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. frespech

    Evolved DNA
    Your comment shows the lack of any understanding at all of the Bible, as with most in the Science community.
    Equating what some 40 authors wrote over a period of some 1500 years. Then try and equate that to a Harry Potter movie.
    Borders very much on the foolish and ignorant.

    September 5, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • Huebert

      Their is just as much evidence for the bible's accuracy as their is for Harry Potter's

      September 5, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Actually i prefer the Bible over Harry Potter when it comes to pure fiction writing. And as for the villains – Voldemort vs God – no contest! God is the biggest, baddest muthaf@@ker going! Murder! Mayhem! Genocide! Voldemort is a complete wuss compared to the God of the Bible.

      Good thing they're both fictional.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:44 am |
  2. Gary _ K

    I choose to disbelieve evolution not on religious grounds but because of the glaring inadequacies within evolution itself. For one the same base elements, molecules, atoms etc are still here today as they were supposedly in the beginning of time therefore IF Evolution is the factual way that all life got here then that process would be still occurring today before our eyes for us to see and test and observe. We would see these most basic forms moving from most basic to more complex and this would continue as long as there was the basic elements and a beneficial atmosphere/environment yet the process isn't happening. We are to somehow accept that this unintelligent, non-drive, non-directed, process just stopped somehow knowing that it had achieved all these life forms therefore no additional evolution is needed from basic to more advanced life forms.

    Today we have scientist looking for the "missing link" fossils and what I'm saying is if evolution was true then you would have living, incremental transcending creatures alive and evolving today before our eyes between every different species. You would have all levels of incremental change say from monkey to man (1% monkey 99% man and 33% monkey 67% human) and all other species transitions yet we don't see that. Again somehow science has to to just accept that this transition between species happened and then stopped once it was done and perfected yet today we still have the origin of the transition and the ending of the transition yet no incremental examples. That's just one problem with evolution.

    Wake up you are being deceived and led down a primrose path. Evolution is the ONLY explanation that those who choose not to believe in a God or Intelligent source have to explain how things got here and it totally relies upon absolute gullibility of the listener. You are to accept it because someone smarter than you says it is true yet when you seek proof and replication of the process that cannot be supplied so you just have to take their word for it and if you don't then you are just deranged or stupid. Note that when a person that believes evolution is confronted with an alternate scenario they don't attack or prove the alternate scenario false rather they attack you, the person that believes in the alternate scenario. They place themselves above anyone that believes otherwise yet they honestly have no first hand proof themselves of what they believe they just accept what was taught to them as fact, undeniable fact even though they cannot explain the prime source of life and where it came from and how it happened to come from non-life.

    September 5, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • Huebert


      If you can come up with a better theory for the diversification of life on this planet please do so. Get your paper published and collect your Nobel Prize.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Evolution is observed in laboratories every single day.
      While it is possible for us to directly observe evolutionary changes in creatures with short life spans like bacteria, it just isn't possible to directly watch 40,000 generations of more complex creatures.
      Transitional fossils do exist in abundance.
      Tiktaalik is a great one to start with as an example of how life adapted to terrestrial as opposed to aquatic environments.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • BRC

      You choose not to believe because you have a profound and fundamental lack of understanding of biology, evolution, adn science in general. Almost nothing you posted was accurate. Quick list- 1) base elements will never evolve, that's impossible and has NOTHING to do with evolution 2) Evolution involves survivability, not complexity. In many cases the simplest forms is the most resilient, so it would NOT in fact trend to become more complex 3) We can observe evolution in humans in even just the last few thousand years 3) There is no reason for transitional forms to remain present, as they are not as survivable as the forms they eventually transitioned into 4) The fossil record won't tell you everything, there are many changes (in breeding process, and anything involving an organisms soft tissue) that doesn't transfer well to fossils.

