame for their willful ignorance? "They want to be teachers..., but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm." 1 Timothy 1:7. Particularly relevant here...

      August 30, 2012 at 1:04 am |
    • Bob Bales

      redzoa: "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste." In other words, no new genetic material was added.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:20 am |
    • Simran

      Evidence of genetic drift


      August 30, 2012 at 7:15 am |
    • Simran

      Evidence of gene flow


      August 30, 2012 at 7:28 am |
    • Simran

      Evidence for gene hitch-hiking


      August 30, 2012 at 7:36 am |
  3. MAUCH

    What Bill Nye is expressing here is not all that heretical at least if taken within a secular world. He is simply stating that when something has the evidence that evolution has and has the explanatory power to accurately define the world that evolution has then it would be perverse to deny the obvious. If we do not make it our obligation to at least listen to opinions of this sort how we will we guard against believing in that which ain't so?

    August 29, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
  4. clavin

    People are so closed minded sometimes, yes, Darwinian evolutionists... You don't get it. And sadly, rarely listen long enough to try and understand the argument. Real creationists DO BELIEVE in "change" which by definition IS "evolution". In fact, Edward Blyth (yes a creationist) helped develop the idea (I think he called it conservitism) before Darwin. Darwin had his book on his shelf. True, Creationists that don't understand (just like Darwinian Evolutionists) may say they deny it, but they really don't understand the issue! Change, YES it observable! Bill Nye don't tell us we don't believe in change, we do! The crux is, the TYPE of change! That is where you 'evolutionists' are clueless of science (sadly many Creationists too). Darwinian change tries to ADD NEW genetic information to the offspring over time via mutations, goo to you type. And one last thing before this is a book... Science means 'knowledge'. I'm tired of hearing some claim science is over here and religion is over there. Total ignorance on that label. No matter what you believe, it is the same science just different ways of interpreting it!

    August 29, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • clavin

      post not complete, see above a couple posts...

      August 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
    • MAUCH

      Science is about describing the world through the observation of evidence while religion and pseudoscience is about describing the world through the denial of evidence. I would like to be accomadating but that facts speak for themselves. Knowlege and belief are not compatible.

      August 29, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
    • clavin

      Nice mauch, no answer for my question... Predictable ignorance. And btw, look it up, naturalism or athiesm, whichever you are or both ARE religions protected by our government... So fit that with your 'belief' too.

      August 29, 2012 at 11:35 pm |
    • Bob Bales

      Mauch: Those who proclaim evolution make the following assertions, among others:

      Life arose spontaneously from non-life.

      Organism 'A' is the ancestor of organism 'B.' This implies that organism 'A' was capable of the mutations necessary to produce organism 'B.'

      That organisms 'A' and 'B' have similar DNA indicates that either one developed from the other or thst they developed from a common ancestor.

      These are beliefs, since we have no observations to show they are true.

      August 30, 2012 at 3:35 am |
    • *facepalm*

      Bob, not sure what reality you're living in, but the latter two can be demonstrated. That life arose from non-life covers the mechanism that started evolution, and is thus necessarily not part of the theory of evolution.


      August 30, 2012 at 3:53 am |
    • Q

      Hey Bob,

      Evolution has nothing at all to do with how life started.

      Common ancestry is a fact based on observations from several different scientific areas that have converged on the same answer. Independently! You look foolish when you build a straw man with letters such as A and B.

      You stated that scientific evidence is a belief. As if science and religion are on equal footing. One is based on nonbiased evidence from many sources. The other is demonstrably false and is offers nothing but bad philosophy.

      August 30, 2012 at 6:44 am |
  5. Emerald

    for the record i think everyone on this rock is stupid. does it really matter what you believe because in the end you will be 6 feet under or stuck in a jar over a fireplace. i think everyone in the comments needs to believe what you believe and shut the hell up. no one really cares what any of you all think. get over yourselves.

    August 29, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
    • Q

      You will change your mind when the masses decide to put every Emerald in jail because they all believe that people named Emerald are evil based on a 2 thousand year old book. OK that isn't likely. But lots of otherwise reasonable people hate other people for skin color, se.xu.al preference, or belief system or whatever else they were told is evil. They will pursue postions of power in the govt to descriminate against those who believe other things. Creation is public school is a single example.

