Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism
Bill Nye and Ken Ham will debate the origins of life Tuesday at the Creation Museum.
February 3rd, 2014
01:15 PM ET

Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism

Editors note: Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye on February 4 at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, with CNN's Tom Foreman moderating. The debate will be livestreamed at CNN.com at 7 pm ET, and Piers Morgan Live will interview Ham and Nye on Tuesday at 9 ET.

WATCH TUESDAY NIGHT'S DEBATE HERE: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cvplive/cvpstream1.html

Opinion by Ken Ham, special to CNN

(CNN) - Public debates on evolution and creation have become increasingly rare. Several hundred well-attended debates were held in the 1970s and 1980s, but they have largely dried up in recent decades.

So I look forward to a spirited yet cordial debate on Tuesday with Bill Nye, the "Science Guy" of television fame.

I also look forward to the opportunity to help counter the general censorship against creationists' view of origins. While we are not in favor of mandating that creation be taught in public school science classes, we believe that, at the very least, instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with evolution.

Even though the two of us are not Ph.D. scientists, Mr. Nye and I clearly love science.

As a former science instructor, I have appreciated the useful television programs that he hosted and produced, especially when he practiced operational science in front of his audience.

He and I both recognize the wonderful benefits that observational, operational science has brought us, from cell phones to space shuttles. But operational science, which builds today’s technology, is not the same as presenting beliefs about the past, which cannot be tested in the laboratory.

For students, the evolution-creation discussion can be a useful exercise, for it can help develop their critical thinking skills.

MORE ON CNN: Bill Nye: Why I'm Debating Ken Ham 

Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system in their schools, and they are censored from hearing challenges to it. Let our young people understand science correctly and hear both sides of the origins issue and then evaluate them.

Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone. In essence, a religion of naturalism is being imposed on millions of students. They need to be taught the real nature of science, including its limitations.

Nye, the host of a popular TV program for children, should welcome a scrutiny of evolution in the classrooms.

As evolution-creation issues continue to be in the news - whether it relates to textbook controversies or our debate - there is an increasingly bright spotlight on the research activities of thousands of scientists and engineers worldwide who have earned doctorates and are creationists.

On our full-time staff at Answers in Genesis, we have Ph.D.s in astronomy, geology, biology, molecular genetics, the history of science, and medicine. Yes, creationists are still a small minority in the scientific community, but they hold impressive credentials and have made valuable contributions in science and engineering.

I remember the time I spoke at a lunchtime Bible study at the Goddard Space Flight Center near Washington. I was thrilled to meet several scientists and engineers who accept the book of Genesis as historical and reject Darwinian evolution. They shared with me that a belief in evolution had nothing to do with their work on the Hubble Space Telescope. Why should our perspective about origins be censored?

Our young people and adults should be aware that considerable dissent exists in the scientific world regarding the validity of molecules-to-man evolution.

It’s an important debate, for what you think about your origins will largely form your worldview. If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life, and you can establish any belief system you want with no regard to an absolute authority.

Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority our infallible creator and his word, the Bible over the words of fallible humans.

Ken Ham is founder and CEO of Answers in Genesis (USA) and founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The views expressed in this column belong to Ham.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Culture wars • Evolution • Opinion • Science

soundoff (4,336 Responses)
  1. Ken Ham

    While we are not in favor of mandating that flat earth hypothesis be taught in public school science classes, we believe that, at the very least, instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with round earth.

    ^This is how stupid this guy sounds. Bill Nye will wipe the floor with him, but creationists will still think Ham won because he'll just repeat the same lies over and over until Nye has no response to the utter stupidity. Nye shouldn't waste his time with this. It's a like a college professor debating a 1st grader on nuclear physics.

    February 3, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
    • JP

      You should read the Bible sometime rather than spouting off ignorant myths. The Bible said the world was round while "science" said it was flat. Isaiah 40:22 says that the earth is not only round but that the universe is expanding.

      "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

      February 4, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
      • Russ

        The word is circle not round in the bible. A circle is flat.

        February 4, 2014 at 9:44 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Russ #2 & others: just for clarification (since I have commented repeatedly above), I did not write this.

          February 5, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
    • weatherman

      411 The most stupid person in the world can be the most correct.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
  2. Dyslexic doG

    Christians arguing stories from their bible vs. scientific facts is like arguing about Santa's sleigh flying ... sure it says it flies in the stories but the facts are that there is no Santa (sorry kids), there is no magic sleigh, and there are no magical reindeer to guide his sleigh tonight. Anyone using any story in the bible as a fact to argue against scientifically proven evidence is deluding themselves and annoying the sane.

    And you Christians wonder why we atheists sound annoyed all the time.

    February 3, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Dyslexic doG : Christians arguing stories from their bible vs. scientific facts is like arguing about Santa's sleigh flying

      Evolutionists arguing stories from their evolution books vs. scientific facts is like arguing about Santa's sleigh flying because some Christmas stories says it does.


      February 3, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        That makes no sense – evolution is supported by the scientific evidence, creationism is only supported by the written imaginings of Bronze Age Middle Eastern nomads who had no better explanation for natural phenomena.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • Skylar

          You guys assume there is no evidence for creationism. It's as absurd to him to say that creation is only a story as it is for you to hear evaluation is only a story. Ham made many god point tonight, but I'm pretty sure you tuned that out.

          February 4, 2014 at 9:53 pm |
        • md22mdrx

          I don't ASSUME there is no evidence for creationism ...

          There REALLY IS NO EVIDENCE for creationism.

          February 5, 2014 at 10:14 am |
        • Aram

          the video on you tube " Our Created Solar System" posted by idea pump. The astronomer is dr.Psaris. Amazing facts about the Solar system

          February 5, 2014 at 11:16 am |
      • bobsyuruncle

        Utter incoherence!

        February 4, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
      • chris ozman

        Why don't you spend, say, the next couple of years (and you still won't finish all the articles) reading and soaking up the science of Creation Ministries International on their website? You will still believe in science, but the truth shall set you free from your Evolutionist dogma.

        February 4, 2014 at 6:50 pm |
        • Ivan

          For the last 3000 years that the human population grew 140 times – from around 50 million to 7 billion. According to Ken and the young earth creationists in the other 3000 years the growth rate was "slightly" different – the population grew 25 million times – from Adam and Eve to 50 million. How will the science of Creation Ministries International explain that – a statistical blip?

          February 4, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
      • Aram

        CHECK the video on you tube " Our Created Solar System" posted by idea pump. The astronomer is dr.Psaris. Amazing facts about the Solar system

        February 5, 2014 at 11:22 am |
    • geraldine

      I have listened to scientist who believe in creation of man...I would like both sides to take a deep breath and listen to each other's arguments....you might find it surprising interesting my friend...

      February 4, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
      • bobsyuruncle

        No friend, you used "believe." Case closed.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
        • dmcentire

          You either believe in creationism or you believe in evolution....oh, wait, there are many who believe in both.

          February 4, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
      • Joe

        "...I would like both sides to take a deep breath and listen to each other's arguments." I'll do that if you take a deep breath and listen to my 8 yo's stories of the spongemonster living in outer space.

        Asking people to listen to another argument, when that argument is nonsense, merely gives legitimacy to that argument, just as your stopping to think about the spongemonster living in outer space would, aside from being a complete waste of your time, also give the idea of said spongemonster existing legitimacy. it deserves neither time nor legitimacy. The same is true of religion.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
        • Veritacity

          Atheopaths are afflicted with the inability to think beyond the limits of naturalism, yet they do an awful lot of judging of a being infinitely more advanced than them, who they do not believe in, yet passionately argue against. They then refer to themselves as "free thinkers" despite that under their evolutionary worldview, their thoughts are mere interactions of brain chemicals obeying the fixed laws of chemistry and physics—i.e. they cannot help what they believe.

