Creationists hit back at Bill Nye with their own video
"The idea of deep time ... explains so much of the world around us," Bill Nye said in the viral video.
August 31st, 2012
04:34 PM ET

Creationists hit back at Bill Nye with their own video

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='EricCNNBelief']

(CNN) - Bill Nye's viral YouTube video pleading with parents not to teach their children to deny evolution has spawned an online life of its own, with prominent creationists hitting back against the popular TV host.

"Time is Nye for a Rebuttal," Ken Ham the CEO of Answers in Genesis writes on his website. Answers in Genesis is the Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Nye's criticism of creationism went viral earlier this week, after being posted last Thursday.

"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it," Nye says in his Big Think video, which has been viewed nearly 3 million times.

Ham writes that Nye is joining in with other evolutionists who say teaching children to deny evolution is a form of "child abuse." That idea comes in part from the atheist scientist Richard Dawkins, who in his book "The God Delusion" argues against exposing children to religion before they are old enough to fully understand it.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

"At AiG and the Creation Museum, we teach children and adults the truth concerning who they are in the Creator’s eyes — and where they came from," Ham writes. "We tell people that they do have purpose and meaning in life and that they were created for a purpose. "No, we are not just evolved animals as Nye believes; we are all made in the image of God."

Ham is the public face of a group that academics call Young Earth Creationists, though they prefer to be called Biblical Creationists. They believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis found in the Bible.

The Creation Museum also produced its own rebuttal video on YouTube that features two of their staff scientists, both Ph.Ds, David Menton and Georgia Purdom.

"[Nye] might be interested to know I also teach my young daughter about evolution and I know many Christian parents who do the same," Purdom says in the video. "Children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past."

For the past 30 years, one popular method for Creationists to advance their cause has been to make an equal-time argument,with Creationism taught alongside evolution. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.

In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school class rooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state.

A key point between most scientists and many creationists is the timing for the origin of the world.

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

Nye's argument falls in line with the vast majority of scientists, who date the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years old and the universe as 14.5 billion years old.

"The idea of deep time of billions of years explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, itself inconsistent," Nye says in his viral video.

Young Earth Creationists say the weeklong account of God creating the earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.

"Yes we see fossils and distant stars, but the history on how they got there really depends on our worldview," Purdom says in the museum's rebuttal. "Do we start with man's ideas, who wasn't here during man's supposed billions of years of earth history or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all?"

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Polling from Gallup has shown for the past 30 years that between 40-46% of the survey respondents believe in Creationism, that God created humans and the world in the past 10,000 years.

The most recent poll showed belief in atheistic evolution was on the rise at 16%, nearly double what it had been in previous years. The poll also found 32% of respondents believe in evolution guided by God.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Creationism • Science

soundoff (5,973 Responses)
  1. Lola

    Great, so now it's child abuse in America if you teach religion to your children.

    September 4, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • AverageJoe76

      Guess it would depend if that religion drives them crazy. Which happens.

      September 4, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • InelligentDesign

      We are being told to teach our children a theory that is based on non-existent numbers. The theory is based on mutations, yet no numbers are given for the number of bad vs good mutations.

      As an example, the following comes from a very popular biology textbook: "Occasionally, such a mutation leads to an improved protein... But much more often, such mutations are detrimental..." Keeping in mind that the entire theory is based upon mutations, then you would expect that the number of good and bad mutations would be expressed in factual numbers. But instead those values are expressed in the words "occasionally" and "much more often". How can an entire scientific theory be based on the words “occasionally” and “much more often”?

      So we have been given an edict to not teach not Creationism to our children and instead teach them a theory based on non-existent numbers.

      September 4, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers


      That sounds like a high school text book where the concept is being taught. Evolution is not based on high school text books.

      You want to teach "god did it".

      1. Prove there is a god.

      2. Prove it is the right god out of the thousands that have been postulated.

      3. People who believe "god did it" do not have a consensus of what god did or when god did it, their assertions are all over the map. You can teach your ID in religion class, not in science class because there is no "science" involved.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • InelligentDesign

      So where are these numbers kept and why are they such a secret?

      September 4, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Well first I think you should have to cite the book instead of just saying a biology book. But if you want to argue the science go ask the experts, you can do that at talkorgins.org.

