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. RapidOne

    The problem is: Republicans are idi0ts nowdays, AND they want to FORCE their IDI0CY on everyone else.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  2. otto

    "Tony Montana:"

    hahaha. Does anyone even read this stuff?

    August 28, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  3. Just call me Lucifer

    You want truth? Here's some for you.... 94% of the people in the good ol' USA pretend they believe in god/christ as an insurance policy. They don't pray, they don't share the "good news" with anyone, the don't read the Buy Bull, and the only time they go to church is for weddings and christenings. They say they believe just in case christ comes flying out of the sky on Pegasus and raptures up all the good little boys and girls who have properly brown-nosed his royal buttocks. Most people are actually reasonably intelligent, and will say what they feel they have to so you'll leave them alone. You all know this is fact. Trust me, I'm the devil.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      That is some truth I can get behind!

      August 28, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • Ian

      From one cynic to another.....keep up the eloquent writing. A lot of people forget there are many undesirable consequences to living here in "God's Creation," and they cherry pick all the great things about life, but forget about the struggle to reduce chaos and the pain that it brings. I of course, am not ruling out a creator, but one should take the idea of God's existence with a grain of salt. After all, no one alive really asked to be, and to say that someone is lucky to be alive is to assume that never being born is a horrible thing, as if anyone would even know the difference. Life is as much a blessing as it is a curse, and you truly have no such thing as karma to depend on......make life what you will, because no one is going to do it for you. Oh yeah, and good luck with that combusting iron thing you got going on........you know, be careful swinging that fiery sword.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
  4. God_is_Hindu

    I am proud that as a Hindu I belong to the only major religion in the world that does not claim to be the only true religion. I find it immensely congenial to be able to face my fellow human beings of other faiths without being burdened by the conviction that I am embarked upon a “true path” that they have missed."

    August 28, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • Huebert

      Note to self...Take a closer look at Hinduism.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
  5. Caiha

    Well of course he's going to be attacked by the ignorant. If they didn't attack him, they wouldn't be ignorant.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
  6. Freedom FROM Religion

    It needs to be "Smack a christian day" b/c they believe in ancient mythology as fact! what utter and hopelessly brainwashed fools they are. The thing I love about evolution is it is on going where their dogma falls flat on its face stuck in centuries long since past.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • Peteyroo

      I agree. Let's comb the bars and seedy taverns to scoop up good, hard-drinking Christians, then smack 'em upside the head. The value in this method is that their mothers and pastors will be with them, so we'll have quite a haul! Leave the Bibles on the bar where they serve as coasters–good ones, I might add, since they are thick and soak up lots of beer. The best time to do this is early Sunday morning before church while these folks are fortifying themselves, so they'll be able to sit through an hour of nonsense.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
  7. Peteyroo

    In all fairness, if Creationism is to be taught in schools, then Evolution should be preached from pulpits.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • Huebert

      Challenge accepted.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • Jeff Williams

      """then Evolution should be preached from pulpits."""

      By whom?

      August 28, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
  8. Javier Smith

    I wish basic cosmology classes were part of the basic education system for everyone. Everything we have observed tells us that the universe is 14.5 billion years old. We know that something happened 14.5 billion years ago and that all matter/energy were all at one point before spreading out. We can measure the background radiation or 'echo' of that bang. We can see red/blue shifting in galaxies to tell that they are moving apart from each other. Genetic mapping tells us that we did not evolve from one man one woman – we share DNA patterns with every creature on the planet. Geological evidence shows a timeline of increasingly complex creatures through the millenia, etc. etc. There are still many questions that we have not answered, such as what was there before the birth of the universe and what will become of this one? How did life begin on this planet? Is there life elsewhere in the universe? Applying scientific principles and observation will move us forward to finding those answers. Denying the truth behind such observations as some extremely religious folks want to do will hold us back as a nation and has a species.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Huebert

      Last I herd the estimated age of the universe had been revised form 14.5 billion years down to 13.7 billion years.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  9. conk

    “If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.” – Penn Jillette

    August 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  10. Sean

    To my knowledge, evolution is still a theory of origins, not fact. In order to become a law it needs to be observable and repeatable. Evolution as a theory has itself been evolving over the years. It is an interpretation of data taken from a bias, one that says there is no God. I am not debating the theology of this, I am debating the pure science of it. Since evolution has not been observed nor has it been repeated, it is still theory and should be treated as one possible theory of origins.