          February 6, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
    • Zoup

      Negative..... most of physics is, and remains theory. Theory remains until is disproved, since it can not be proven. So saying science is concrete is a half-truth. When dealing with the cosmology, their are no concrete truths.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
      • Me

        True, there is no concrete evidence for anything. But to call something a "theory" in science means there is substantial evidence supporting it. Technically gravity is still a theory but most people don't try to discredit that. So calling a scientific theory a "half-truth" isn't a very accurate statement.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • Wesley

          You are aware that the theory of gravity was recently partially disproved and had to be fundamentally altered right?

          February 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
        • Bob Jackson

          Wesley, if you're going to make a statement like that, at least cite a source so we can all debunk it together. Otherwise, you're just as big a wind bag as the rest of these people who only "believe" in creationism because they've been taught that if they don't, their god will smite them. Same as "under God" in the Pledge: Once "God" touches anything it can never be removed, or God will come after you – FOREVER.

          February 4, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
      • Susan StoHelit

        There are no concrete truths – not even that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. But the theory that says that it will is pretty solid, backed by plenty of evidence. A scientific theory explains all known facts, makes predictions that are true, and does so better than any other hypothesis. It's not a weak thing at all to be a theory, when we are speaking scientifically.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • Askwatch

          I'm astonished to read someone defending the theory that the sun rises. My understanding is that the "rising" is an apparent motion created by the illusion that the observer on the earth's surface is stationary, while in actuality, the earth rotates at a rate of once every ~23h56min. Do you have new data to undermine the current science?

          February 4, 2014 at 11:35 pm |
      • Armando Ortiz

        You're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".

        February 5, 2014 at 9:52 am |
      • sandalista

        A scientific finding is called a 'theory' after is has been tested and went through a rigorous phase of trying to disprove said theory by countless other scientists. The same cannot be said about ancient scriptures, Christian or otherwise.

        February 5, 2014 at 10:19 am |
    • Dorian

      I do have a great deal of respect for science (I'm an Electrical Engineer), however, science is hardly cut and dry. Over the centuries we have had to update our science texts as our understanding of the natural world around us gets better. Keep in mind that science 1000 years ago was that earth, wind, fire and water were the 4 basic elements. That high blood pressure was cured by releasing blood from the sufferer (either through cutting, or leaches). We had no understanding of electrons, protons, neutrons and quarks. 100 years ago science told us that x-rays were harmless, and that plutonium was safe enough to drink. No, science is hardly a perfect field of understanding. If you told someone 1000 years ago that we would walk on the moon, communicate with each other from all over the world instantly, or try to describe to those people TVs, computers or cell phones, they would probably think we were some kind of religious nut job too.

      February 4, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
      • the real issue

        Dorian, "science" definitely did NOT indicate that x-rays were harmless or that plutonium is safe to drink. People may have hypothesized that those things were true but when people started doing them, scientific data collection revealed that x-rays deliver harmful radiation dose as well as exposure to the decays from various plutonium nuclides. Scientific experiments and data collection iteratively reveal truth so hypotheses may be modified and perhaps much later, become theory or even law.

        February 4, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
        • Dorian

          Look it up again. Scientist absolutely DID say these things. You can find a nice government propaganda article that was touting the safety of plutonium. And I'm sure Marie Curie didn't kill herself with radiation because she had a good understanding of it's safety.

          February 4, 2014 at 6:13 pm |
        • Dorian

          You make the same mistake that most initiates make in science. You make the assumption that the knowledge we have today of scientific principles is how it is, and how it always will be. When in fact, most of what we know was derived from trial and error. Scientific theories are constantly being revised and updated. Compare and science text from the 1950's to today's text. I've seen my dad's, it's very comical in some places. Again. I'm a man of science myself. Our understanding of the field is far from perfect or complete. If it were, we would have a perfect understanding of gravitational force, strong force and weak force, and we would be transcending the various dimensions that make up this universe. Last I checked, that wasn't happening.

          February 4, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
        • Ray Sanders

          The real issue is that science has given us modern medicine, communications, transportation, and agriculture. Religion has given us..................all I can think of is the Inquisition, the crusades, and witch burnings.

          February 7, 2014 at 7:57 am |
      • Andy

        This is why science is better than religion. When you disprove something with science, the rest of the community agrees to alter their view to fit the most recent evidence. When something in religion is countered with fact, the religious community just burns you at the stake (literally or metaphorically depending on the time period) and continues to still believe the same garbage.

        February 5, 2014 at 9:24 am |
        • ldsmom02

          But, Andy, we don't know everything. We do not have all knowledge. We only know what we know and every day that knowledge changes. Especially in the field of science.

          February 5, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
      • Eric

        It's a terrible argument to say that science said something 1000 years ago. The science that we are talking about did not even exist 1000 years ago. Its foundations in skepticism and experiment / induction were laid in the Renaissance and perfected in the Enlightenment. It's like saying, "But 3000 years ago, Christians were saying..."

        February 8, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
    • ldsmom02

      And, yet it is true, that God can do what He wants. He set up all the laws. And just because Santa isn't real, doesn't mean God is not real. And just because He isn't making Himself known to you at this moment in time, or using television or other media to prove He exists, does not mean He doesn't. Your opinion is your opinion. You have no proof.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
      • Ray Sanders

        I have an invisible pink unicorn that answers all my prayers and is always by my side. You can't prove my invisible unicorn doesn't exist therefore it does exist.

        February 7, 2014 at 7:59 am |
  3. thesilverback1

    i plan to watch the debate. It is a purely philosophical debate but has a large influence on the politics and culture of this county. Neither evolution nor creation can be proven. One is a historical account (Bible) and one is a fabricated account using the best guesses that humans can make... all of which get refined, retired or reworked year after year, in an attempt to maintain some credibility in the materialistic commitment. I am routing for the creation side. I enjoy the use of ID in arriving at the same point as creationism but the fact is I believe the bible's account without doubt. So I have too lines of reasoning, the a priori creation view, and the hard core scientific method that leads to the ID view.
    Should be fun.


    February 3, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
    • igaftr

      Evolution has been proven over and over and over and over....

      Creation speaks to the creation of everything.
      Evolution speaks to the adfaptablitly and mutations in life allowing life to self-adjust, but does not speak of how the life started.
      The two ideas really do not meet.

      Creation is a speculated cause of existance, with no evidence at all.
      Evolution is the mechanism by which life changes to a changing world, and we see it all around us, and can trace it throigh DNA...to say it is not proven is to ignore the mountains of evidence and data that prove it.

      One really has nothing to do with the other...apples and oranges.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
      • Andrew

        I had never stopped to consider that fundamentalists (or possibly scientists) are actually engaged in the wrong fight. Nothing in modern evolutionary theory goes against the idea of a creator or intelligent design. The hang up, from a fundamentalist point of view, is that modern evolutionary theory neatly explains everything without needing a creator. It all makes sense within our current understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology. Now theories of the origin of life are not nearly as well defined, and may never be. Fundamentalists might have better success arguing that a creator was needed for that.

        February 3, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • igaftr

          Exactly. John Paul II even agreed with evolution as God's way of designing adaptability to an ever changing world.

          Evolution is happening. It really does not address how things came to be, just how they became the way the way they are now.

          As far as biblical creation...well lets just say "god" didn't "inspire" the men who wrote the story down to be very detailed,...oddly he was far more detailed about who begate whom than the details of creation. We know that Genesis gets things wrong, but because of the lack of detail, difficult to definitively find flaw( such as separating light and dark...impossible except when doing laundry...use water on earth as an analogy...when you jump in the water you get wet, then you dry off...we are never really dry, are we...there is always water there, just in small amounts...same as far as light and dark...two words describing the same thing, just in different amounts)...too many believers make up their own "interpretation" of mens...er..i mean "gods" word.