      I love how ID proponents want it to be considered a "scientific theory" not because they have done any science but because they think disproving evolution somehow proves their claim correct. It doesn't. Even if you actually prove evolution completely false you are no closer to proving your case.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • InelligentDesign

      "Biology" Sixth Edition. Campbell and Reece

      I am still not seeing any numbers.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Perhaps you should check the 9th edition.

      Why would you be so invested in knowing or seeing specific numbers?

      September 4, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • InelligentDesign

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Do you have any numbers?

      Because everything is based on those numbers. If the number of bad mutations is 90% for example, that is a much larger value than what “much more often” would imply.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • Really-O?

      @InelligentDesign –

      The following is from the peer reviewed journal Genetics. The information is out there...read...learn.

      Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
      Genetics, Vol. 156, 297-304, September 2000, Copyright © 2000


      September 4, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      You want ID taken seriously with absolutely no science being done and yet you reject all of the scientific evidence from biology, palentology, genetics, geology, ect, ect. that all confirm evolution. I don't think if you were given "numbers" it would change your mind one bit. Evolution somehow threatens your religion and you are going to reject it on that basis alone.

      I am not an expert but I know where you can argue the science if you are so inclined. talkorgins.net.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • Spencer

      InelligentDesign: The actual numbers are irrelevant. I does not matter if there is a greater occurrence of non advantageous mutations over advantageous ones. Your argument is a red herring,

      September 4, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      correction .....talkorgins.org

      September 4, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • InelligentDesign


      Science is supposed to be based on measurable results. How can those numbers be irrelevant when the entire theory is based up mutations?

      Really-O. I will be reading thru what you posted but that is going to take while.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      InelligentDesign: Correct. Good post. People who are subject to propaganda conditioning put forth by this world never question these and other matters, then get mad at us when we choose to challenge man's knowledge.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      @IntelligentDesign said "Science is supposed to be based on measurable results."

      Exactly, and Intelligent design isn't based on measurable results and therefore it is not science.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • VoiceOf Truth


      How do you ascertain the quality of those "measurable results "? Yoiu say that expression without qualifying it. If I tell you something is 14 meters or inches long, you can measure that with a ruler. But to measure something a billion years old is impossible for scientists who only have lived few decades. All of those input factors you listed cannot be proven to be accurate because we can't turn back the clock to observe the results. So science has to rely on faith in an unproven methodology. So if that is your god, then so be it, I can respect that. But don't force your religion on me, and I will do likewise.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "But to measure something a billion years old is impossible for scientists who only have lived few decades."

      No it is not impossible. You claim it impossible becasue it threatens your religion. Using your logic we can't know how old a tree is unless someone was there when it was planted.

      If science is a religion then when you go to the doctor you are worshipping a false god and that makes baby Jesus cry.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
  2. Seukhma Bighjwan

    In my country Nye would already be dead. Because religion rocks!

    September 4, 2012 at 9:49 am |
    • truth be trolled

      I'm guessing that's because there are a lot of rocks in your country.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:59 am |

    US government consist of TERRORIST Obama alike lawyers(liars), Ron Paul alike doctors, and Gingrich alike family members of affected(brain disease) individuals who have helped pass CRIMINAL HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION bill against target whites. CRIME NO DIFFERENT FROM ROMNEY(Bush screwed US for Obama and now it's Romney's turn) WHOSE FATHER EXCELLED AFTER GM WAS DELIBERATELY BANKRUPT = AMERICA TODAY(soon to be success based on sabotage)! !!

    NOT THAT PEOPLE ARE SHIPPLE(just see my example per just how far they are THIS CRIMINALS willing to go in order to prove their multyculturalism/ ZIONISM / communism / liberalism = anarchism types of political agendas, but it is therefore hard for people to decide on eating from hand that have betrayed or sold them for so many times before), BUT OUR GOVERNMENTS ARE RAN BY GANGSTERS, CRIMINALS, AND FOREMOST ASSASSINS(70 years old news or genocide against whites worldwide is no longer appreciated news and will not be tolerated) !!!