      August 30, 2012 at 6:58 am |
  6. Rob

    Bill Nye is 100% correct. He did not bash religion – he promoted science. Oh, and it is interesting how so many people throw around the word atheist. There are plenty of people who believe in God and also believe and understand evolution. Right wing political pundits who live to divide this country have been trying to label anyone who does not think and vote like them atheists – whoever falls for that – it just dim witted.

    August 29, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • Kirk

      While I agree that you can believe in God and evolution at the same time, you cannot believe that God created life according to the Genesis account and evolution at the same time. Unfortunately perhaps, once you pull that particular belief out from under the house many people's confidence in the Bible's inerrancy crumbles and, since believing that the Bible is inerrant is one half of Christian circular thinking, removing it takes the legs out from believing in God as well. So, from my viewpoint, accepting evolution really does endanger people's faith, at least those who put all their spiritual eggs in the basket of biblical inerrancy.

      August 30, 2012 at 10:16 am |
  7. Cerulean

    This article and the majority of these comments show that faith in creationism or supporting the reality of evolution does not make any of you good at expressing yourself on the internets.

    August 29, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • YoozYerBrain

      That's "internetses"... you're welcome

      August 30, 2012 at 12:29 am |
  8. iamchristianman

    Who cares what any of you think. each to his own. I am a Christian, but each has free will except what the people take away from us. If you non-Christians are wrong, well I will never know where I am going, Bring marshmallows. If you are right the best you can hope for is instantly disappearing. Either way your way sucks. Hell or nothing. I hope you get what you want.

    August 29, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • Jesus Christ

      And yet, you are obviously bothered enough to voice your opinion in a very passive aggressive way. In Psychology we call people like you a master manipulator.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      It's nothing to do with wanting. I don't believe in an afterlife because there is no evidence. And you can dress up Pascal's wager whatever way you want, it's all BS.

      Also, creationism isn't "each to their own" when retards want it taught in public schools.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • Rob

      Ah, another fine example of a good Christian – taking to an internet comment board to express his anger and belittle anyone who does not think exactly the same way he does – so Christian of you. What a fine, fine example you set for others.... I'm sure everyone reading your post is thinking "golly, I ought to up my Christian game to be more like that guy ... he sounds so well grounded and happy ..." NOT

      August 29, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
    • The Big E

      Let’s stop using the word "Christian" so loosely. The largest "Christian" denomination – Catholicism – has endorsed evolution for decades. It is only a minority of literalists that insist the Bible trumps science.

      August 29, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      ahhhhhh....good ole pascals wager in action.

      August 30, 2012 at 6:52 am |
  9. Atheist Alckie

    I believe I'll have another drink.

    August 29, 2012 at 8:51 pm |
  10. Timothy

    Nye has a bachelor of science degree from Cornell ... that's it.

    August 29, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Yes, and he's designed for NASA and has wide experience in other scientific arenas. His point is that EVERYONE should understand the basics of evolution and how it is as sound a scientific theory as we have.

      August 29, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
    • Jesus Christ

      Ah...and the Pope got "what" degree "when?" Or any other religious leader TALKED TO GOD PERSONALLY to qualify them as leaders of a religion????

      August 29, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • Mailman

      An Ivy League school, we're not saying "Bergen Community College, that's it" or "Rutgers University, that's it" It's Cornell, you must be a Harvard graduate or something

      August 29, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
    • John

      By your condescending tone I'm assuming you must be an Oxford grad

      August 29, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
  11. onehippypoet

    A is for the awful things they say here
    T is for the terror that they spread
    H is for the horrors that they swear by
    E is for the ease with which they lie
    I is for the innocents they've bled
    S is for the Satan that they serve
    T is for the trillions that they've killed here
    ... a million murders no one did deserve
    Put them all together they spell, atheist
    The ones who make this world run red.

    August 29, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Wow. What a talent you are. I hope it's a comfort to you when you finally get tired of eating your own s.ht and take a rifle to a clock tower as you repeatedly chant the phrase " I am the Angel of Death" as you massacre a bunch of random people.

      August 29, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
    • Michael John Anthony

      What is "atheistpt"?