          February 3, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
      • ldsmom02

        Evolution does exist, but only in specific classes. For instance, a fish will not evolve to be a human because it is a fish. Fish can adapt and evolve to their specific environment, but they will always be a fish. Man was not an ape, or a fish, or an amoeba. Man was a man. Man evolves, birds evolve, fish evolve, animals evolve, plants also evolve. But your argument is flawed when you think evolution jumps from one class to another. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
    • Barcs

      evolution IS proven. Sorry.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Barcs : evolution IS proven. Sorry.

        Science never PROVES anything. They only fail to falsify a given hypothesis. Since you stated that 'evolution IS proven', it shows that you don't really understand evolution.


        February 3, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • G to the T

          Evolution has been shown as the theory that best fits the evidence we have so far. As such, I have an extremely high confidence in it.

          That better?

          February 3, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • Barcs

          Science never proves anything? Really? And I'M the one that doesn't understand science? 😆 There's just as much reason to debate the earth being round as there is to debate evolution. It's beyond stupid. Don't be afraid of science and knowledge.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • igaftr

          "science never proves anything"

          False. Just look at all the technology...Science proposed you can make tiny little electrical swithces by using silicon and germanium...proven and everything that has a chip in it is proof. You do not understand what proof is in science do you.
          Science has had THOUSANDS of things proven, including the BIG BANG and evolution. Do you look up and see an airplane flying and expect it to fall...no,? why not?...because we have PROVEN using science how to do it.
          The "theory " of evolution is proven.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • Alias

          The bible has been proven wrong in many places.

          Shouldn't we focus on those places when teaching religion to children?

          February 3, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • Fred the buddhist

          OK. If evolution isn't proven and you believe totally in God, don't take cancer drugs or anti-infection drugs, or most any medicine. The "theory" of evolution prescribes a system that help create those drugs. Your taking those drugs represents absolute hypocrisy on your side.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • Jay C

          Who is him, other than a figment of your imagination?

          February 5, 2014 at 12:12 am |
        • ldsmom02

          Alias, God created man to think and to reason and to act. He created man with a brain. He gave him the power to create drugs, to develop medicines and to do all kind of things. To say that a Christian who believes in God would somehow deny himself the opportunity to use medicines created by man is absurd. Some believe that way, but their belief is wrong. God also does not intervene every time you want Him to. Sometimes we learn better when faced by trials. Sometimes, in God's view, it is time for us to die. We don't get to choose. But, to say what you have said is beyond ignorance and I fear your comments are based more on anger at God for something that happened to you some other time.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      but you're keeping an open mind, right?

      February 3, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
    • igaftr

      Also, ID IS creationism...they are one and the same and neither one has anything to do with science.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
      • Bob Jackson

        Intelligent design was actually a compromise on the part of those who reject evolution, suggesting that maybe if we didn't come from a supernatural being, at least we were engineered by a superior alien race. They do both live by the same fundamental assumption, though: The existence of humans couldn't have happened naturally over billions of years, and if we don't understand how something happens, it must be magic. At the end of the day, it's the creationists who keep conflating the discussions of evolution and creationism. There isn't anything (yet) that can definitively say we didn't come from a god of some type, or from an alien race. However, there very much IS empirical evidence that shows evolution is fact, and that Darwin's hypotheses are correct over and over and over again. No one says the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, but there is a heck of a lot more empirical evidence for one over another.

        February 4, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
    • Yeah, right...

      "Should be fun." said the prisoner when told to bite the pillow by a fellow inmate...

      February 3, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
    • magicpanties

      Pray to your god to restore an amputee's missing limb.
      Let me know when it happens.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
      • the real issue

        God's answer to most prayers is apparently "no". It is either willful or impotent. God is not worth your allegiance. Put your trust in yourself and exercise critical thinking, not blind allegiance. What is the endpoint for a non-believer? Death. What is the endpoint for a believer? Death. Strap on the birth control and live a good life that leaves the Earth and your community better than you found it.

        February 4, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
        • ldsmom02

          If you look hard enough you just might see that His answers are yes many times. God does not do things just because you want him to. Or make the world just the way you want. He is all powerful, all knowledgeable and ever present. He allows us to live here. This is a testing ground. A proving place to see if you will follow His will while you are here. To give you experiences to help you progress and become a better person. But, if God angers you because He doesn't do what you want, the problem is not God, it is you.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
    • Ray Sanders

      Nonsense. History books don't have talking snakes and talking donkeys. Only books of mythology have these things. You won't find them in any science book because there is no evidence for it.

      February 7, 2014 at 8:02 am |
  4. Reality #2

    See K. Ham's Christian con game economics at http://www.guidestar.o-rg/FinDocu-ments/2012/330/596/2012-330596423-09802a03-9.pdf. He pays himself $200,000/yr., spends another $700,000 on travel with all of his family members serving as part of his staff each being paid on average $10,000-70,000/yr. (seven family members total). Then there are some failed investments in securities.

    Then there is also Tim Dudley, the head of New Leaf publishing who is a board member of Ham's "non-profit". His company not only publishes Ham's con propaganda but is paid $1 million/yr. for the work plus gets another $100,000 for his "services". Strange but apparently standard conduct for "non-profits".

    February 3, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
    • St. Lawrence of Arabia

      You're right. Let's start investigating non-profits... Starting with the NFL, the PGA...

      February 3, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
      • Barcs

        The creationist museum charges $30 per ticket to see a total fraud. I don't call that non profit, sorry.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          So? How much do football games cost? What about the Master's Tournament? They charge you to get in. What's the big deal?

          February 3, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • Barcs

          The big deal is that they are promoting it as scientific truth when it's not, whereas with football the fans know it is entertainment.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • PuritanD

          So, you have been there then, right? Please tell me how they present Creation as "scientific fact" and exactly what "facts" is the evolution position based on and why can it not be verified?

          February 4, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
      • Charm Quark

        Saint LofA
        Where in the world did you get the idea that the NFL or PGA are non profit organizations? The owners of the NFL teams are in it for the glory and the money, even though they probably don't need either. The PGA is bragging on the fact that they have raised close to a billion dollars for charities to date. TV Evangelists in contrast have raised billions for the use of its scam artists to live the high life. Nice deflection BTW Ken Ham might be siphoning off money for his own use but others are worse, sounds like the defence of the RCC and their pedophile priests, others are just as bad as we are, the cover ups, what cover ups?

        February 3, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Legally, they are non-profits. I think that was the point.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • fyi

          You guys are talking about two different ent.ities: The League/Associations and the individual team organizations.

          To wit:

          "The National Football League is an unincorporated nonprofit 501(c)(6) association,[28] meaning its league office is not subject to income tax because it does not make a profit. In contrast, each individual team (except the non-profit Green Bay Packers[29]) is subject to tax because they make a profit.[30] The NFL considers itself a trade association made up of and financed by its 32 member teams.[31]"

          February 3, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
  5. Dyslexic doG

    The 5 laws of the Theory of Evolution have proven their validity thousands of times by millions of people.
    The principles are practically applied on a daily basis in fields like medicine, geology, mathematics, molecular biology, robotics, chemistry, astrophysics, agriculture, epidemiology, aerospace engineering, architecture, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, systems engineering etc.

    Tangible proof can be found by studying vestigial features, ebryonic development, biogeography, DNA sequencing, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses, labratory direct examination of natural selection in action in E-Coli bacteria, lactose intolerance in humans, the peppered moth's colour change in reaction to industrial pollution, radiotrophic fungi at Chernobyl... all of these things add to the modern evolutionary synthesis.
    We have directly observes speciation in Blackcap birds, fruit flies, mosquitos, mice, Shortfin molly fish and other specimens.