    IOLENT WORLD PSYCHIATRY-PSYCHOLOGY REVEALED(mindless mkultra crimes performed by police and psychiatrists/psychologists)

    USE OF MKULTRA + HUNGER GAMES TODAY....STATE OF THE ART EXPLANATION ON MIND CONTROL TECHNIQUES(violent world of government psychiatry/psychology and police revealed..... learn exactly per how is done and by whom... use of psychology/psychiatry for mass population or ethnic cleansing as well as crimes to which we witness daily on behalf of Zionism/communism/liberalism). SELF ELECTED GOVERNMENTS GOING AS FAR AS USING PEDOPHILIA TO RESOLVE THEIR MINDLESS CRIMINAL POLITICAL ISSUES AGAINST TARGETED VICTIMS WHILE BLAIMING IT ALL ON CHURCH/RELIGION!!

    September 4, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • Primewonk

      I'm sorry, but I don't speak or understand batshit crazy nutter. Perhaps you could pop out and have someone who does, translate your post?

      September 4, 2012 at 9:10 am |
    • David


      September 4, 2012 at 9:25 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Duuuuuude.... chemtrails are totally gnarly.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • David

      Thank you pastor. I think you reflect the kind of thinking science has been battling since the earth was flat and the moon was a 'night light'.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:34 am |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      OTG: Sounds like you are in serious need of professional help from a mental health professional.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:43 am |
  4. person

    Eyewitness account? The bible is an eyewitness account? God, I hope I die in my sleep tonight. Reality is stupid.

    September 4, 2012 at 8:54 am |
    • person

      Ah, I see what I did there.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:55 am |
    • 2357

      What happens inside a laboratory, if not observation. What is a research paper, if not an account? do you really obtain all knowledge without relying on the accounts of others? How do you do THAT?

      September 4, 2012 at 9:24 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Observation during experimentation is meticulously doc/umented so that the experiment and its results are reproducible by others. In other words, what the scientist observed can be observed by everybody should they perform the experiment.
      Contrast this with a witness account of a one time instance, like receiving universal moral guidance from vocalizing incendiary foliage or psyhic translations of ancient text via magic rocks that nobody else can use.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:30 am |
    • 2357

      Great, there you've said it. Moses is a liar.
      How about research scientists, do they never falsify data or ignore the unsupportive ones?
      Copy Number Variation. Major structural pattern in genetic sequencing, huge amount of data, all swept used the rug as "irrelevant" by the best and brightest researchers. truth my a.s.s

      September 4, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
  5. Marc

    That's it. I don't want to live on this planet anymore!

    September 4, 2012 at 7:28 am |
  6. Marduk, Time Traveller with a very small rock

    The very small rock has informed me that it is waiting for the next major expansion of the solar mass. This will expand the diameter of the Sun out to somewhere near the orbit of Mars.

    As this is expected to take approximately 4 billion years or so, I am providing some light music to help pass the time.

    September 4, 2012 at 6:13 am |

    ' Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.
    Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
    Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."......Does this guy even know what time it is? There is a budget, dude! He doesn't sound like much of a prophet to me. Kenyan-born? HHmmm, can I see your passport?

    September 4, 2012 at 4:48 am |

      "If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.".....What the hey????!!!! Darwin started your swamp gas trek with his. 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'

      September 4, 2012 at 5:10 am |

      Youse guys are responsible for the 'racial conflicts?' Your boat has become very Leaky. Christians have always held to the bloodlines of Noah and his boat didn't sink. So lay off the margaritas, stop your personal attention for the local middle school girls' science class, and get out of your sandbox. Your days of big game hunting are also over. You're FIRED.

      September 4, 2012 at 5:20 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Mornin', Muddy: You mention Noah. Bronze age dude builds a boat big enough for all of the species of animals in the world? Gets two of each onto said boat, with sufficient food and water and facilities for sanitation and waste disposal for a year. And – um -what did the predators eat? Or did your god only send really, really, really fat predators, who needed to diet for a year? Or did god just miracle it all? And your god drowned all of the babies, and infants, and toddlers, and young children – who were far too young to sin. And he wiped out populations of people who, through no fault of their own, had never heard of the angry old coot. Nice guy. And about that water: I assume it was fresh water, because it was described as rain. That would have dropped the salinity of the oceans sufficiently to mess up the fish that need salt water, yet would have remain saline enough to wipe out fresh water fish. And then, okay, the rains end, all of the water goes – goes where? And of those remaining humans, within 100 years they have interbred sufficiently to create enough people to raise the pyramids.