      Now, if you care to present another option, and actually provide evidence, people might listen. But remember, the bible isn't evidence; and even if evolution was "proven wrong" (it's not, much the opposite in fact), that doesn't prove any one religion's origin theory correct, it just makes them all "possible". You'd still need to provide evidence to support your myth of choice.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Gary_K – have you actually looked at the mountains of scientific evidence supporting the theory that all life evolved from a single source? That evolution is an orgoing process? As as for your comment that evolution relies on the gullibility of those less intelligent, could you please provide your detailed, comprehensive description of how it is that you are communicating, in almost real time, with people around the world. Now, your explanation will have to cover such topics as the creation and distribution of electricity, the development of computers, co-operation between political systems, exactly how the Internet works. because, clearly, you would never rely on your computer to post your drivel, unless you knew how it all worked. Just as people who do not have intimate scientific knowledge of evolution would be idiots to rely on the thousands of independent scientists around the world who are in full agreement that evolution is the best theory for explaining the wide range of life on earth.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • 2357

      I agree with you GaryK.
      Forget the laboratories. Landfills, sewers, hot springs, and superfund sites ought to be *abundant* sources of new species of microbes. Not much to brag about there though. It won't get you a date, Darwin.

      September 5, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Well, 23 whatever, maybe you should set up a lab near one of them and stay there to observe what happens over the next million years.

      September 5, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • Huebert


      New microbes are being discovered all the time in jungles and waste dumps. Recently a radio-synthetic fungus was found growing inside nuclear reactors. Evolution is occurring constantly.

      September 5, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • TedN42


      Where to even begin? You systematically try to confuse and miss the main point of arguments with your ridiculous assumptions that your entire statement is rendered moot from sheer ignorance. Gary_K is not questioning science in general just evolution and it's evidences or lack there of. But to your little mind that's the equivalent of trying to disprove all of science and technology. You are the embodiment of a non sequitor. Look it up

      September 5, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Teddy, I'd look it up except you spelled it incorrectly. It's non sequitur.

      So much for your smarts.

      September 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • 2357

      The best scientists in genomics are trying to understand the fundamental principles for the design of life, so that we can redesign it – in the way an intelligent designer would have done in the first place. Random mutations are so last century!

      September 5, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
    • TedN42

      Tommy, that's great, you dismiss someone's argument and meaning because of a typo? If that is what you call smarts you better keep studying. What you just engaged in is also called ad hominem. Look it up. It's what people like you engage in when you don't have anything intelligent to say. Which from your previous posts I've read, is quite often.

      September 5, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
  3. Apologist


    It appears that your logical fallacy of appealing to authority has two fundamental problems, excluding the fact that it is a logical fallacy of course. First, your statement about the Oxford dictionary defining the English language is absolute nonsense. No linguist worth their salt would ever agree to that statement. There is no one dictionary that defines the English language. Secondly the definitions that you show from the Oxford dictionary are not used by your friend Steven Pinker who makes up his own definition of what faith is. I cannot find Pinker's definition of faith in any dictionary. It would seem that your delusional thinking can't even use semantics to hide your lack of thinking logically.

    September 5, 2012 at 10:04 am |
  4. 2357

    When you find yourself trapped in the calamity, that is God initiating his dealings with you. You have been blessed if suffering is mere observation.

    September 5, 2012 at 9:42 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      So merely OBSERVING my children being tortured, r-aped, killed, and eaten by a crazed lunatic who then accepts jesus as his saviour, and who gets to dwell in paradise forever, is a blessing? If that's the case, please tell your god, from me, that he can go f@@k himself.

      September 5, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      2357 – the god you describe is a callous, immoral, murdering monster. Full Stop. Calamity is how your god starts a dialogue? The use of fear, of this big, powerful boogeyman in the sky may have worked 2000 years ago, but it doesn't work today. Perhaps you should grow up, and leave your childhood fears behind you.

      September 5, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Read any good Edmund Wells books lately?

      September 5, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ Doc – A Sale of Two Ti-tties is one (or perhaps two) of my favorites

      September 5, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I just finished 'The Amazing Adventures of Captain Gladys Stoat-Pamphlet and her Intrepid Spaniel Stig among the Giant Pygmies of Corsica'.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Damn! My church just banned that one. No talking animals that aren't snakes was the explanation.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • niknak

      I see you are still off your meds.
      Do you really try to sound like a fool or are you just trying to be funny?
      I know you really really really want your imaginary friend to exist, but it doesn't.
      And it is getting creepy listening to your drivel.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • 2357

      No one is exempt from suffering, Christians especially. Just look at the Apostles, and the first churches in Jerusalem and abroad. Great calamity, much suffering. Suffering is the means by which God communicates to the world. Its a small taste of how he feels about sin.

      September 5, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • old ben

      2357 wrote: "No one is exempt from suffering, Christians especially. Just look at the Apostles, . ."