    Some of the methods used to determine the age of the planet include:
    Stratigraphy, Dendrochronology,Obsidian Hydration Dating, Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic , Luminescence Dating, Amino Acid Racemization, Fission-track Dating, Ice Cores, Cation Ratio, Fluorine Dating, Patination, oxidizable Carbon Ratio, Electron Spin Resonance , and Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating.

    Evidence for the Genesis Creation account comes from The Bible and... nothing else, I'm afraid.

    - Doc Vestibule

    February 3, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
    • thesilverback1

      Can you name one thing from vestigial organs that you know proves evolution? (Remember, organs that don't work are degenerate and don't prove the development of information through natural selection). Can you prove that anything you know of embryology is proof of evolution? Tell me what you know of speciation of any animal and then show me where these forms cannot hybridize which any other organism to produce viable offspring capable of reproducing. Most important show me one gene that you know has arisen from mutation and natural selection to prove your evolutionary theory!

      February 3, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
      • Barcs


        Start here. Please explain where these are wrong.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • eviloution666

          being non lactose intolerant is a genetic evolution you can see

          February 4, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
      • Fred the buddhist

        If you're not willing to read and think, why should others be willing to teach?

        February 4, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
      • numbnut

        Things change through mutation, like a mutated female egg that latches to a male sperm, then the outcome could be a retardation of "normalcy". If the abnormal person grows, and breeds, then more mutation. It happens with the animal kingdom, with plants, the ocean, humans. Animals can kill abnormal babies, but if they do survive, and breed, then the mutation continues.

        February 4, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
      • the real issue

        Silver, almost all embryos start out looking the same. You can't tell an embryonic cat from a human embryo from a turtle embryo from a bat from a bovine at the same stage of development. We come from common origins and as development progresses, features unique to each species slowly become apparent. Have you not looked at photos of embryo development among species and marveled at the initial similarities? It's right in front of you. All you have to do is see.

        February 4, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
        • ldsmom02

          You obviously have never heard of the human genome.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
      • Bob Jackson

        The ability to roll your tongue is genetic and an evolutionary adaptation. It just happens to be one that isn't powerful enough to completely boot out non-rollers. (The reason it's an advantage is because it helps newborn animals latch on to teats more effectively and not be pushed off by siblings.)
        As for your embryology question, look at a human embyo. It has a fish-like tail which eventually becomes a tail bone. Also, look at the human DNA sequence. We have a lot of DNA for scales and claws and various other "out dated" body parts. We know they are there because they can be induced to produce said body parts when activated. Please go take some molecular biology courses and then get back to us on the non-existence of vestigial genes and body parts.

        February 4, 2014 at 7:26 pm |
      • h l george

        Can you prove that the recessive genetics that you and all other humans carry is 'intelligent' design? Or that the recessive genetics in ALL bird species for growing teeth is 'intelligent' design? Or the purpose in 'intelligent' design for trillions upon trillions to the trillionth power of UN-inhabitable planets in the universe. Drop mythology.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:46 am |
      • Ray Sanders

        We share 98% of our DNA with Chimps. Either evolution is true or God has a weird sense of humor.

        February 7, 2014 at 8:05 am |
    • nathanrobertham

      But have you ever observed bacteria change into something other than bacteria? Or have you ever observed fruit flies change into birds? Observing a variety of birds is not the same as observing dinosaurs evolving into birds. One is observable (there is a variety of birds) and one is not (nobody has ever observed a dinosaur evolve into a bird). One is observable in the present, while the other is a guess about what happened in the past.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
      • dwinter

        The change is gradual and takes millions of years. It isn't as if one day a dinosaur wanted to fly and poof it became a bird. There is a large body of evidence that suggests this.

        The simple fact that all DNA in the world is composed of the same 4 nucleic acids is indicative that all life had a single origin.

        All eukaryotes have mitochondria. Mitochondria are essentially bacteria that live inside all of your cells and provide your cells with energy through electron transport. It has its own DNA totally separate from the DNA that composes you, which happens to be circular rather than helical. Circular DNA is only found in bacteria. All animals and plants have mitochondria. This further implies a common ancestor. However, plants also contain chloroplasts, which are rather similar to mitochondria (circular DNA separate from nuclear DNA), except they produce sugar rather than metabolize it using various pigments and solar energy. The evolutionary split from animal to plant occurred very early on because animals do not have chloroplasts but plants do.

        All eukaroyotes use the same 21 amino acids. There are certainly more amino acids in nature, but the vast majority of living things use the same 21 implying a common ancestry. Viruses have a few not found normally in living organisms, but the origin of viruses is separate from the kingdoms.

        This is basic biology 101 knowledge. I could get into biochemical pathways if you'd like which further proves evolution is a real phenomenon. Evolution is the ABCs of biology. Without it, 99% of medicine, biochemistry, biology, ecology, etc. wouldn't exist because it wouldn't make sense.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • the real issue

          Viruses are alive and are members of Kingdom Monera. Viruses are among the oldest and most highly evolved organisms on this planet. Degree of selection-based adaptation has nothing to do with organism complexity. Influenza viruses run circles around other life forms in ability to adapt.

          Also, we use more than the standard 21 amino acids even though use of amino acids like D-serine and ornithine among others are more rare.

          February 4, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
        • dwinter

          Viruses are not living and they do not belong to the kingdom Monera, unless something has recently changed since I took a biology class. Viruses lack the ability to self replicate. They need to hijack a cell in order to do so. Self replication is indicative of being alive... as is metabolism which a virus cannot do. That's like suggesting a prion is alive when it is simply a misfolded protein. A virus is DNA/RNA wrapped in a protein coat... it lacks the ability to basically do anything but infect a cell.

          I never mentioned anything about the complexity of an organism, but with that in mind the simplest of organisms tend to have the easiest time adapting. Bacteria develop resistances to antibiotics within days if not hours. Eat a poisonous chemical... I'm not so sure you would be as effective at surviving.

          Influenza causes problems because it can rapidly change its protein coat... unfortunately our immune systems rely on said protein coat to recognize the virus as an intruder. Viruses can also acquire genes from their hosts... or incorporate themselves into the host genome. It is interesting to think of viruses as a potential from genetic alteration and thus a driving force of evolution. Also, viruses undergo their own selective pressures. Typically a virus killing its host organism is not a good idea because it reduces its ability to spread. The longer a virus has been infecting a population the less virulent it tends to be. When a virus jumps hosts it tends to kill the host quite rapidly. Ebola is a perfect example as humans clearly aren't the vector organism. Anyway... completely off topic.

          Viruses aren't part of the Monera kingdom.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:48 am |
      • Fred the buddhist

        Isn't religious dogma the very thing that Jesus spoke out against with the Pharisees?

        February 4, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • ldsmom02

          It is incorrect religious dogma that Jesus doesn't like. Yours and my job is to find out who He really is and to follow Him. Not devise our own version of religion that we want to follow.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
      • Ray Sanders

        Small dinosaurs with feathers have been found. There are thousands of transistional species. All you have to do is learn how to do a Google search.

        February 7, 2014 at 8:07 am |
    • ldsmom02

      And yet, Dyslex, those birds never did and never will turn into flies.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
      • Ray Sanders

        You have just shown the depth and breadth of your scientific illiteracy.

        February 7, 2014 at 8:09 am |
  6. Dyslexic doG

    Evolution is taught in every major university and college biology program in the World. Not 99% of them, but EVERY one. Universities with extensive evolutionary biology departments include Oxford University, Cambridge University and the Imperial College in England, the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Germany, the École Normale Supérieure and École Polythecnique in France and Leiden University in the Netherlands and the Swiss Federal Insti.tute of Technology in Switzerland. This is just a sample. ALL university and colleges in Europe teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.