      Muddy, it's stories like Noah (who was an incestuous pr!ck if you read your bible) that are so patently absurd, ridiculous, and impossible, that make believers such as you appear – well – very, very dim.

      September 4, 2012 at 7:24 am |
  8. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things .

    September 4, 2012 at 4:37 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Like the way the Manhattan skyline was changed after the 9/11 hijackers prayed for the success of their mission? Yeah, I guess prayer does change things.

      September 4, 2012 at 7:13 am |
    • hal 9000

      hal 9000
      I'm sorry "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but you assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book might help you overcome this problem:

      I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
      by the Alzheimer's Disease Society

      September 4, 2012 at 9:04 am |
    • YoozYerBrain

      @ Atheism
      To paraphrase;
      Prayer flies you into buildings.
      Science flies you to the moon.

      Or weren't you proud when the USA accomplished that? No you weren't because you are ANTI-AMERICAN. YOUR prayer is to destroy the USA. You are not a good person.

      September 4, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  9. know truth

    One last thing, I must admit many on here are very good at name calling, but I must conclu*de that those that do most likely have no good arguments or nothing productive to co*ntribute to the disc*ussion. Finally, once again, I remind everyone to define your terms. If by "evolution" some of you mean a change in gene frequency, then yes, that type of "evolution" is observed. However, "evolution", as is spo*on-fed down the throats of the unsuspecting general public (let's call them "independents" in the sense that they are unsure sometimes what to believe), is frequently understood as "molecules to man" evolution. That, of course, would require an increase of genetic information, something that is not observed and mutations haven't been shown capable of producing that increase. Mutations, though generally harmful or ne*utral, can sometimes be helpful (e.g. supergerms), but they have not been observed to cause and upward trend of ever increasing genetic information as required by "molecules to man" evolution. Supergerms, in fact, have less genetic information than the bacteria they came from.

    September 4, 2012 at 4:36 am |
    • Primewonk

      First provide the scientific definition for genetic information. And include the website you get it from.

      Then we'll talk.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:31 am |
  10. know truth

    Although many scientists agree that stellar evolution and biological evolution happened, they hold to this belief not based on what can be found out by using the scientific method, but rather because of their worldview (their initial belief). So, as I hope you see, an atheist worldview is, in fact, a religious belief to be lumped into all of the many, many other worldviews out there.

    I'm sure this makes you angry because, in your fantasy world, you don't have a worldview that is ultimately based on a belief. Yet, it is true. How ironic. Your worldview is ultimately religious because, although you might deny this, you do have a faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality, the very definition of "religious".

    Your ultimate reality is that there is no God and nothing would convince you that there is. In the end, each person needs to find the one worldview that is correct or the most correct. Never blindly accept anything. I would argue most people, no matter what their worldviews are, do not blindly hold to a belief. They have reasons, both emotional and rational ones, for coming to the conclusions they do. However, truth is out there. Seek and ye shall find. I'm sure you strongly disagree, and think you are more objective that those that don't hold to the majority position, but just remember that truth is not based on what the majority thinks.

    I expect you'll resort to your usual tactic of name calling. So, go ahead. "Release your anger" as Darth Vader said in one of the Star Wars movies. 🙂

    September 4, 2012 at 3:19 am |
    • Athy

      Nah, no name calling. You're mincing words. I believe in science and, since it doesn't involve any supreme being, magic or mythology, I don't consider it a religion. It's as simple as that. If you want to call it religion go ahead, it's just distorting the definition and, in the end, it doesn't change anything.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:48 am |
    • Damocles


      I kinda sorta disagree with what you are trying to say. Are you saying that a whole bunch of scientists just woke up one day and just shouted out STELLAR EVOLUTION!!!?? Science can be proven, tested and yes, that sometimes leads to new questions and sometimes it leads us to deadends. The problem that I see is that when religious belief reaches that deadend, people tend to keep banging into the wall with a joyful disregard to their own safety.

      Does science know everything? Of course not, nor do scientists make such a bold claim. Will science discover everything? Highly unlikely. I like to question, to push the limits of what we know, or think we know, but when your fallback posistion is 'my deity did it', then there are no more questions are there?