      Yup, those early church salesmen sure had to come up with a good one to justify why some things just don't occur naturally, and to justify why their make-believe god doesn't protect humans who are unable to defend themselves from other humans.

      September 5, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ 2357 – you said, "Suffering is the means by which God communicates to the world. Its a small taste of how he feels about sin."

      So, when an infant has cancer, or some other disease, which causes enormous pain, and the baby – who has not "sinned", whatever that's supposed to mean, suffers horribly, that's your god communicating with the baby, giving the baby a warning? And when this baby's mother is r-aped and killed, in front of the same baby, a year later, when he or she is 2, and that infant starves to death lying beside the moldering corpse of its mother, suffering even more now because the infant has some dim idea of what's going on, that' s your god having a chat with the kid, saying "you better be good'?.

      2357, I've said it before: your god is a horrible, immoral monster. Very good thing it doesn't exist

      September 5, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
  5. frespech

    The Bible describes God as an abundance of Dynamic Energy. Perhaps you 7% could contemplate that for a moment.
    We cannot even begin to imagine the makeup of God. So no science will never have it's proof of the existence of God until the hour already chosen by God is upon us.

    September 5, 2012 at 9:09 am |
    • Huebert

      So you are going with the old "God is real and i don't care what you say" defense.

      September 5, 2012 at 9:13 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Didn't you say that you side with the 97% in an earlier post?
      I see you've downgraded that to 93%.
      So your argument here is that God is maaaaaaagic and totally undetectable, unless He turns off his cloaking device long enough to part the seas, communicate via incendiary foliage, or torture an innocent man in order to win a bet.

      September 5, 2012 at 9:15 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Please quote the bible verse that describes God as "an abundance of Dynamic Energy."

      September 5, 2012 at 9:17 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      The Lord of the Rings describes Sauron as a great unblinking eye.
      Spiderman describes Peter Parker as a troubled teen with a secret ident-ity.
      Clifford describes Clifford as a giant red dog.

      Just because a book contains a description of something, it doesn't make that something true, or do you not understand the concept of fiction?

      September 5, 2012 at 9:18 am |
    • Horus

      So you have any clue how many different "descriptions" of "gods" there are? Whose to say that the Ancient civilizations that worshiped the sun were wrong? Heck, based on modern science we are formed of elements created when stars die, so they were closer to being right than the Christian version......

      September 5, 2012 at 9:24 am |
    • sam stone

      "The Bible describes God as an abundance of Dynamic Energy....We cannot even begin to imagine the makeup of God."

      We cannot begin to imagine the makeup of god, but the people who wrote, translated and edited the bible could?

      September 5, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Gary _ K

      In truth God, as we know the concept of God, is undefinable and so advanced and beyond us that we cannot conceive of just who and what God is and that is how it should be. I would not want a God that would be capable of being manipulated and understood by the creation. When I think about God I see God as Spirit existing and dwelling within the Spiritual Realm apart from the Physical Realm. Not that God cannot cross over nor hasn't for Jesus Christ is God in human flesh which crossed from the Spiritual to the Physical and back.

      In my opinion Science cannot test, evaluate, or categorize God because Science can only deal with the Physical realm and cannot even envision or recognize the Spiritual realm therefore instead of considering it in the realm of possibility scientist, or many of them, just deny that it could exist because science cannot test it. That's very much akin to the time when people thought the world to be flat and that you fell off the end. You had people that could not envision a round earth so they only accepted what they could touch and test and see. Science today treats the Spiritual that same way. They consider it cannot exist because they cannot envision or touch it or see it yet when you challenge them their only retort is not to address the issue or the concept but rather to attack the person or individual by somehow defeating you or belittling you calling you deranged or deluded or stupid or simple, uninformed. They elevate themselves far beyond what their own capacity is and their pride does not allow them to consider that there are things beyond the end of their own noses.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • Primewonk