    The number of universities and colleges in Europe with a creation science department: ZERO. The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

    In the United States, the following Universities have extensive evolutionary biology departments staffed by thousands of the most gifted biologists in the World; Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Colombia, Duke, the Massachusetts Insti.tute of Technology, Brown, Stanford, Berkley, and the University of Chicago. These are just some of the more prestigious examples. Again, ALL university and colleges in the USA with tertiary level biology classes teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.

    The number of universities and colleges in the United States with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

    In Australia and Asia, the following universities and colleges have extensive evolutionary biology departments manned by more of the most gifted biological scientists in the World; Monash University in Melbourne, The University of New South Wales, Kyoto University in Ja.pan, Peking University in China, Seoul University in Korea, the University of Singapore, National Taiwan University, The Australian National University, The University of Melbourne, and the University of Sydney.

    The number of universities and colleges in Australia and Asia with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO

    The most prestigious scientific publications in the Western World generally accessible to the public include: The Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, Scientific American, Science, New Scientist, Cosmos and Live Science.

    Every month, one or more of them publishes a peer reviewed article highlighting the latest developments in evolution. The amount of any creationist science articles published in ANY of these prestigious publications; ZERO.

    I could repeat the above exercise for the following disciplines, all of which would have to be turned on their heads to accommodate creation science – paleontology, archeology, geology, botany, marine biology, astronomy, medicine, cosmology and historical linguistics.

    There appears to be three possible explanations for this:

    (i) there is a worldwide conspiracy of universities, colleges and academic publications, including all their tens of thousands of professors, editors, reviewers, and support staff, to deny creation science;

    (ii) you, have a startling new piece of evidence that was right before our eyes that will turn accepted biological science and about 10 other sciences on their heads if ONLY people would listen to you, no doubt earning you a Nobel Prize and a place in history beside the likes of Darwin, Newton and Einstein; or

    (iii) you are a complete blowhard who has never studied one subject of university level biology, never been on an archeological dig, never studied a thing about paleontology, geology, astronomy, linguistics or archeology, but feel perfectly sure that you know more than the best biologists, archeologists, paleontologists, doctors, astronomers botanists and linguists in the World because your mommy and daddy taught you some comforting stories from Bronze Age Palestine as a child.

    I know which alternative my money is on.

    - Colin

    February 3, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
    • Nice!

      Great reply!

      February 4, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
    • numbnut

      Love it.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
    • Bob Jackson

      It's simple. He has to keep believing in creationism because if he doesn't his god will smite him, and hard. There's a reason it's called "god fearing."

      February 4, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
    • Ray Sanders

      Like Ken Ham said there is a book that explains all that – the Bible. I will be waiting for my Nobel Prize.

      February 7, 2014 at 8:12 am |
      • Ray Sanders

        For the Creationists – that was sarcasm.

        February 7, 2014 at 8:12 am |
  7. Barcs

    This is silly. Ken Ham is a liar and a fraud. He's the one that founded the creationist museum with humans and dinosaurs living together. NOBODY debates age of the earth anymore, he's intentionally manipulating followers to make a profit. He lies because he says he isn't trying to force schools to teach creationism, when he was one of the primary people pushing for that 10-15 years ago. To all the theists out there, please do not fall into the trap of young earth creationism. It's a lie and only a select group of fundamentalist Christians still even consider that plausible. Most creationists don't even believe that anymore.

    February 3, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
    • St. Lawrence of Arabia

      "Most creationists don't even believe that anymore."
      Then they're not creationists... Or Bible believers... And if they don't believe the Bible, then, are they even Christian? Jesus believed in Genesis, for He quoted it. If you disagree with the Genesis account, then you're in disagreement with Jesus.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
      • Fact

        My gardener Jesus knows more about actual earth history than your Jesus ever did.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
      • Barcs

        There's a big difference between believing the morality concepts that the stories teach, and taking the genesis story as absolute literal truth. The majority of Christians do no take it literally, as they shouldn't with anything THAT old that's been translated and re-translated many times. Ask a rational Christian about the old testiment. Most of them stick with Jesus and his teachings about empathy. Of course he's going to quote the old testament, he was a Jew, living in a Jewish state. If he disrespected the old stories he would have been executed much sooner.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          A Christian who doesn't believe the OT is like a member of PETA eating a cheeseburger at Burger King.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • Bones McCoy

          Sure and a Christian that takes the bible literally is like a cheeseburger eating a PETA member.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          There's no other way to take the Bible than "literally." That is, in the plain, ordinary way that you would take any literature. When the Bible uses narrative, you read it as a narrative, when it speaks in metaphore, you take it as metaphore, etc...

          February 3, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • Barcs

          Yeah well the point is that for a large amount of the stories (genesis included) you do not know for certain if their purpose was intended to be literal truth or to teach a lesson. To me, it Genesis teaches that god made everything, that god loves you, and to obey him unconditionally. The story of Adam & Eve in the garden with talking snakes. then the worldwide flood.. It's not literal and in all likelihood a lot has been lost in translation from the original stories which were originally told word of mouth.

          February 3, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
      • Gumdrop1957

        Is it wrong to be in disagreement with Jesus. Does god want people to have free will or to be blind followers? God did give you a brain. Why would God fault you for using it?

        February 4, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
    • Happy Atheist

      "NOBODY debates age of the earth anymore" That is a mostly true statement as there isn't any serious debate on it anymore, we know the earth is 4.5 billion years old give or take half a million years. What the creationsists will say is "Ahah! Give or take half a million years? So you don't know EXACTLY the second the earth was created, which means our theory that it's only 10,000 years old could be just as valid!!" I think it might be because many creationists have trouble with mathmatical concepts and they don't understand the difference between billios of years and thousands of years, they are just both big numbers to them.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Arguably there is a class of creationists who are 'old earth' creationists who interpret the 'days' of Genesis as arbitrary eons and maintain that the earth could be billions of years old but that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago.

      It's not quite as silly as young earth creationism, but is still willfully ignorant.

      There are plenty of believers who can accept that evolution is God's "plan" for his "creation" of living things.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
      • Barcs

        Agreed. Many believe evolution is a tool of god, rather than an argument against him. Most Christians, do indeed fall into this category, it's just the literalists that are giving them a bad name. I see nothing wrong with that viewpoint at all. It's rational, and doesn't take entire fields of science and throw them in the trashcan to make possible. History has shown that ignorance of science and reality can lead to dark times. If god exists, he gave us brains to think critically for a reason. It doesn't have to change god, only the methods he uses to do his work.

        February 3, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • G to the T

          "It doesn't have to change god, only the methods he uses to do his work."

          Thank you Barcs. I can respect that even if I don't believe in your faith. It's amazing how people try to limit god. If he exists and did create everything, wouldn't "natural" processes be his anyways? For many, the bible has become an idol unto itself I'm afraid.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:19 pm |
    • thesilverback1

      So prove it is a lie instead of just stating it.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
      • Barcs

        Dinosaurs and humans NEVER coexisted together and the fossil record proves it conclusively. No human or even any modern mammal has ever been found in the same fossil layer as a dinosaur. NOT ONCE out of millions of fossils. They are always consistent with the radiometric dating, and this proves the creationist museum is a lie and is simply impossible.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          "No human or even any modern mammal has ever been found in the same fossil layer as a dinosaur"
          Well, that's just wrong.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • Barcs

          Can you please cite me an example?

          February 3, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          Human bones found in the "cretaceous layer" in the Ocucaja Desert in Inca Peru.

          Ten human remains found in the Keystone Azurite Mine near Moab, Utah in the same "cretaceous" sandstone as the Dinosaur National Monument.

          And on, and on...

          February 3, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • Barcs

          So I'm supposed to just take your word for it? Give me the sources.

          February 3, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • G to the T

          St LoA "Human bones found in the "cretaceous layer" in the Ocucaja Desert in Inca Peru."