      September 4, 2012 at 4:04 am |
    • Primewonk

      " Although many scientists agree that stellar evolution and biological evolution happened, they hold to this belief not based on what can be found out by using the scientific method, but rather because of their worldview"

      This, of course, is simply yet another creationist lie. We observe stars being born. We observe stars in main sequence. We observ stars dying. We observe evolution. We observe speciation.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:38 am |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      Primewonk: You do recognize the difference between the life cycle of an object versus the idea that one kind of object can evolve into another? Just because a star is born and dies does not prove evolution. It just proves a life cycle.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
  11. know truth

    infidelio666 on page 52 wrote,,

    "Yes, some events cannot be repeated, but Science also deals with explanations that are consistent with current observable facts and they do very well at this with a significant level of agreement that comes from peer review.
    When you get ALL religions to have the same level of agreement, get back on your pulpit and proclaim man's unified belief in the consistency of what is agreed upon by the "word of God". When do you think you will be able to do this?"

    I have no need to wait until ALL religions come to the "same level of agreement" (as some scientists do to a degree through peer reviewed journals) before making a determination of what truth is or before sharing the truth with others. I would never expect people of different beliefs to agree because each religion has, at its very core, a particular worldview.

    Of course, scientists who are Christians use the scientific method all the time and accept truths discovered by using it. We love sciene (knowledge)! As an example, the inventor of the MRI is a creation scientist. He believes in the biblical account of creation. Though not in the majority, there are many other Bible believing scientists. The notion that all of science depends upon a "correct" view of evolution is ridiculous.

    September 4, 2012 at 3:15 am |
    • Athy

      Yeah, it's a shame. Even brilliant people can be so thoroughly bible soaked they can't see the truth. Just goes to show what early and thorough indoctrination of a child can do. It becomes almost like an instinct and very hard to escape. Some can do it, but others can't.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:39 am |
    • know truth

      Athy, you need to define your terms if anyone is to take you seriously. Obviously, you do not understand the limits of the scientific method. One last time, and please don't make me repeat this, the scientific method deals only with what is repeatable and observable by definition. It cannot "prove" in an empirical sense anything in the past. The past is not repeatable. At best, with origins science, we can make inferences about the past, but the past cannot be proven. Dating methods, etc. are based on many assumptions. They do not (can not) "prove" in an empirical sense what the age of the earth or universe is. Similarly, fossils and rock strata do not "prove" the age of the earth or evolution. What you have are objects/facts (e.g. rocks, fossils, etc.). Those things are what we observe. We see the same rocks, we see the same fossils. Determining how they got there is another matter. Each person, using his or her worldview, will interpret the facts differently and may ultimately come up with different conclusions, not based on the scientific method mind you, because the events that caused those rock strata and fossils to be formed happened in the past, which is outside the realm of pure, empirical science.

      I don't know if you went to college, but if you did, and your professors did not teach you the difference between observational science and historical/origins science, then indeed our educational system is lacking these days.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:47 am |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      Athy: What is truth?

      September 4, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
  12. Is anyone else having trouble posting?

    When I only type between 4 or 5 lines, my message won't post.

    September 4, 2012 at 2:00 am |
    • Huh?

      Have you checked the word filter list?

      September 4, 2012 at 2:13 am |
    • Let's see if this works

      I think I found out why. Note where I had to put a dash. Previously, it was rightly noted that the scientific method by definition is only applicable to the repeatable and observable. Historical books (including the Bible) and the scientific method are two means of determining truth. Both are tools, but when dealing with the past, we rely on historical docu-ments or make inferences based on our observatons. The scientific method cannot be used to prove any event in the past. Origins science is not the same as operational science (pure, empirical science). I can't stress that enough. People try to equate the two all the time.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:18 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      The bible is not a historical textbook. It's technically a literature compilation. Just try quoting the bible as a primary historical source in an ancient history thesis and see what kind of reception you get from the academic community.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:26 am |
    • Athy

      Horseshit. Science can prove a lot about what happened in the past. It relies on a lot more than historical documents. Fossils, radioactive decay, ice core samples, geological studies, the list goes on and on. Spend a little more time at your local library and a little less time groveling on your knees in church.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:59 am |
  13. Schottzz

    My view is none of us saw the world created. Scientific "facts" are in reality scientific theories. So in my opinion, it takes faith to believe in either Creationism or Evolution. So both should be taught. As for evolution, I choose not to believe in it. Nothing has evolved over time. Monkey and monkey mate and produce monkeys, etc. No human has developed a tail. As for the Big Bang, the thought is matter came together and "bang." But the law of thermodynamics says matter can't be created or destroyed. So where did it come from? And why do the planets spin one way and the moons spin another? If there was a bang after spinning in one motion, all should be spinning the same way. And why is the earth tilted exactly 21 1/2 degrees on the axis? I believe it's the way God designed it. But again that's my belief and evolution/big bang is one as well. Both in all honesty are religions.