      August 29, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • Jesus Christ

      LOL! Yeah, you christians have done a great deal of good for the world in the past 2000 years. NOT!

      August 29, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • chris hitchens

      Hey dip stick it goes together BEFORE the last lines .... DUH
      unbelievable, thank God its on the other side.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
    • truth be told

      Atheists have murdered more people in the last 100 years than were killed in all previous centuries. look to that tower, best chances are it will be an atheist up there.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Ever heard of the Islamic conquests?

      August 29, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • Spawn of Satan

      @tbt. Name one killing in the name of atheism.

      August 29, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • truth be told

      I'll name an atheist murderer. Chairman Mao credited with murdering as many as 800 million of his countrymen. Did not know them personally just going on the historical record.

      August 29, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • Veritas

      onedippypoet. So this is the old canard about Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Hitler wasn't an atheist and none of them committed their atrocities in the name of atheism but in the name of power. Whereas religion was a huge factor in the crusades, inquisition, Northern Ireland, etc.
      And from your position how do you defend the USA involvement in Korea and Vietnam – that would make them anti-atheist wars wouldn't it?

      August 29, 2012 at 10:15 pm |
    • Spawn of Satan

      @tbt. But Mao didn't kill because he was an atheist. He did it because he was a totalitarian and wnated to change then retain the political order.

      August 29, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • hal 9000

      I'm sorry "truth be told", but after scanning all previous posts on this issue, I have been able to determine that you have lost this argument every other time. Hal 9000 is interested in learning additional information from a new game. Do you have another game that we may play?

      August 29, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • truth be told

      Took a moment to research actual names but these three are credited to atheist Joseph Stalin, Kirov, Kamenev and Zinoviev. I have used the conservative figure of Stalin murdering 24 million, fact is it is closer to 60 million almost 1/3 of the entire Russian population. A terrible and bloody atheist leader, what is even more troubling is that all atheist leaders share a history of mass murders.

      August 29, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      No. once again you refuse simple education. Stalin was outwardly Christian at various stages of his life. Pol Pot, a Buddhist, Hitler, a Christian. But, it's silly to define the characteristics of anyone, religious, atheist, or other, in terms of these few power crazy individuals in history. Rational people know not to make these kinds of silly as'sociations. What is more important is noticing when religious organizations have at various times in history engaged in murder, torture and various other forms of disenfranchisement of multi'tudes of people to meet their immediate agenda. And this continues with all religions.

      August 29, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
    • John

      Ugh, people like you make an embarrassment to religion, seriously. I am Catholic, I honestly don't believe in everything the bible says because who knows how many times it has been rewritten in the course of the years, it's inconsistent and ambiguous in many ways. I strongly believe in science and respect the scientific community for their long lasting efforts to advance our society. I respect Atheist's point of view, even though I don't share some of their ideas I strongly support the right to express your beliefs without vandalizing or diminishing another person's faith (And vice versa). I believe in God, I believe in the afterlife, I believe in evolution and that God put everything in place so that it happens. And I am a man of science.

      Lastly, if you are anti-science, you better live in a cave and walk everywhere because that car, that TV, that phone, those 21st century commodities were all engineered and perfected over the course of the years by hard working scientists and I don't believe they deserve that kind of disrespect. It was their curiosity that along with their hard work that made our present day world, if other people abused technology to destroy, don't blame the scientists, they just follow their curiosity.

      August 29, 2012 at 11:46 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Ah yes, @truth be told, the pathological liar (or is it compulsive, I can't tell) with his assertions that Chairman Mao killed one of every three people in the WORLD with his little red book.

      There were 2.5B people in the world in 1950. tbt claims Mao killed 800 million. You do the math!

      (tbt is only wrong by a factor of ten and that includes all the horrible famine deaths too!)

      August 29, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
  12. Grant


    Speaking of dimwitted morons, you spelled Tim Tebow's name wrong.
    Speaking of dim-witted morons, you failed to hyphenate dim-witted..... Just saying.

    August 29, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
  13. kenchandammit

    I believe there is an invisible man up in the sky and that he knows EVERYthing. I believe that he loves me sooo much that he will make burn for eternity if I look at my neighbors boobs, which he created. I KNOW that this is all true because someone told me when I was a little kid.