    One other thing...I have never encountered one evolutionistic theory that did not involve a term like "imagine". Even to the Big Bang, there is no unanimity on when, the cause, or substance...and there is no answer to what was before and how it got there...all it is is one big IMAGINE. Just saying...a theory is not law, no matter how you try to present it.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • birch please

      The origin has not been repeated in a lab. But evolving species has been showed many, many times.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • conk

      How about the "theory" of gravity? Is that repeatable?

      August 28, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The the millionth time:
      The Theory of Evolution comprises 5 laws.
      Theories do not graduate into laws.

      There are 5 laws in the Theory of Evolution.
      1) Evolution as such.
      This is the understanding that the world is not constant, nor recently created, nor cycling, but is changing; and that the types of enti.ties that live on it also change.
      2) Common descent
      This is the understanding that every group of living enti.ties that we know of on this planet descended from a common ancestor.
      3) Multiplication of species
      This is the understanding that species either split into or bud off other species, often through the geographical isolation of a founder species.
      4) Gradualism
      This is the understanding that changes take place through the gradual change of population rather than the sudden production of new individuals.
      5) Natural selection
      This is the understanding that individuals in every generation are different from one another, or, at least some of them are. In every generation some individuals survive and reproduce better than others. Their genes multiply.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • Just

      The difference between science and evolution is, evolution is just a theory, and everyone knows that. But it's a theory with sound scientific proof. The great thing about a theory is, it's open to dissection, new discovery, and change. That is something religion isn't, even without any proof, it's seen as a fact!

      August 28, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • Huebert

      Laws exist in math and philosophy, not science. In science their is nothing higher than a theory.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • buschwc

      Sean, they've observed bacterial and viral evolution in labs literally hundreds of times in repeatable experiments.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • 4sanity

      The Theory of Evolution is a not a theory but a THEORY. It is as factual as the Laws of Thermodynamics or Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It is concise, descriptive and predictive, has 200 years of observable scientific studies to back it and can be demonstrated in the lab and field. The evidence is SO OVERWHELMING that no serious scientist denies it. It forms the rational basis of all of modern biology and its practical derivatives including medicine and drug development.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • Sean

      Doc Vestibule...your statement about the five laws are not themselves laws, but assumptions. They are arrived at by an assumtive premise that cannot be proven in and of itself. Holding to evolution as a theory of origins that trumps all others as pure science is in and of itself faith. Anyone saying otherwise are themselves ignorant in the disciplines of science. Here, I am not saying one or the other...I am just saying that under the rules of pure science, evolution is not proven. It is just interpreted evidence made with basic assumptions.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • Sean

      Conk...gravity is a law of physics. Look it up.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • Clyde M

      "To my knowledge, evolution is still a theory of origins, not fact."
      1. It is not about origins, but how life changed over time and across generations after it started.The study into the origins of life is the field of abiogenesis.
      2. A theory, in scientific terms, is essentially considered factual for all practical intents and purposes. The mantle of "theory" is the highest form of acceptance an idea can achieve in science.
      3. It will never "become" fact. It will always be a theory, no matter how much evidence it has. Just like cell theory and the theory of gravity.

      "In order to become a law it needs to be observable and repeatable."
      Theories do not become laws. This is simply not how science works. Discreet, usually mathematical, statements of specific actions in specific conditions may, but laws are subservient to and support theories. Theories do not become laws.

      "Evolution as a theory has itself been evolving over the years."
      As ALL scientific theories do with the introduction of new evidence. The underlying claims and assumptions have rarely changed, however. Usually new mechanisms get added and timelines adjusted more than anything else.

      "It is an interpretation of data taken from a bias, one that says there is no God. I am not debating the theology of this, I am debating the pure science of it."
      Except that evolution says NOTHING about god and does NOT start with that bias or presumption. You HAVE infused theology, NOT science, by making that claim. Many scientists believe in both god AND evolution, like Ken Miller, biology professor, textbook author, and key trial for the teaching of evolution in the Dover trial...who is also a devout and practicing Catholic.

      "Since evolution has not been observed nor has it been repeated."
      Evolution has been observed many times. You are defaulting once more to "origins," which has not and is a separate field of study anyway.