    September 4, 2012 at 1:53 am |
    • tallulah13

      Evolution is generally undisputed. Generally, because science never says never and if a better solution is observed and docu.mented, evolution will be replaced. That is unlikely, since evolution has been observed many times. Anti-biotic resistant bacteria are just one example.

      On the other hand, there is no evidence at all to support creationism. Creationism makes as.sumptions that are not supported by the evidence. Creationism is simply an effort by fundamental christians to keep their religion relevant in a world that is increasingly educated.

      Giving the same weight to creationism as is given to evolution is a disservice to the children being taught. Teaching creationism is a science class is offensive to anyone who respects the truth.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:05 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Understanding scientific concepts doesn't require "faith" or "belief" of any sort. If you think it is, your science education was terrible and your fundamental religious upbringing broke your brain. You're living proof that exposing children to and controlling children with religious fundamentalism is a form of child abuse.

      If you like, I can give you scientific evidence of and explanations for the issues you raised on a point-by-point basis. Unfortunately for you, in order to understand those references, you'll need to read up on the scientific method and statistical analysis first. Most religious fundamentalists have no use for science or math until they end up in the hospital and need a CT scan to save their lives.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:09 am |
    • Athy

      What if the earth were tilted exactly 18.476 degrees? Would you still think god did it? How about 9.417 degrees? Or 4.000 degrees? Man, you are the perfect poster child for stupidity. Is your head pointed from continuously wearing the dunce cap at school?

      September 4, 2012 at 2:47 am |
    • Tortfeasor

      Nobody saw OJ kill his ex-wife, but we all know he did it

      September 4, 2012 at 4:53 am |
    • Primewonk

      " Scientific "facts" are in reality scientific theories"

      This shows that you don't know what a fact or theory is.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:43 am |
  14. ManOfUnderstandingAndTrueLogic

    Promoting lies, even if popular, is sin, not just mistakes. Science is only man's observation of what he/she sees, experiences, (get this) tries to experiment with. Evolution has NEVER been seen, or even proven in ANY way. It's a false religion, with followers that are false in logic, false in religion, and false in how they earn their paychecks.
    Keep propagating lies, then you will live a life that led many, yes many, people to continue to believe that b.s. about your own psychological following of a religion (called evolution) that is not true to the smallest extent.
    We all KNOW that animals are still animals, insects are insects, and people are people. For someone to pull fossils out of the ground and hypothesize some b.s. controversy just shows you how dumb people are that don't believe in God or follow religion. I'd rather have the whole world against me than be forced, or even persuaded to believe lies about why I (and the rest of the world) is here, what our purpose is, and how to worship God (BTW, the most important discovery on earth).
    Keep separating Christianity from our children, and you will be held responsible from the The Lord that you deny. I'm a man that has men as my ancestors, not apes, not some mud from a lava outbreak evolutionary lie.
    Grow up and get with the program: Chrisitanity is not just religion, it's a historical following that explains the creation of earth in this: True Science.
    BTW: I should care if you believe, but you have to make the choice to read the number one science book: the Bible (and see for yourself). Until then, you didn't even see or experience but one side, and that's NEVER true science.

    September 4, 2012 at 1:53 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Your screenname is pretty ironic considering how poorly you obviously grasp even the most basic of logical precepts.

      If you're joking, it's not funny. If you're serious, your science education was obviously non-existent.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:16 am |
    • tallulah13

      If you did even the tiniest amount of research, you would easily see that evolution has been observed many times. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are one example. Genetics support evolution. The fossil record supports evolution. On the other hand, there isn't a single shred of evidence to support the existence of any god.

      If you truly wish to be a man of understanding and true logic, you actually have to seek out the truth instead of making up your own.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:19 am |
    • Bizarre


      Are there any errors regarding science in The Bible?