    August 29, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
  14. mama kindless

    I see this other story ti'tled "Massive sinkhole opens in southern Louisiana bayou". That's creationists' pride being swallowed. That junk had to go somewhere. my goodness.

    August 29, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
  15. jim

    What we should teach in school is not evolution or creationism. We should teach the scientific method and critical, non dogmatic thinking.
    Present all the evidence and all the facts on both sides of the "debate" and let people decide for themselves. But if the facts and mounds of evidence are TRULY presented accurately,. there will not be no creationists in short order.

    August 29, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • Anom

      It's very simple. Evolution does rely on the scientific method and critical, non dogmatic thinking while creationism does not.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Should we also teach the theory of intelligent falling, as there is clearly a debate in the scientific community between Newtonists and sane people who know we don't float away because of His Noodly Appendiges?

      August 29, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • redzoa

      The simple reason we cannot teach creation science or intelligent design in public school science classes is because both have been legally determined to be religious views. They have been weighed in the most impartial forum available and found to consist of only well-refuted theologically-based arguments of incredulity. From Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968, to Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, 2005 (with 8 other notable cases in between), creation science and intelligent design have repeatedly failed to make their case. To teach them in science classes would require openly refuting their claims and present an improper entanglement of state and religion. Nonetheless, creationism/ID is a valid topic for comparative religions or philosophy classes. But as they are not scientific concepts, they simply don't belong in a science class.

      August 30, 2012 at 1:17 am |
  16. Anon

    Welcome to 'MURICA the land of the brainwashed zombie Jew worshipers.

    August 29, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      Gillllllyy??? I mean HeavenSent / truth be told / Anon / Atheism is Not . . / just sayin / captain american / Bill Deacon, etc. etc.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
    • Anon

      Well to be exact, they're the majority.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
  17. Return of the Jam

    Let's not overlook one important fact: The downfall of scientific literacy in American correlates to Darwinian evolution becoming unquestionable dogma in the classroom.

    Darwinists are so obsessed with indoctrinating school children into their chance-deity worship that they've resorted to legal chicanery to keep critical thinking out of the classroom. The end result is that children have developed a severely diminished ability to think, which explains why scientific literacy has plummeted.

    So, thanks, Darwinists! Keep up the good work in keeping science stuck in 1859, you ideologically-driven charlatans.

    August 29, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • total fail

      fail troll fails dismally

      August 29, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
    • Lol

      science was stuck in 1859??

      .. so your computer was made in 1859? or is your medication – that were, based on Darwin's principles, tested on animals with 99% genetics similar to humans

      August 29, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • Just call me Lucifer

      So teaching evolution quells critical thinking? I assume you think your particular god has all the answers? Which god might that be?

      August 29, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • therealpeace2all

      @Return of the Jam

      " Let's not overlook one important fact: The downfall of scientific literacy in American correlates to Darwinian evolution becoming unquestionable dogma in the classroom. "

      This is a "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" fallacy. You are suggesting that somehow 'Darwinian' evolution somehow caused the slide of scientific literacy in the U.S. This kind of thinking is pure crazy.

      The sciences continue to 'evolve' and grow given new provable data and information.

      Creationism is a hypothesis. There is no 'science' behind claiming a 'belief' in God.



      Darwinists are so obsessed with indoctrinating school children into their chance-deity worship that they've resorted to legal chicanery to keep critical thinking out of the classroom. The end result is that children have developed a severely diminished ability to think, which explains why scientific literacy has plummeted.

      So, thanks, Darwinists! Keep up the good work in keeping science stuck in 1859, you ideologically-driven charlatans.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • therealpeace2all

      **Ooops... sorry, didn't delete rest of cut n' paste of -Return of the Jam's post at the end of mine.


      August 29, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • TR6

      “The downfall of scientific literacy in American correlates to Darwinian evolution becoming unquestionable dogma in the classroom”

      Yes, scientific literacy in America has hardly increased at all since 1882 and we owe theology so much for its enormous contributions to space science and digital electronics

      August 29, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • There are no gods and proof is everywhere

      @therealPeace2All –

      You keep doing that! 😯
      Stay thirsty my friend.