          Nope – can't find anything about it when I tried googling it. Can you provide anything to back that up? Because I would imagine it would be a pretty big deal if true.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
        • bobsyuruncle

          Ham denies fossils. Along with most other thinking.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
        • Eric

          Boy, that's some evidence...


          February 4, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
        • sam


          February 4, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
        • Ray Sanders

          Where did Sir Lawrence go?? It is called lying for Jesus and then disappear. Don't these type of people realize that with Google you can check the validity of their lies in seconds.

          February 7, 2014 at 8:18 am |
      • In Santa we trust

        The evidence is presented daily, but creationists just deny it. They say that the scientific method is incorrect or make false statements about fossils or vestigal limbs, etc. – the same scientific method that brought the technologies underpinning GPS, space travel, satellite TV, vaccines, DNA sequencing, computers, internet, etc. etc. They only selectively deny that which shows the bible to not be literally true.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
      • Bones McCoy

        I think a 5th grade level science book outta do the trick.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
  8. kking

    Why? Because CNN provided him a forum from which to spew his nonsense.

    February 3, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
    • Barcs

      Yeah I don't understand why CNN even gives this guy the publicity. He doesn't deserve it. I mean are they going to have representatives from the flat earth society in here next? Show some scrutiny, CNN, damn.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
      • G to the T

        Hopefully Nye will get a chance to make his own statement. Hello? CNN? Anyone ask Bill what he thought?

        February 3, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
  9. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    ...we are not in favor of mandating that creation be taught in public school science classes ...

    Really Mr. Ham?

    This statement surprises me. Your actions seem to indicate the opposite.

    February 3, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Should evolutionism be taught in public schools without an objective viewpoint to address the known flaws in the theory?

      February 3, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Creationsim should not be taught in a science class.

        Any legitimate gaps in evolutionary theory (as it is currently understood, not Darwin's book from more than a century ago) should be in scope of a science class. Let's remember that abiogenesis is separate from evolution.

        Creationism, if it is taught at all should be confined to a comparative religion class, where it is should be contrasted with other creation myths like native American tales of ancestor spirits and the Australian Aboriginal rainbow serpent.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • thesilverback1

          Who told you abiogenesis is separate from evolution? Every biology test book elaborates on molecular evolution in order to get biological evolution started.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • Barcs

          Wrong again! You're on a role today, Silverback. Abiogenesis hypothesis is separate from the theory of evolution. You are broadly generalizing. Evolution is genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Without genes, you can't have genetic mutations and therefor evolution. Try again!

          February 3, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
        • Barcs

          Furthermore, you can't equivocate biological evolution with chemical evolution. They are completely different processes. When people are saying that evolution is proven, they are talking about biological evolution aka modern synthesis.

          February 3, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
      • Charm Quark

        In a simple search I found 115 books on evolution, many that are used as textbooks, all written in the last 200 years. You have 1 book written 2000 years ago that the world is 6000 to 10000 years old. It takes an extraordinary leap of faith to ignore so much knowledge. Mr. Ham has done that while ignoring all the other creation myths and gods that man has made up.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • thesilverback1

          There are far more than 115 books on evolution. But so what! There are thousands of books on demon worship... so what! If you would read one book on evolution you would be disappointed to find that there is no material evidence for it... only suppositions, extrapolations, and story telling. It is religious.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • wkdkween

          No where in the Bible does it say how old the Earth is . That is a fiction made up by "man" who tried to determine the age of the earth using "information" in the Bible to "guess" the age. The Bible says the Universe/Earth was made in so many days, but how long was a day to God?

          February 3, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        you can refute a theory of evolution, like Darwin's theory, or Lamarck's theory, but you can't refute evolution because it's a fact. It is a directly observable fact. There may never be a theory that captures all the modes of evolution, but evolution is a fact.

        Saying you refute evolution is like saying you refute gravity. The Newtonian theory was not completely right, the einstein theory is not completely right, but there is gravity.

        – bostontola

        February 3, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        There is evidence for evolution and none for creationism, so yes only evolution should be taught – unknowns as well. The fact that some mechanisms are not fully understood does not mean that evolution is incorrect in its entirety and it especially does not mean that creationism is a valid alternative.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • thesilverback1

          Can you explain which mechanism is understood? I would like to learn more.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • Barcs

          3. Speciation. It's been done in a lab. This may be a big advanced for you however. Start with the grammer school science book and work your way up. You'll notice they'll start out very basic and broad in the concepts they teach, but go into deep details and you progress down your path of learning. Good luck to you, I hope you break the cycle one day.

          February 3, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
      • Think 4Yourself

        Absolutely not. All credible flaws should be presented and discussed.

        Do you have any credible flaws that couldn't be dismantled in 30 seconds by somebody who actually understands the theory of evolution – and not just the Answers in Genesis misrepresentation of the facts?

        February 3, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • Barcs

          So true. The only problem is there aren't any credible flaws. There are debates about small details, time frames and certain transitions, but overall in the big picture, there aren't any major flaws, especially not any ones that would dismantle the theory.

          February 3, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
  10. Pete

    I wonder why I can't find a list of all of the staff at Answers in Genesis and where they received their degrees from on the Answers in Genesis website?

    February 3, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
    • thesilverback1

      Neither evolution or creationism are science. You don't need a degree to debate opinions.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
      • Barcs

        I'm really not trying to insult you, but have you ever read a legitimate biology book? Do you understand the scientific method and how conclusions are reached?

        February 3, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
      • redzoa

        Evolution is falsifiable; Creationism is not. Evolution is based on empirical physical evidence from every relevant scientific discipline, e..g physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, ecology, astronomy; Creationism requires that all of these disciplines are so fundamentally flawed as to be worthless. The mechanisms of evolution (i.e. mutation, adaptation, divergence, speciation, generation of novel functionality) have all been directly observed; special creation ex nihilo has no supporting physical evidence. Evolution is used to in a broad range of applications, e.g. medicine, agriculture, conservation biology, engineering, economics, etc; Creationism's only application is apologetics.

        They are not both simply opinions. Evolution is validated science; Creationism is a mythological narrative.

        February 3, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
  11. Becca Helen

    Whoever ken ham is, he is in trouble. As for the beloved Bill Nye, God bless you for your patience.

    February 3, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
  12. Charm Quark

    From the article it would seem Mr. Ham has already discarded the hundreds of other man made gods and the dozens of other creation myths in favor of the only god and creation myth he believes in. Such a closed mind cannot debate but only pontificate on his belief system. Well, I can take a joke and this should be hilarious, Monty Python should do a skit on the production.

    February 3, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
  13. Kenrick Benjamin

    Ok Ken, God bless.

    February 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Ken Ham the Kentucky transplant is going to talk creationism, bless his heart.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
  14. Dyslexic doG

    creationists could win every debate on this subject for the next 1000 debates, it still wouldn't make creationism any less wrong. A debate can't change a fact, and the facts are that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000 years old (the scale of that error is mind blowing!!!) A debate can't change a fact, and the facts are that evolution is proven and observable. A debate can't change a fact, and the fact is that the bible is a flawed book of stories by bronze age goat herders.

    February 3, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
    • Barcs

      Yeah, it's flat out stupid that this guy would say that they are guessing about earth's past without being able to prove it. The age of the earth is a fact based on experiments and radioactive decay of isotopes. The guy says that professors should be allowed to question evolution in the classroom? Well sure, they should also be allowed to question the heliocentric solar system model, the earth revolves around the sun and atomic theory. RIGHT? Nobody wants a whiney professor that just complains about the subject matter. Evolution is a fact, and Ken Ham is notorious for being an idiot.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
    • thesilverback1

      Wow! Amazing you say this. Evolution should not need debating if it was factual. There should be no question of the obviousness of evolution and yet creationists can defeated any evolutionist with minimal effort. Wow

      February 3, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
      • Barcs

        NOBODY debates the validity of evolution anymore in the scientific community. Ignorant creationists who are misinformed attempt to debate it and get slaughtered, as Ham will tomorrow. Please use scrutiny in the debate and pay attention to the number of fallacies that Ham invokes, and how he will change the subject every time a legitimate scientific study is sourced. The best thing he has is "decay rates of isotopes might have changed". Unfortunately he has no evidence that this could or would happen.