      @Gary – And you "know" this is the truth because some guy told you it was the truth. And he knew it because some other guy told him it was the truth. And so on – going back 2000 years to whensome guy wrote it down on papyrus. And those guys were nomadic bronze-aged shepherds who were so incredibly ignorant about science they thought you treated leprosy by using a live bird to sprinkle the blood of a dead bird around a house.. Folks who were so incredibly ignorant about science that they thought women were "unclean" twice as long after giving birth to a girl than a boy. Folks so totally ignorant about science that they thought all humans descened from 1 breeding pair.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ gary_K – clearly your god has manifested itself in the past (if you believe the bible) – the burning bush, Moses being given the 10 commandments, the burning bush, god talking to noah (okay, Noah – make sure you only accept really, really fat lions, or else it's really going to muck up my plans for goats and sheep and chickens and .. . )
      What you're doing is, I would suggest, intellectually dishonest and arrogant: you characterize and describe a god that you say cannot be known by men. Yet you are attributing characteristics to it. By your own definition, your opinion must be meaningless and pointless. You have your opinions and beliefs, which is fine and dandy, until those beliefs and opinions start to show up in public life, and in the laws of the land.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • niknak

      Yeah, you are right.
      Let's just stop all scientific exploration and go back to blood letting and alchemy and rain dances.
      We can just wait around for god to give us what we want.
      But I bet you won't. The next time you or a family memeber is gravely ill, you will run as fast as you can to see a doctor so that science can do it's thing.
      You fundies disgust me.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • Cq

      "We cannot even begin to imagine the makeup of God."
      If God is so alien how do believers even know that it's got their best interests in mind? God's idea of "loving the world" could be closer to our idea of loving McDonalds as a food source than the standard Christian interpretation of John 3:16. Souls could be God's snacks for all you can really know about the unknowable God, right?

      September 5, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ cq – good point- maybe we're the original "soul food"

      September 5, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • A Frayed Knot

      " Souls could be God's snacks..."

      Yes. It's obvious the this "Good Shepherd" guy is in it for the lamb chops and mutton stew!

      September 5, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • sam stone

      "In truth God, as we know the concept of God, is undefinable"

      Yet the religious define the concept of "god" all the time.

      God is good.

      God had a son.

      God defines and punishes sin.




      September 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Cq

      Ethel & Frayed
      Perhaps a better philosophical question would be whether God could survive without human souls, either as direct fuel or simply as givers of worship energy? On many levels then, if everyone suddenly stopped worshipping God he would cease being a god, and may in fact disappear altogether.

      September 5, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
  6. Horus

    All science aside, there is a fundamental flaw in "creationism". It relies on, and always reverts back to a single source written by men during a time of far less understanding of the natural world. When a scientist interviewed an astrophysicist, who works for the Creationist Museum, his answer to "what if the evidence is contrary to creationism?", his answer was quite simply – "we go with the word of God".....you cannot call yourself a scientist and ignore evidence because it doesn't fit your view; a view based on words of bronze era men, not any "god".

    September 5, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Right. One also cannot employ magic as part of their explanations and then call themself a scientist.

      September 5, 2012 at 9:19 am |
    • Gary _ K

      Just what is so crazy about saying that we don't complete understand or comprehend the whole process of creation? If we are the created then why should we require that we be able to comprehend and understand the creator whether that be God or some Intelligent Design? To suggest that life evolved is to suggest everything came from an accident or just happenstance and then just where did the original elements come from in the first place? How do you get life/intelligence from non-life and yet have it develop from most basis to unlimited advanced forms. Just where did everything start and where did the original elements come from? Lastly what is so impossible about a infinite intelligent source beyond our own limited comprehension level as being the source and origin for all life and creation around us? Is it just possible that there exist out there something beyond human's conception and capacity of thought and intelligence? Creationist and ID advocates do not seek to define the process of creation they accept that on faith as being something beyond the scope of their potential understanding and commit it to faith. To me that is much more rational than to accept everything proceeded from an accident.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • Huebert


      The original elements came into existence during the big bang, which has nothing to do with evolution. The transition from non-life to life is a theory called abiogenesis, again separate from evolution. Before you disregard one of the most supported theories in science it might behoove you to learn what the theory actually says.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • niknak

      Sure they can.
      It's called "doubling down," like the gop does everyday with facts and such that go against their ideology.
      That is why fundies dovetail so well in the republican party.
      Does not matter what the evidence is, if it goes against their current definition of god, then it is wrong.
      Why even bother trying to have a discussion with them, it would be like having a discussion about math with someone who believes 2 plus 2 equals 5.

      September 5, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • Cq

      Actually, "creationism" technically includes the hundreds of other creation stories throughout world religion and myth, with the Genesis account being just a typical example. The creationists we usually encounter cannot offer any valid argument for preferring the Genesis account over any other creation story besides it's happening to be the most popular one these days.