      "One other thing...I have never encountered one evolutionistic theory that did not involve a term like "imagine"."
      That's your limitation, then. The pure science of the theory NEVER says to "imagine" anything, though many scientists speaking to a public not as well versed in science do use metaphor, analogy, and imagined scenarios to help people grasp the concept. Same as my preacher used to ask me to imagine moral scenarios not in the Bible to understand how to apply Biblical principles to them.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • Brummel

      Evolution has only not been observed by those who wish not to observe it. Besides all of the past evidence, a modern example can be found here:

      August 28, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • Clyde M

      @ Sean:
      "Conk...gravity is a law of physics. Look it up."

      Yes, there is a Law of Universal Gravitation that describes the measure of attractive force between objects of mass based on their masses and distance between them. This is a mathematical law that describes the strength of the force of gravity on those bodies.

      And that law supports and is evidence for the Theory of gravity, which is a larger, umbrella explanation of gravity itself (what it is, what form the force takes–wave or particle, why gravity has that specific strength and not some other, its role as a fundamental force of nature and how it interacts with other forces, etc). as I said above, laws support theories. The study of gravity IS the study of the THEORY of gravity, which IS supported by laws describing it's effects on objects.

      Just like evolution has various laws that are part of the theory and that support the overall explanation the theory posits.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
    • Jeff Williams

      Sean, it is clear you do not understand how science explains your world.

      I'm sorry, but you can not debate "pure science" from your position. It is impossible.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • Clyde M

      Sean, out of curiosity, you seem ready and willing to say that this thing is a scientific law or that thing isn't a scientific law or imply that theories some how grow up to become laws...what, exactly, is the extent and nature of your scientific training to make such pronouncements?

      August 28, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • Sean

      For Clyde M – I am a science teacher. That is my qualification. I have a degree in secondary education and mathematics. What are your qualifications for challenging?

      Truly disappointing to see the under-understanding of science displayed here. For everyone who says that evolution is observable now...it is certain that no transition forms have been found. That is the problem. Even what we think is evolution is merely mutations that, when left alone are retained within the species themselves. What we believe may be transitional forms are not.

      About the discussion regarding origins...that what the focus of Darwin's study...it was all about origins.

      Everyone has a bias...it just depends on what bias you are biased with. Some people approach evidence with the presumption there is a God and come to a differenct conclusion than the one who approaches the same evidence saying there is no God. What should happen in that case should be the pursuit of more evidence, not the bashing of the other side in a hateful manner. That is certainly not scholarly.

      One of my own teachers told me a long time ago to be sure to understand all sides of an argument (and my extension is even to the point to argue in FAVOR of the other side). By doing that, you understande the problem, the argument, and are more qualified to hold your own conclusions. For all who want to respond, your credibility rests with that. If you have not, you are not qualified to debate on the basis of science. That is just the teacher in me talking.

      August 29, 2012 at 9:21 am |
    • Clyde M

      Undergrad in neurobiology, masters in evolutionary, editor of scientific textbooks and articles for 15 years.

      If you are a science teacher, your understanding of the science and evidence involved is truly lacking. It is impossible to "understand" the other side when they continue to make disproven or willfully erroneous claims–such as "it is certain that no transition forms have been found." We have plenty of transitional forms in the fossil record. About 40 species in whale evolution alone. The archeopteryx is a prime and well-known example. You can also look at Australopithecus afarensis, Tiktaalik, Runcaria, Darwinius, or any of a hundred others. If you are looking for a "crocoduck," you won't find it, but I'm sure any qualified science teacher would know that and know why.

      The evidence has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there is or is not a god. Many, many Christians both believe in a god AND fully accept evolutionary theory based on its empirical evidence.

      August 29, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • Sean

      For Clyde M....disparaging someone is not good form. I never claimed your understanding of science to be lacking. That is just a bad tactic. If you are honest, what is in the fossil record are truly not transitional forms...even the archeoptryx. But you have made assumptions about me that I have not made about you. And that is also bad form. It truly is a bias that no amount of discussion will get around.