        February 3, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
  15. Happy Atheist

    Lloyd: What do you think the chances are of all the studies, evidence and peer reviewed science being wrong about evolution?

    Mary: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really...

    Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to ask that question. The least you can do is level with me. What are the chances?

    Mary: Not good.

    Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

    Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.


    Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*

    February 3, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
    • St. Lawrence of Arabia

      Dumb and Dumber.... They were actually filming the sequal to that not long ago here in Atlanta.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
    • Live4Him

      This is similar to what did happen in reality, but with Dawkins admitting that the existence of God was a real possibility.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
      • Think 4Yourself

        Which debate? And what were his exact words.

        Did he say maybe "I can't be sure God does not exist"? I guess a creationist could take that to mean he thinks it's a real possibility.

        On the other hand I can't be sure flying unicorns don't exist. How do you prove a negative?

        February 3, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
      • Alias

        So is theexistence of Bigfoot, in that context.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
  16. Reality #2

    Putting the human in the proper time frame:

    As per National Geographic's Genographic project:


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

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

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

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

    o More details from National Geographic's Genographic project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

    "Our spe-cies is an African one: Africa is where we first ev-olved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fos-sils of recognizably modern Ho-mo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated.

    According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.

    Once the climate started to improve, after 70,000 years ago, we came back from this near-extinction event. The population expanded, and some intrepid explorers ventured beyond Africa. The earliest people to colonize the Eurasian landma-ss likely did so across the Bab-al-Mandab Strait separating present-day Yemen from Djibouti. These early beachcombers expanded rapidly along the coast to India, and reached Southeast Asia and Australia by 50,000 years ago. The first great foray of our species beyond Africa had led us all the way across the globe."

    February 3, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
  17. Doc Vestibule

    "Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system in their schools, and they are censored from hearing challenges to it."

    This is because in science, "supernatural" is a null word.
    The endless array of religious creation myths is best addressed in a comparative religion class, not biology.
    As for "both sides" – there are more than two. If you include one supernatural explanation, you must include them all.

    "Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone."

    That definition is not arbitrary, nor limited to the US public school system. It is the dictionary definition of science.

    "considerable dissent exists in the scientific world regarding the validity of molecules-to-man evolution."

    Since Darwin first posited his theory, evolutionary scientists have tried to lessen the conflict between evolution and religion.
    They worry that the public association of evolution with atheism will hurt evolutionary biology, perhaps impeding its funding or acceptance.

    This is a very legitmate concern, given things like the leaked "Wedge" docu/ment from the Discovery Insti/tue a few years ago that stated that the objective in pushing for creationism to be taught in schools is to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
    Intelligent Design is primarily a vehicle to separate science from its allegiance to "atheistic naturalism".

    The great majority og biologists see no conflict between religion and evolution, not because they occupy different, noncompeting magisteria, but because they see religion as a natural product of human evolution.
    Sociobiological evolution is the means to understanding religion, whereas religion as a "way of knowing" has nothing to teach us about evolution.

    February 3, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
  18. Reality #2

    Thou art star dust and star dust thou shall return !! And just who created the Abrahamic god? To the best of our knowledge, Jewish scribes, the same scribes who created Genesis, Abraham, Noah and Moses. Next topic!!!

    February 3, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
    • St. Lawrence of Arabia

      God isn't in the category of things that are created. It's like asking what does the color red sound like?

      February 3, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
      • Happy Atheist

        Your logic doesn't pass the sniff test...

        Do thoughts smell? Can color sound?

        February 3, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • SimianLivin'

          Thoughts do smell, as scents are often recognizable in dreams. Synesthesia also causes colors to make sound or vice versa.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
      • Diabolically Sweet

        The color red has a noise. It's called red noise or Brownian noise. You can even look it up and listen to it on youtube.

        February 4, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
    • Live4Him

      What evidence do you use to justify this posit?

      February 3, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
      • Alias

        All the evidence you need is in the bible:
        2Chronicles 21:20, 22:1-2 Ahaziah was forty-two when he became king; he succeeded his father,who died at the age of forty. Thus, Ahaziah was two years older than his father. [Note: Some translations use "twenty-two" here in an attempt to rectify this discrepancy. The Hebrew is clear, however.

        Exodus 12:37, NU 1:45-46 The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as about 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of more than 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt at a time when the whole population of Egypt was less than 2,000,000.

        Mark 16:17-18 Those who believe are able to handle snakes and drink any deadly poison without suffering harm.

        Colossians 1:23,Romans 10:17-18, The gospel had already been preached to every living creature even in Paul's time. This answers the questions about how to judge those who never heard of jesus.

        Hebrews 7:1-3 Melchizedek had no mother or father, no beginning or end.

        February 3, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • Live4Him

          Why bother?

          February 3, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • Atheist, me?

          No Sir. If you do read the Bible in context you will know that there is nothing like Melchizedek not having parents! Paul was referring to Christ in spiritual terms!

          February 3, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • Alias

          Because more people read this than post here, and we are hoping we can seve some of them from a lifetime of lies and myth.


          February 3, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          Live 4 Him,
          The best way to answer those who quote passages of the Bible in hopes of drawing attention to passages that must be taken in their proper context is...
          "May God bless the reading of His word."
          for, "The word of God will not return void..."

          February 3, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
        • Alias

          @Athiest me?
          That is the normal response i get when I show errors in your book.
          Someone picks one point, argues ineffectively, and acts like the entire post is wrong.

          Look up the actual words that are in the bible. Your interpretation is lacking

          February 3, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • Atheist, me?

          When it comes to the Bible Christ's interpretation is the best. It is essentially this. The entire Bible can be understood through two principles of the Mosaic Law.
          1. Love God with all your life
          2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
          I have tried that and the Bible makes a lot of sense now!

          February 3, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          it would be a pretty basic thought for the snake oil salesmen who wrote the bible to try and cover themselves by putting in lines like "do not believe he who says this book is false for they are servants of the devil" and "he who questions god is wrong sayeth the lord" and "any man who doubts the word of god as written in this book is a fool and will be punished in the afterlife" and so on, and so on, and so on ...

          it's so obvious and transparent!

          so why do Christians keep quoting lines like this from their book when atheists make logical, factual arguments showing the bible's errors and inconsistencies?!?!

          "the bible is right because it is the word of god and it is the word of god because it says so in the bible"

          Comedy Gold!!! LOLOLOL

          February 3, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • Alias

          Galileo was accused or heresy and put under house arrest.
          Clearly his science was in conflict with what the church was teaching.
          It seems obvious to me, you can either believe the earth moves anound the sun OR the bible is the perfect word of god; but you cannot have it both ways.

          February 3, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • Pete

          Don't forget that according to the bible with god all things are possible, except for defeating an army with iron chariots.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • Andy

          The bible is nor form of evidence you idiot. It is a series of fables and fairy tales, just as Greek mythology is was.

          February 5, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
      • Barcs

        Dude the evidence is all around us!

        February 3, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
    • Reality #2

      So according to creationists, everything is created by some god. Who then created the Abrahamic god if said god was not invented by Jewish scribes?

      February 3, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
      • Atheist, me?

        For someone who prides himself in knowing Xtian, Bhuddist and Farsi theology I think u shud know this. I am disappointed to say the least!

        February 3, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
      • Happy Atheist

        Their warped logic tells them all things must have a creator which leads them to the belief in a creator that did not have a creator.