      Plus, "you cannot call yourself a scientist and ignore evidence because it doesn't fit your view" unless, you also worked for Big Tobacco or Stalin, remember? You can call yourself a scientist when doing this, but it doesn't actually make you one.

      September 5, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
  7. ScottCA

    To argue against reason and applied logic (otherwise known as science) is to paint oneself asinine. For you doom yourself to be proven wrong, for a simple thing called reality keeps getting in the way.

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

      @ ScottCA – thank you for posting that. I would invite invite our creationist friends to have a look at it, and then do some independent verification of what is set out. The bottom line is that there is an enormous amount of scientific research carried out over many years, that all points to the fact that all life on Earth comes from a common ancestor, and that the mult-itude of species evolved, over a great deal of time, from that common ancestor. I would like to read a rational point by point refutation of the conclusions set out in that video by the creationists.Is anyone up to that task?

      September 5, 2012 at 8:29 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I dont' even have to see the video to give the creationist answer.
      "Things can't have evolved over hundreds of millions of years because the world has not existed that long."
      Your so called "scienticians" can't darwin their way out of that one!

      September 5, 2012 at 8:33 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      And that god moves in mysterious weighs, and god planted all of the evidence, so that scientists would find it, and interpret it, and really it's just a giant test of faith, that test being: ignore what your intellect, training, and brains tell you, and then ignore the findings of thousands of like-minded scientists, and believe a a 2000 year old collection of stories written by bronze age ignorant intent on controlling their fellow man.

      September 5, 2012 at 8:49 am |

    Which scientific disciplines would collapse if and when evolution is proven false? The bubble can't last forever.

    September 5, 2012 at 3:31 am |
    • ScottCA

      Further professions of your ignorance are not necessary. We understand that you have not the education of a grade school student in regards to what you speak about..

      September 5, 2012 at 4:22 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Have mud
      I'm a big fan of medicine.
      It'd be a shame to see neurology, bio-chemistry, virology, epidemiology, genomics, oncology, and biology in general fall apart.
      I also like eating, so the loss of modern high yield agriculture woud suck.

      September 5, 2012 at 8:42 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Modern evolutionary theory may be eclipsed by some more expansive theory in the future, much like how Newtonian physics was encompassed by Relativity, but the facts of evolution will far outlast the lives of creationists.

      The Bubbas can't last forever.

      September 5, 2012 at 8:54 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Good Morning Rufus,

      As I've pointed out to a lot of these people, the principles of evolution can and are being put into practice by mathematicians and computer scientists. They work. It would be stretch to say that they don't or cannot work in the slow motion information systems of biology. I don't foresee failure. There's just more to learn and what we know now is working well.

      September 5, 2012 at 9:00 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Good morning to you, Tom Tom.

      I try to point out that domestication is the experimental proof of biological evolution. If evolution works the way we think it does, we should be able to choose a trait, preferentially breed animals that exhibit that trait, and see that trait become more commoon in future generations. Whadda ya know? Toy poodles from wolves.

      September 5, 2012 at 9:15 am |
    • Simran

      Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology.

      Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
      • Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic as.sumptions.
      • Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
      • Evolutionary theory is used to manage fishe.ries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
      • Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quanti.tative trait locus mapping.
      • Knowledge of the evolution of parasite viru.lence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
      • Se.x allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of exti.nction (Sutherland 2002).

      Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:
      • Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu. 2002; Searls 2003).
      • Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step tran.smis.sion of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and man.gabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of inten.tionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bio.weapons (Cu.mmings and Relman 2002).
      • Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
      • Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
      • Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).

      Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:
      • enzymes (Arnold 2001)
      • pigments (Arnold 2001)
      • antibiotics
      • flavors
      • biopolymers
      • bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
      Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).

      The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).

      September 5, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Root post by 'HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL' is an instance of the Begging the Question fallacy.


      September 5, 2012 at 9:28 am |
    • sam stone

      Why not, Mud? The story of the pincushion/savior has gone on for 2,000 years

      September 5, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • Bubba

      @Rufus T. Firefly


      September 5, 2012 at 10:46 am |

    Which would you rather have first, egg on your face or a chicken in the chops?

    September 5, 2012 at 3:27 am |

    The term "faith" has been stolen from Christians. There's only 'one faith'.