      The bottom line is that most of the assumptions, and yes, they are assumptions, that form the foundation of the evolutionary theory cannot be proven...or for that matter disproven. There is a large part of the evolutionary theory that is based on faith...the belief is what has not been seen. Until you are honest enough to accept that (which I have), you will not be able to have a truly balanced and honest discussion about evolution. There are many leaps in logic that you must take to form a cohesive theory. Even so...many unrelated events of chance must occur in close enough fashion for even that first spark of life to occur...and then everything else is based on chance. In nature where the laws of thermodynamics dictate that everything is descending into chaos, how do we rationalize the increasing order? You may have some enlightenment that explains that, but science just does not support that.

      August 29, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • Clyde M

      It is not bad form to call out the truth. Sentences like this: "In nature where the laws of thermodynamics dictate that everything is descending into chaos, how do we rationalize the increasing order?" are evidence that your understanding of science is lacking. Sorry. The laws of thermodynamics do not apply, especially the second which speaks–quite specifically I might add–only of CLOSED systems, of which the Earth is NOT. This is a creationist argument that is trotted out repeatedly despite being shown conclusively to be scientifically inaccurate many, many times. It is a sad little attempt to use big sciency words to impress other people who don't actually know what those words mean, what the laws state, or how to properly apply them. It is deceptive, dishonest, intellectually disingenuous, and flat-out, unequivocally, scientifically wrong.
      To someone who knows what the laws actually claim and how to apply them, it is as laughably ludicrous as claiming that airplanes are impossible because gravity pulls things together so planes wouldn't ever be able to take off. It is that level of misunderstanding and misapplication of scientific theory.

      As for the transitional fossils, the moving of the goal posts is what gets old. Science has shown fossils that have met every definition of "transitional" minus the absurd crockaduck ones, and every time it does, the definition of what const.itutes transitional changes. It's like you saying "what's between 1 and 10, I won't believe you until you show me!" So I show you the number 5. And you reply with "Yes, but what's between the 1 and 5? I won't believe you until you show me!" So i produce a 3. Then you say. "Obviously, but what's between 1 and 3?" So I show you a 2 and you say "yes, but what's between a 1 and a 2..." ad infinitum. It's old. It's dishonest. And if that's all you've got to defend your position I truly feel sorry for you. The fossil record is chocked full of transitional fossils (essentially ALL fossils are transitional anyway), and if you still don't accept that despite the evidence being in museums the world over, there's not much more I can say or do.

      August 29, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  11. Just

    To say you're a believer in both is total BS. That in itself speaks to the disregard for science and logic Christians have just to maintain their God's existence. Based on your bible, there's no freakin way this is possible within 6,000-10,000 years. As much as you hate to admit we're a divergent of some form of ape like specie, Atheists like myself are dumbfounded as to how you can believe in such BS from the bible.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  12. Dale R Evans

    The debate pitting evolution against creationism is a classic American example of polarized exaggeration whose principal objective is demeaning those who disagree. Take for example the narrow focus on "creationism." A few Christians and nearly all atheists, define creationism as believing the universe was created in a very short period of time, in a precisely described sequence of events. Neither the few Christians, nor the atheists, spent any time really thinking about the matter. If they had, they would have discovered the account of creation was written sometime in the century following the return of Israel's ruling class from exile in Babylon, i.e., 530 to 430 BC. The period of the monarchy, made famous by King David and Solomon, had ended. The people of Israel were now servants of Babylon in their own land, and had to redefine themselves to exist as a people under the domination by others. The redefinition was Judaism. The salient question was, "how could this have happened?" Was the Exodus a fraud? Was God just playing with them? They did not intend the outcome they experienced. How then did it happen? The sin that caused such a disaster had to originate way, way back, beyond conscious recollection. The original sin. The ignorance had to have taken root before conscious history. In other words, during creation. Did God intend for people to simply self-destruct? They Jewish thinkers rejected that explanation, and affirmed God intended beauty and order. The account of creation was affirmation that God created the universe with intent, beauty, and order. The story of Adam and Eve was their explanation of how humans corrupted God's intention. Their explanation was profound, beautiful, and has much to offer the modern world. As for evolution? That will have to wait for another post.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  13. Seriously though

    "Thank you Bill Nye to standing up against the toxic religious fairy tales that too many parents try to cram into their children's brains"


    August 28, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  14. OTOH

    If all of science and all of religion were to somehow be obliterated and we had to start over, science would eventually be reconstructed exactly as it is now; but religion would turn out all different.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      Very true. Proof that it is a creation of man.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
  15. Tam

    Just wondering - in the rest of the world, the non-Christian (rabidly fundamentalist) one - there is reincarnation, just being, just nothing, and a lot of other beliefs and non-beliefs. Most much older than Christianity and its teachings. Now what?