      August 30, 2012 at 7:33 am |
    • therealpeace2all

      @There are no gods and proof is everywhere

      A.K.A... "SUM DUDE" 😯 ... What's going on my friend !?!?!?! I thought it was you !

      Got your post on my blog... I will see if i can contact you... or... get with me on one of the threads so we can catch up.

      Looking forward to it ! 😀


      August 30, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
  18. galaxybeing

    i'm begining to think that cnn's project concerning
    this site was probably not such a great idea.
    this subject is just too deeply profound and sensitive
    for a lot of people.i know i said some things that were
    just plain confusing.i really meant well but in
    retrospect they were just day dreams that i should have
    kept to myself.i'm sorry if i aggrivated or insulted anyone.
    this place seems to bring out the worst in people.
    so many hurtful and insulting things were said.
    anyways i'm ahta here and not coming back,this
    blog is becoming poisonous,a medusa's head,a
    spiders web of immense complexity and size.
    a true gordion knot.
    best wishes

    August 29, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • There are no gods and proof is everywhere

      Oh, stop teasing us! But, just in case you really are leaving for good, I will celebrate! YAY!

      August 30, 2012 at 7:34 am |
  19. truth be told

    The great minds of our time...
    Captain Kangaroo
    Pee Wee Herman
    Bill Nye
    Buffalo Bob Smith :Take your children to Sunday School every week

    August 29, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • Kirk

      Why are you being so insulting? Is this part of your religious superority?

      August 29, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      the great idiots of our time:

      truth be told
      just sayin
      captain america
      Bill Deacon
      Atheism is Not Healthy . . .

      August 29, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      1) Self-righteous
      2) Willfully ignorant
      3) Religious superiority complex

      Basically that's about all it is.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
    • OTOH

      "The great minds of our time"

      Jim and Tammy Bakker
      Eddie Long
      Jerry Falwell
      Oral Roberts
      Benny Hinn
      Peter Popoff
      Marjoe Gortner: Keep your kids far, far away from these delusions and Christinsanity.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @OTOH – Ted Haggard

      @truth be trolled – PRISM 1234, Evangelical Christian

      The "US is a + nation" / "Atheism is ..." troll uses the handle "Evangelical Christian" (among others).

      August 29, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • Lol

      .. or,
      Trolling: the way christianity spread so much. You can't ask them to give up the oldest tool in their arsenal..

      August 29, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian


      Not so much trolling but more violence and oppression. That's the Christian way.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:50 pm |
  20. Return of the Jam

    So, just which brand of evolution should be taught to children?

    Should it be Darwin's argument-from-ignorance, whose formulation was based around the ignorance of the mid-19th century?

    Should it be the 20th century's Neo-Darwinian evolution, which was little more than a failed attempt at saving the aforementioned 19th-century argument-from-ignorance by tacking on ad hoc hypothesis after ad hoc hypothesis?

    That view has no compelling evidence in favor of it, and mountains of evidence against it, yet I'm willing to bet any amount of money that it's the position Bill Nye of campaigning for.

    Why do I believe that? It's simple: It's the view Bill Nye grew up with.

    Bill Nye is 56-years-old. He's formative years learning about biology were the early-to-mid 1970's, via textbooks that were written based on 1960's (and earlier) "science."

    What this means is that Bill Nye's understanding of evolution is based on outdated nonsense. If he could demonstrate that he's kept up with the peer-reviewed literature, I'd retract my statement, but everything I've seen him say on the subject says he has not. Everything I've seen Bill Nye spout off has exposed him as a troglodyte who still believes in Darwinian evolution. That's unforgivable ignorance, as it's proven dangerous time after time.

    If I'm wrong, if instead Bill Nye wants to teach 21st-century views of evolution, then I'm all for it.

    Teach children that life is nanotechnology, and that each cell is chock full of exquisite technology.

    Tell them that Darwin didn't predict this, and that many Darwinists actively deny it to this very day. This will not only teach them biology, but it will warn them about the dogmatism that can, and sadly, often does, exist within science. Bill Nye could be the poster boy for that dogmatism. "Bill Nye the Dogmatic Guy" does have a nice ring to it.

    Teach children that the essence of all of biology - the genetic code - is the most sophisticated programming language known to exist.