    September 5, 2012 at 3:25 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Hey, MUDDY, I got up in the middle of the night just to assist you. Again. You do understand (one would hope) that there were religions, and religious beliefs which required faith, well before Christianity? So – no – Christianity does not "own" the term faith, nor is it the one faith, so therefore it could not have been "stolen" from Christianity. There's that whole arrogance thing again – the one TRUE faith. All religions make that claim, but they can't ALL be right, right? Why yours? Out of the thousands and thousands of sects out there. It really does sound a bit like two little boys on the school playground, each telling the other that "My father can whup your father". Think about it.

      September 5, 2012 at 4:23 am |

      Ethel, I gave you the bestest of the mostest to your long post yesterday. Check it out. Now if you work for the 'rulers of this world', oh well. My subsequent posts were just from a hopeful fisherman, before retiring. Bye, Bye, whoever you are.

      September 5, 2012 at 5:12 am |
    • sam stone

      Mudman: There was "faith" before their was Christianity

      September 5, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • sam stone

      "their" = "there"

      September 5, 2012 at 10:20 am |
  11. ScottCA


    September 5, 2012 at 2:39 am |
  12. ScottCA

    Too Funny. I am sure every logical and rational mind here will get a good laugh from this.
    Dawkins you Rock. Epic video.

    September 5, 2012 at 2:32 am |
  13. ScottCA


    September 5, 2012 at 1:12 am |
    • b4bigbang

      Here's one:

      September 5, 2012 at 1:42 am |
    • ScottCA

      The christian mind

      September 5, 2012 at 2:31 am |
    • ScottCA

      B4bigbang have you ever stopped to notice that video you keep posting had far more dislikes on YouTube than likes. Your Religious video isn't fooling anyone.

      September 5, 2012 at 3:19 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      'The Atheist Tri-Polar Shift" is only for the most stupid of the christians because it is a very poor representation of what occurs in situations similar to what it attempts to describe. For a message to have impact, it needs to be fairly accurate. The makers of the video would have been better off attacking on a different front.

      September 5, 2012 at 7:34 am |
  14. ScottCA

    A sample of evidence supporting evolution.

    Creationism and intelligent design have no evidence supporting them. None at all.

    September 5, 2012 at 12:59 am |
  15. ScottCA

    Why we cannot allow science education to be ruined by religious ignorance.

    September 5, 2012 at 12:58 am |
  16. ScottCA

    All the religous can do is play word games

    Correction regarding the oxford english dictionary definition of faith. My previous post was oxforddictionary.com

    Oxfordenglish dictionary requires a password and membership to access it
    I did find this citing oxford english dictionary just for clarification and fairness. #2 sounds exactly like steven pinker was saying.

    n. 1. complete trust or confidence. 2. firm belief, esp. without logical proof. 3. a a system of religious belief (the Christian faith). b belief in religious doctrines. c spiritual apprehension of divine truth apart from proof. d things believed or to be believed. 4. duty or commitment to fulfil a trust, promise, etc. (keep faith). 5. (attrib.) concerned with a supposed ability to cure by faith rather than treatment (faith-healing).
    ~ bad faith intent to deceive. good faith honesty or sincerity of intention. [ME f. AF fed f. OF feid f. L fides]

    September 5, 2012 at 12:40 am |
    • ScottCA

      What the religious fail to see is that science places no firm or unbending belief in anything, not even its own methods, there is no supposed scientific method in the sense of a recipe. It simply is a logical method used to deduce reality and predict events in the natural world. The process is always being refined and improved upon, just as its findings are.

      September 5, 2012 at 12:46 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      the online OED has a long definition for faith. In case you are interested, here is part of it.

      faith, n</b.

      I. Belief, trust, confidence.
      - a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, †of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.
      - b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority.

      2. Phrases. to give faith : to yield belief to. to pin one's faith to or upon : to believe implicitly.

      3. Theol. in various specific applications.
      - a. Belief in the truths of religion; belief in the authenticity of divine revelation (whether viewed as contained in Holy Scripture or in the teaching of the Church), and acceptance of the revealed doctrines.
      - b. That kind of faith (distinctively called saving faith or justifying faith) by which, in the teaching of the N.T., a sinner is justified in the sight of God. This is very variously defined by theologians (see quots.), but there is general agreement in regarding it as a conviction practically operative on the character and will, and thus opposed to the mere intellectual assent to religious truth (sometimes called speculative faith).

      - c. The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof. By Christian writers often identified with the preceding; but not exclusively confined to Christian use. Often viewed as the exercise of a special faculty in the soul of man, or as the result of supernatural illumination.