    August 28, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      Now what, what? Just because they are older they are more valid? Humans have created many fantasies, the least of which is Christianity. Your point, whatever it is you are trying to make, is moot.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  16. Papa

    Thank you Bill Nye to standing up against the toxic religious fairy tales that too many parents try to cram into their children's brains

    August 28, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      Yes. The sooner science, logic and reason dispel all fantasies, the better!!!!!

      August 28, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  17. Skippy

    You can't be seriously suggesting that there are "interesting and challenging questions" on both sides of this "argument!

    No, what we have here is the continuation of the happy-to-be-ignorant sub-set of the marginally sane knuckle-draggin paint chip eatin American people. Learnin' stuff hurts my haid!

    Open your minds! Read a friggin' book! Listen to someone SMARTER THAN YOU! There is a very good chance you will LEARN SOMETHING IMPORTANT!

    Please, please, please buy a clue or else we are all doomed! Frankly, you're holding the rest of us back!

    August 28, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
  18. holly

    Does it really matter how we got here? We're here. Why don't we use some of this energy arguing about something we will never agree on to finding ways to feed the hungry... house the poor.... stop the violence.

    August 28, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Pika

      Because if we still believed the world was flat.......you can answer the rest.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
  19. Ugh

    Anyone who would rather listen to a Priest than a Scientist needs a serious talking to. For a good chunk of your money, both will tell you which is the right way to think. The difference is, one will sleep with your children after you have dedicated too much time and effort to change you mind. Little Johnny will thank you for that in the form of a therapy bill that is about equal to tuition at YALE!

    August 28, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Skippy

      Nicely put...though I'd watch the scientist too nowadays.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Huebert

      a priest will sleep with your little boy. A scientist will sleep with your 18 year old daughter, and her hot friend.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
  20. Foxman

    This debate really starts with "facts" and "theories" (faith and evolution both being theories). Evolutionists start with certain assumptions (beliefs), then find the scientific facts they believe uphold their theory of millions of years. In the same way, young Earth creationists start with certain assumptions (beliefs), then find the facts they believe uphold their theory of thousands of years. All scientists must fight to look objectively at all the facts... not just the ones that back up their theories (or beliefs). Those who sincerely search out the truth will eventually find the truth.
    Stepping into creationists' shoes, I would say that Eric Marrapodi's article/blog displayed blatant antagonism toward all Christians by calling catagory #3, "Those who say science is STUPID and that young Earth creationism rules". From the quotes I saw, not one "creationist" said that science is "stupid". SERIOUSLY?! Historically, some of our greatest scientists were not just creationists, but "young-earth creationists". Journalists are supposed to be UNbiased... perhaps this doesn't apply to bloggers???

    August 28, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Faith is not a theory.
      Faith is the belief in a proposition despite the absence of evidence to support it.
      It is the willing cessation of rational inquiry.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • OrangeG

      Nonsense. You start with the incorrect and repeatedly discredited assumption that 'theory', as used in science, has the same status as your favorite little idea. You should look into it thoroughly, like a real scientist, before starting on what follows, where you redefine everything to suit your purposes. Please work on your intellectual standards. Nye has high intellectual standards and abundant credible evidence to back up his position. Not just unsubstantiated opinion.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • wlmmlr

      The idea that both creationism and evolution are on a par starting with a theory is completely false. Evolution is a legitimate theory because the initial idea came from scientific observation. It has since been tested in every imaginable way and has only been strengthened by the tests. Creationism has been tested and found wanting in every way that it can be tested scientifically. When a theory fails this badly in science it is discarded and science moves on to new theories. Time to move on, creationists.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • Jeff Williams

      """Evolutionists start with certain assumptions (beliefs), then find the scientific facts they believe uphold their theory of millions of years."""

      Sigh, yet another poser claiming to know something about science.

      Dude. Read. Seriously.


      Start with something simple, like a subscription to Popular Science. Educate yourself. Science is BIG. It explains your world.

      August 28, 2012 at 5:10 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
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.