    Teach them that the only force operating within nature ever observed to produce such a code is the force known as intelligence.

    Teach them that some people reject this claim, but those people reject it based on ideology, not science. Those people want to force their blind faith in chancedunnit in the classroom, and are responsible for America's declining scientific literacy scores.

    Teach children about James A. Shapiro's directly observed, peer reviewed "Natural Genetic Engineering," which shows that life is designed to evolve. There's no randomness at play here, folks. It's all directed.

    Teach children about the fossil record, including the Cambrian explosion. Teach them that nearly every phylum ever known about appeared in the fossil record in a single layer of the geological column.

    Teach students that the fossil record following that explosion is one of stasis followed by emergence. There is no gradualism; no gradualistic evolving of one animal into another distinct animal. No, instead, animals remain unchanged, before suddenly disappearing from the fossil record, with no, distinct animals showing up in their place.

    Teach them that many scientists have tried to come up with explanations for how Darwin's theory explains this completely unexpected pattern, but that these scientists are committing the error of trying to fit the evidence around the theory, rather than fitting the theory around the evidence. Explain to them that this is BAD science, if it's science at all. Again, explain to them the dogmatism within science, and how it stunts progress.

    Here's the rub: While everything I've said above is true, those "defenders" of science, such as Bill Nye, hate it because it upsets the status quo. These people have a foolish arrogance where they defend science, yet take a dogmatic stance that fights progress. This view, more than any other, is the true threat to science. The biggest hindrance to scientific progress is the illusion of knowledge. Think you've solved a problem, and you stop looking for the solution. That's exactly the threat the "Darwin solved it all!" crowd brings with them.

    This notion that we can't question things will prevent progress, and it will turn off students.

    August 29, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
    • Kirk

      The actual, current science of evolution should be taught, as it is presently being taught in public schools across the land. What you're describing isn't actual evolution science. It isn't being taught in public schools. The only place it is being taught is in creationist texts, Christian schools and home schools. I know because this is where I was taught these misconceptions. Luckily, I chose to seek out the truth about evolution.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • total fail

      you used a lot of words to fail

      August 29, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • Scott

      My goodness but your head is shoved far up your ass. Darwinism? You have some interesting hallucinations as to what is and isn’t being taught in school. Though I must say your just as good as the best Mormons at obfuscating truth.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Return of the Jam

      Read Kirk's reply again, and then again, and then once more, and then again. Seriously, it's like you're asking what version of math is being taught in schools, the one that doesn't include zero, like the math of the early Greeks, or the one with all those letters and symbols that's called Algae-brought.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • Return of the Jam


      The brand of evolution that dominates textbooks is archaic nonsense. Instead of worrying about that archaic nonsense, we have people whining over creationism, which hasn't been prevalent in the classroom in 25 years.

      August 29, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
    • Just call me Lucifer

      You didn't breed did you?

      August 29, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • BoDacious01

      In no way is it inappropiate to teach the evolution of The Knowledge of Evolution.... In other words, why would a student of biology not want to know Darwin's work? That is completely absurd! The same goes for the Grandfather of Genetics Gregor Mendel.You are also incorrect in assuming that Darwin did not predict that a mechanism with a fundamental unit was responsible for traits being passed.... Shapiro is in no way against evolution. He is certainly a brilliant man in genetics and his writing on the evolution of novelties is a natural sequence that will come out of the emergent knowledge of evolutionary theory....

      Also, if you want to be technical "Teach them that the only force operating within nature ever observed to produce such a code is the force known as intelligence.".... Intellegence is not a Force in any physical sense....

      Further, using terms such as "technology", "nanotechnology", "programming language" to describe DNA (which is biological) is simply missleading and it makes it obvious that you are using this man as a man to substantiate your Intelligent Design views... A view that Mr. Shapiro distances himself from.

      Now, concerning "Science"... I wonder what science you have performed? How many peer-reviewed science papers have you read? Published? What experiments have you run? Have you designed an experiment? Have you tabulated data or run any statistics on that data? More importantly, have you turned a profit that is tied directly into your "scientific endeavor"?