      4. That which is or should be believed.
      - a. A system of religious belief, e.g. the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., faith. Also, confession, rule of faith, for which see those words.
      - b. the faith: the true religion; usually = the Christian faith. Also, without article in certain phrases, as contrary to faith, etc. of faith: part and parcel of the faith.
      - c. What is believed, or required to be believed, on a particular subject. †Also pl. points of faith, tenets.

      5. act of (the) faith : = auto-da-fé n. Obs.

      II. Inducement to belief or trust.
      6. Power to produce belief, credit, convincing authority. Obs.

      7. Attestation, confirmation, assurance. Obs.
      - a. Assurance given, formal declaration, pledge, promise. In phrases, to do faith , to make faith (= Latin fidem facere): to affirm, promise, give surety. to give (one's) faith (= Latin fidem dare): to give assurance, pledge one's word. on his faith: on parole. Obs.
      - b. on the faith of: in reliance on the security of.

      - a. Assurance given, formal declaration, pledge, promise. In phrases, to do faith , to make faith (= Latin fidem facere): to affirm, promise, give surety. to give (one's) faith (= Latin fidem dare): to give assurance, pledge one's word. on his faith: on parole. Obs.
      - b. on the faith of: in reliance on the security of.

      III. The obligation imposed by a trust.
      - a. The duty of fulfilling one's trust; allegiance owed to a superior, fealty; the obligation of a promise or engagement.

      - b. In many phrases, in which the sense approaches that of 8: to engage (one's) faith , to pledge (one's) faith , to plight (one's) faith ; †to swear (one's) faith , perjure one's faith; to keep (†hold), break, violate (one's) faith ; so breach of faith.
      10. The quality of fulfilling one's trust; faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty. † to bear faith : to be loyal to.

      11. good faith, bad faith: = Latin bona, mala fides, in which the primary notion seems to have been the objective aspect of confidence well or ill bestowed. The English uses closely follow those of Latin.
      - a. good faith: fidelity, loyalty (= sense 10); esp. honesty of intention in entering into engagements, sincerity in professions, bona fides n.
      - b. bad faith: faithlessness, treachery; intent to deceive. Punic (rarely Carthaginian) faith (= Latin fides Punica): faithlessness.

      September 5, 2012 at 1:43 am |
    • ScottCA

      Thanks I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV.
      In the end, I do believe professor Steven Pinker's definition of faith being to believe in something for no good reason, is the best definition and most succinctly precise to its application in the logic of language.

      It would make sense since since Professor Pinker has studied linguistics and the underlying logic of language so carefully.

      September 5, 2012 at 3:04 am |
  17. lamb of dog

    Hey 2357 is that part of gods telephone number? Can you give me the rest so I can call him. I have a few questions.

    September 5, 2012 at 12:34 am |
    • 2357

      Put the phone down. He hears your thoughts and knows your motives.

      September 5, 2012 at 8:34 am |
    • Joe

      How come he never acts on them?

      Actually, Christian god is deaf, dumb, blind, and well, actually non-existent.

      September 5, 2012 at 8:40 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Hey, 2357 – how are you doing this fine morning? So, if your god hears thoughts and knows motives, then he would have heard the thoughts and known the motives of, um, let's see:
      1. Hitler
      2. Stalin
      3. Pol Pot
      4. The 9/11 Hijackers

      Now, what would you call someone who knows in advance, with absolute certainly, what these mass murderers are up to, and how has the power to stop them before they start, and yet does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop them? I would call them the most immoral, horrible monster imaginable. I imagine you would call it a kind and loving god?

      September 5, 2012 at 9:07 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Ah, i get it – god was in the shower, or rearranging his CD collection, or doing some laundry when those guys were thinking and planning their horrors. Maybe god needs an executive as-sistant, to help keep on top of things

      September 5, 2012 at 9:21 am |
    • 2357

      He doesn't answer the proud.

      September 5, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • Huebert


      Well that is pretty stupid of him. As.suming that god cares weather or not people believe in him, the proud are the ones that god needs to convince. If he won't speak to them he is just preaching to the choir.

      September 5, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      2357 – it's not about god not "answering the proud" – it's about your god having advance knowledge that people are going to do horrible things to other people, and your god not raising a finger to do anything about it. Either he's immoral, and doesn't care, or he's incompetent. In either case, he's useless.