        February 3, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • Pete

          The argument is that the world is too complex for it not to have been created which means that the Christian god can't be all that complex if it wasn't created.

          February 3, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • Happy Atheist

          I see, ultimate complexity requires a creator thus the creator of ultimate complexity must be ultimately simple to not require a creator.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • Pete

          Exactly, it makes perfect sense if you just turn your brain off.

          February 3, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
    • Atheist, me?

      An Honest Atheist
      Mi.li.tant atheists such as Rich.ar.d
      D.aw.k.in.s compare religion to a
      vi.r.us which infects hum.an minds and turns
      potentially rat.ion.al people into dogm.at.ic
      au.toma.tons, willing to kill and die for their
      beliefs. But this is a d.angerous over-
      Although I’m not religious myself – I don’t
      believe in God or follow any religious tradition
      – I believe that religion is being used as a
      scapegoat for deeper psychological problems.
      The do.gm.ati.ca.lly religious impu.lse stems
      from the psychological need for group ident.ity
      and belonging, together with a need for
      certainty and meaning. There is a strong
      i.mp.u.lse in human beings to define
      ourselves, whether it’s as a Christian, a
      Mu.slim, a socialist, an Americ.an, a
      Repu.blic.an, or as a fa.n of a sports club. This
      ur.ge is closely co.nnected to the impulse to be
      part of a group, to feel that you belong, and
      share the same beliefs and pr.inciples as
      others. And these impulses work together with
      the need for certainty
      – the feeling that you ‘know’, that you po.ss.ess
      the truth, that you are right and others are
      At the root of these impulses is a
      fu.nda.me.nta.l an.xiety and sense of la.ck,
      caused by what I call ‘ego-sepa.rateness’ – our
      sense of being dis tin.ct individuals, existing in
      se.par.ation to other people, and a world ‘out
      there.’ This ge.ne.ra.tes a se.nse of being ‘cut
      off’, like fragments which were once part
      of a whole. There is also a sense of
      vu.lne.ra.bility and ins.ecuri.ty, caused by our
      insi.gni.fica.nc.e in the face of the world. As a
      result, we need to ‘bolster’ our sense of self, to
      strengthen our ident.ity. And
      religion – and other belief systems – helps us to
      do this.
      Mil.ita.nt atheists claim that religion itself is
      the source of conflict, but it’s really the need
      for group ident.ity. If religion wasn’t available
      as a way of
      providing group identi.ty, hum.an beings would
      – and do, of course – find other sources of
      ident.ity: ethnic or regio.n.al differences,
      politic.al beliefs, or football clubs. And when
      two or more groups are thrown together, with
      their different beliefs and beliefs clashing –
      different beliefs which are an af.front because
      they suggest that their own beliefs may be
      wrong – conflict and wa.rfa.re are always close
      at hand.
      Spiritual and Do.gma.tic Religion
      However, it’s important to make a distin.ction
      between ‘do.gma.tic’ and ‘spiritual’ religion.
      Do.gma.tic religion is the type I have just
      described, which props up the fragile ego.
      Dogmatically religious people think that they’re
      right and everyone else is wrong. For them,
      religion isn’t about se.lf-development or
      experiencing the tr.a.nscen.dent, but about
      adhering to a set of ri.gid beliefs and following
      the rules laid down by religious au.tho.ri.ties.
      It’s about defending their beliefs against
      anyone who questions them, asserting their
      ‘truth’ over other
      people’s, and spreading those beliefs to others.
      For them, the fact that other people have
      different beliefs is an affront, since it implies
      the possibility that their own beliefs may not
      be true. They need to convince other people
      that they’re wrong to prove to themselves that
      they’re right.
      ‘Spiritual’ religion is very different. It promotes
      the higher attributes of h.um.an nat.u.re, like
      altruism and compas.sion, and fosters a sense
      of the sacred and sublime. ‘Spiritually religious’
      people don’t feel any an.imos.ity to other
      religious groups – in fact, they’re happy to
      inve.st.iga.te other beliefs, and may even go to
      other groups’ temples and services.
      They usually aren’t evangelical – their atti.tude
      is that different religions are suited to different
      people, and that all religions are different
      ma.nife.st.ati.ons or ex.press.io.ns of the same
      es.se.ntial truths.
      In other words, whereas the purpose of
      do.gm.at.ic religion is to strengthen the ego,
      through beliefs, la.bels and group identi.ty, the
      purpose of spiritual religion is the complete
      opposite of this – to tr.a.ns.cend the ego,
      through compassion, altruism
      and spiritual practice.
      Tr.an.scending Religion?
      Some ‘new atheists’ see religions as ar.cha.ic
      su.p.er.st.itions which will event.ual.ly be
      su.p.er.se.ded by science and rea.son, but it’s
      un.li.kely that religion will ever disappear. As
      long as human beings experience ‘ego-
      separation’, dogm.ati.c religion will always
      persist. And as long as we experience an
      impulse to transcend our ‘ego-separation’, so
      will spiritual religion.
      The irony is that mil.it.ant atheism is actually
      very similar to dog.ma.ti.c religion. Mil.it.ant
      atheists are obeying the same impulse for
      identi.ty and certainty – the same desire to
      possess ‘the truth’ as fu.nda.men.tali.st
      Christians. They display the same an.ta.go.nism
      to those with different belief system, and have
      the same drive to ‘convert’ the ig.nor.ant to
      their way of thinking.
      Don’t blame religion for our problems – blame
      the human need for belonging and certainty.
      St.ev.e Ta.ylor is a le.ct.ur.er in psychology at
      Le.eds Me.tro.pol.it.an U.ni.ver.sity, UK. His
      books include The Fall, Waking From Sleep and
      his new book Back to Sa.nity. Eckhart Tolle has
      described his work as ‘an important
      contr.ibu.tion to the shift in consciousness
      occuring on our planet.’ His website is http://

      February 3, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
  19. Alias

    If the bible was infallable I would probably still be catholic.

    February 3, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
    • Atheist, me?

      No u are not still a Catholic because as a former member of the most dogmatic religion on earth you are expected to leave more often than not or stay and become an Atheist.
      Dogmatic Roman Catholicism always produces your kind!
      Anglicans and the Eastern Orthodox are much more resistant to apostasy!

      February 3, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
      • Alias

        But you still have the bible.
        That is why I did not convert to another interpretation of christianity.

        February 3, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
  20. St. Lawrence of Arabia

    Amen, Ken.

    February 3, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      you're a poet and you don't know it.

      February 3, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
      • St. Lawrence of Arabia

        ...but my feet show it, 'cause their Longfellows... BWAH HAHAHAHAHA

        February 3, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • Fred the buddhist

          "With reverent feet the earth he trod,
          Nor banished nature from his plan,
          But studied still with deep research
          To build the Universal Church
          Lofty as is the love of God,
          And ample as the wants of man,"

          February 4, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
    • Barcs

      Ken Ham is a liar and a fraud. He's the one that founded the creationist museum with humans and dinosaurs living together. NOBODY debates age of the earth anymore, he's intentionally manipulating followers to make a profit. He lies because he says he isn't trying to force schools to teach creationism, when he was one of the primary people pushing for that 10-15 years ago. To all the theists out there, please do not fall into the trap of young earth creationism. It's a lie and only a select group of fundamentalist Christians still even consider that plausible. Most creationists don't even believe that anymore.

      February 3, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
      • St. Lawrence of Arabia

        "Most creationists don't even believe that anymore."
        Then they're not creationists... Or Bible believers... And if they don't believe the Bible, then, are they even Christian? Jesus believed in Genesis, for He quoted it. If you disagree with the Genesis account, then you're in disagreement with Jesus.

        February 3, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • h l george

          The christian book of mythology has the secondary/same main character quoting the book of mythology. No flaws there.

          February 5, 2014 at 2:53 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
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.