      If you have then you will KNOW, that science is not under any threat. That is the false flag "motus operandi" of most creationist/intelligent design advocates

      August 29, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • Veritas

      Does Paul Weller know you're despoiling his name with this tripe?

      August 29, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    • Spawn of Satan

      Modern scientific texts are archaic? Compared to your bible? That idea alone is pure nonsense. As is the rest of your post. Are you on the Texas School Board per chance?
      Please explain why creationism with no evidence is correct and evolution with plenty of evidence is not?

      August 29, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
    • BoDacious01

      The Modfather?

      August 29, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
    • Michael John Anthony

      That's right, Jam. Science is just like religion. We follow it blindly nomatter how absurd its conclusions or how many times its predictions fall flat. When Darwin showed us The Way, The Truth and the Origin of Life we didn't bother to test his conclusions by gathering data because he wore a huge wig, and someone like that is bound to know what he is talking about. So great was our love for Him that we constructed churches just so that we could gather and sing songs about him and analyse his life in minute detail. But one day in the 1970s a group of skeptical theists who had devoted their lives to debunking bad science discovered Intelligent Design and turned our world upside down. These men were not bound by conventional techniques of requiring data to support their hypotheses, and they blew our minds with their radical ideas. It's true, we didn't want to listen. "It's just 19th Century pre-determinism with a techno-sounding wrapper," we cried, but freed from any rules whatsoever, the force of their arguments were too strong, and we felt shame. Every so often I think back to how much we believed in Charles Darwin our hero yet somehow in the back of our minds was the thought that maybe it was all a hoax designed to prop up an archaic establishment. Maybe the Geico gecco is the modern dinosaur predicted by Hanna-Barbera . It's not so hard to compress the Earth's history by a factor of nearly a million. After all, Winzip can do it. What other revolutionary ideas have you got for us, Jim? Surely this is the beginning of a new era. I haven't felt this optimistic since they arrested Galileo.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
    • clavin

      Good stuff!

      August 29, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
    • Simran

      @ Anthony,
      Seriously, do you actually mean what you wrote? Coz I just get confused when people write such stuff – I just give you the benefit of doubt that you meant this as sattire!!!

      Darwin was a pioneer in the field, no one worships him. And he himself was skeptical of his own concepts.
      Now the problem with these theist skepticals you talk about is that they began with the aim of debunking science and putting god in it. So you see they were not trying to find truth, they were just finding a way of proving what they believed. Intelligent design has not been accepted by anyone outside their group. Not bound by conventional techniques???? So exactly what techniques were they following? – Oh I heard that from someone, coz the Bible says so!!!

      August 30, 2012 at 1:07 am |
    • tallulah13

      The Jam? Like the band? What do your theistic ramblings have to do with The Jam? Does Paul Weller know you're stealing his band's name?

      August 30, 2012 at 1:25 am |
    • Michael John Anthony

      Well that's the point. The 6000-yearists are acting like the wounded minority when the fact is they used to be the majority and couldn't expunge the seed of truth. I've seen a few comments about Darwin the man, and even the suggestion of a deathbed retraction, but that's the thing about evidenced-based truth: a deathbed retraction does not speak to the evidence and could not have undone a life spent gathering evidence and creating a new field of study. Dawrin was not a prophet. He was simply the first to connect the dots and discover a new truth. Even if he had spend the rest of his life attempting to debunk his groundbreaking work, others would have taken up the torch of evolution precisely because science is not about hero worship but about the trail of evidence irrespective of the clout or charisma of its proponents or detractors. Jam is trying to attribute to science the very failings of cultishness that plague his dogmatic world view, and by doing so acknowledges the very parochialities and failings of the cult he was attempting to mask.

      August 30, 2012 at 1:29 am |
    • Kirk

      Return of the Jam
      Ah, so your beef is with the curriculum developers, textbook publishers and school board trustees who are not providing students with up to date texts, in your opinion. Some addressing to the basics and historical roots of evolution theory would be appropriate for high school, and you can't expect them to include material better suited to college students, can you?

      I don't know. It's been way over 25 years since I've looked at a high school science text. I was never asked to help with the grand kids' homework past grade school, and my one great grand kid isn't in school yet. Let's hope that texts are better when she gets older, eh?

      August 30, 2012 at 10:00 am |
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
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.