      September 5, 2012 at 9:51 am |
    • 2357

      God ordained death. Without this mandate no creature would ever die. Isn't that enough sovereignty?

      September 5, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • Huebert


      Please provide evidence for that statement.

      September 5, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • WASP

      @numbers: "He doesn't answer the proud."
      now seeing you know whom god answers and whom he doesn't, please tell your god to answer the phone and stop dodging my collection calls. he owes me an explaination for a few things and i aim to make him ante up. ROFLMFAO.

      September 5, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Cal

      "He hears your thoughts and knows your motives."
      So, you better watch out, you better not cry. Better not pout, you're telling us why ...

      September 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • 2357

      "in the day that you easy of the fruit, you will surely die."
      All human death is ordained by God as a result of dismissing this warning. Many today still hold the same pattern despite the horror of fulfillment. Yes mass death is atrocious, but he who ordains all death is to.be.feared above all else.

      September 5, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • Huebert


      I keep forgetting that Christians almost always confuse the bible with evidence.

      September 5, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • 2357

      Does science have an answer for why every living thing must die? Why is there decay?

      September 5, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Huebert

      Cells don't copy each other perfectly every time they divide. Most of these copy errors are harmless, but over time errors build up with in the nucleus of the cell, and eventually the cell is so corrupted can no longer divide, or becomes cancerous, or a whole host of other possible problems. When enough cells stop functioning, organs stop functioning. Which in turn means that organ systems stop functioning, finally the entire organism simply shuts down.

      September 5, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ 2357: So, in answer to your question, yes, science DOES have an answer as to why things die. in fact, if you choose to open your mind, you will see that science has lots of answers. But, it requires an open mind. Are you the possessor of such a mind?

      September 5, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • 2357

      Hubert, Ethel,
      Unbelievable, you guys are just making sh:t up now. Cell death is programmed into components called telomeres. I'm done with you posers.

      September 5, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
  18. Great Godless Tune of the Day

    There are those who think that life is nothing left to chance,
    A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

    A planet of playthings,
    We dance on the strings
    Of powers we cannot conceive.
    "The stars aren't aligned
    Or the gods are malign"-
    Blame is better to give than receive.

    You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
    If you choose not to decide, you still haven't made a choice.
    You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
    I will choose a path that's clear-
    I will choose Free Will.

    There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
    The cards were stacked against them- they weren't born in lotus-land.

    All preordained-
    A prisoner in chains-
    A victim of venomous fate.
    Kicked in the face,
    You can't pray for a place
    In heaven's unearthly estate.

    Each of us-
    A cell of awareness-
    Imperfect and incomplete.
    Genetic blends
    With uncertain ends
    On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.
    Read more at http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3458764513820550506/#zPqyv7yxBKSSyOxg.99

    September 5, 2012 at 12:30 am |
    • lamb of dog


      September 5, 2012 at 12:35 am |
  19. JOHN

    This appears to be nonsense. Watched Steven define morality, and faith... and another man explain how the eye evolved. These men make it up as they go along in life. They appear to live in their own imaginary world. It appears shallow....

    September 5, 2012 at 12:27 am |
    • ScottCA

      A world where what they say correctly predicts the world. Nothing that is currently understood in biology would have been possible without evolutionary theory.

      September 5, 2012 at 12:33 am |
    • ScottCA

      Faith based religion fails to predict anything in the natural world, and provides no additional understanding for anything.
      The remains not one single shred of evidence to prove gods existence.

      September 5, 2012 at 12:36 am |
    • ScottCA

      So I am right, the religious are less intelligent than those children in the video. We will need to enlist sesame street Muppets to help us communicate with them.

      September 5, 2012 at 12:57 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      They won't listen to Muppets.
      The idea of talking, reasoning animals is blashphemous (except that one time with the snake. and the other time with the donkey).
      Not to mention the fact that the muppet frog is in a non-kosher, inter-species marriage.

      September 5, 2012 at 8:50 am |
    • Cq

      Where they actually allowed to marry without the religious Right protesting? Amazing! 🙂

      September 5, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
  20. ScottCA

    I have taught children when I used to teach. and I can tell you children have a higher intelligence than any of the faith based religious grown ups that I have encountered.

    September 5, 2012 at 12:15 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Most children have not yet had their ears and minds closed by dogma.

      September 5, 2012 at 12:33 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.