      September 4, 2012 at 2:26 am |
    • Athy

      Evolution has, indeed, been observed in a number of instances. One can only observe it actually happening in species that have relatively short reproductive cycles, such as microbes and some insects. For longer reproductive cycles, such as is found in larger animals like humans, we must rely on fossils; evolution just takes too many generations to be observable over a reasonable period of time. All this is published information, available on line or in your local library. Just use your bible for some purpose other than scientific information. I have several copies in my bathroom for backup use in case I run short of a certain common hygenic item.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:29 am |
  15. ScottCA

    Dawkins teaching children evolution. This should be easy to understand for even republicans and religious people.

    September 4, 2012 at 1:43 am |
  16. ScottCA


    Thanks for trying to steal my name so childishly, but this is evolution actually explained.

    September 4, 2012 at 1:29 am |
  17. ScottCA

    I have always admired this lady's mind ever since reading her book. Her mind is so attractive!

    September 4, 2012 at 1:27 am |
  18. ScottCA

    Faith requires one to believe in something even in the absence of evidence and in the presence of evidence to the contrary. This suppression of the minds ability to logically reason leads to belief in untruths, that send ripples of distortion into every area of examination and study. This in turn leads to political and social decisions based in misinformation. The end result is the suffering of people.

    Examples are 9/11 bombings, The holding back of stem cell research that could save countless human lives, Christians legally fighting this year to teach over 1 million young girls in America that they must always be obedient to men, the eroding of child protection laws in America by Christians, for so called faith based healing alternatives that place children's health and safety at risk, burning of witches, the crusades, Nazi's thinking the Aryans were gods chosen to rule the world, etc etc, But who cares about history or facts in the real world when we have our imaginations and delusions about gods with no evidence of them existing.

    September 4, 2012 at 1:17 am |
    • ECassious2


      Faith does not require belief in the absence of evidence. Evidence of a creator is in fact evident if you open your mind to the possibility. It requires a willingness to not eleiminated God from the outset and to look at science and where it leads.....which is to intelligent design and therfore a creator. You must have more faith than I, my friend.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:39 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      There is no 'evidence of a creator'. You choose to believe there is one. That's all.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      There are many creation myths, so which creator is it?

      September 4, 2012 at 9:54 am |
    • sam stone

      Even if there is a creator, what leap of logic is necessary to transform it into a God?

      September 4, 2012 at 10:32 am |
  19. Why do atheists care what others believe?

    There is no ultimate purpose or meaning to life, right?

    September 4, 2012 at 1:07 am |
    • ScottCA

      We are able to define our purpose using our logical minds, unlike those who lack the mental capacity to rationally think for themselves and need a priest to tell them what to think.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:10 am |
    • ScottCA

      Evolution explained

      September 4, 2012 at 1:11 am |
    • mama kindless

      Because it's the "others" that try to make the kookiest damn laws or try to circ'umvent decent laws that are on the books.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:15 am |
    • ScottCA

      Sir, I present you your answer.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:16 am |
    • tallulah13

      Your question has been answered many times on this blog. You've probably asked this question before and have received those answers. However, here we go again.

      We care because religion influences society, many times in a negative way. Our lives probably have more meaning than those of believers, because we are not waiting to die to be happy. Our lives are probably more precious to us, because we know that this is the one life we will ever get.

      Believers are the people who have to attach artificial meaning to their lives. They are the ones who need an unsubstantiated immortality in order to be happy, good people. They are the ones desperately trying to abdicate responsibility for their own actions by pretending that the torture and murder of a guy who may or may not have lived takes their "sins" away. I guess my question to you is why do you try to force your beliefs on others when you are expecting to be rewarded after your death for simply saying you like god best?

      September 4, 2012 at 1:55 am |
  20. anchorite

    Creationists argument is only that they know they're right and if you say different their god will beat you up. No real Christian with a brain in his head in the US or Europe or even Africa takes Genesis literally. The only people who take it literally area the people who have no real faith so they have to just get angry and loud so people think they're Christian.

    September 4, 2012 at 12:56 am |
    • ECassious2


      Come on. You know that is not the only argument we have. You might not agree with our conclusions, but as someone who obviously knows a great deal about science, you obviosuly know the movement is about much more than "they know they're right and if you say different their god will beat you up". Also, there are in fact many real Christians who believe in the Genesis account of creation.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:44 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 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
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.