home
RSS
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. AAAAHHHHhhhhhhh

    I don't know anything about Ken Ham, but I hope Bill doesn't screw up. Anything Ken can come up with or rebut can be countered very eloquently and soundly, making him look like a fool. Dawkins covers it all. But when you're on a stage debating, it might be tough to recall and properly frame it.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
  2. Jesse

    Quite simply, you cannot "prove" creationism without "proving" that there is a God. Instead of wasting our time with this rubbish about how creationism is not being given a fair shake in SCIENCE class, how about figure out a way to scientifically prove God's existence. If you can pull that off, then the creationism model will be easy to prove.

    Good luck. I look forward to hearing back from you once you figure out that loose puzzle piece.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
  3. Dan

    Why can't your god use science and not magic?

    February 4, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
  4. Joey

    There is nothing arbitrary about science. Science entails falsifiability, whereas "creationism" offers nothing but dogma and narrative. Creationism is not a branch of science, it's just a bedtime story for hillbillies.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
  5. gspot

    how do we know that Chuck Norris isnt Jesus returning. Cause Chuck wouldn't have died he would have killed everyone and went home to eat a hot pocket

    February 4, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
    • WASP

      XD

      February 4, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
  6. TheNewerGuest

    If evolution can't be tested in the lab because it's something that has occurred in the past (which is false but whatever), does that mean we have to invalidate everything we've learned about history? Historical findings could also be considered untestable since they're from the past so did the Roman Empire ever exist? If I believe it didn't, does that make it disappear?

    Also, evolution is as much as a 'belief' as the theory of gravity. No matter how hard you might believe you can jump to the moon, gravity is always going to be there to bring you back down to Earth.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
    • Jesse

      Not to mention that if you can't prove evolution because it occurred in the past, then you also wouldn't be able to prove creationism for the same exact reason.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
      • TheNewerGuest

        Absolutely, but Mr Ham has the luxury of hiding behind a wall of 'faith' – he doesn't need his beliefs to be proven, he just defaults to faith which, of course, is completely absurd if you're trying to win a debate.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • Jesse

          Ding, ding, ding. What a great position to take, right? You have to prove your argument completely and with zero room for doubt, but you can't use science to do it, while I do not need to prove my argument at all simply because it is and I know it is because, hey, it is.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
    • Will

      The theory of Gravitation is an attempt to explain the phenomenon we see everyday. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain something we don't see everyday. Evolution is assumed therefore scientists try to find the pieces to fit what they think the puzzle should look like.

      Please.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
      • EricR

        Actually...yes we do see evolution every day. We see cows that came from aurochs. We see dogs that came from wolves. We see corn that was once a lowly grass...we have seen moths that were once white start having darker offspring after the industrial revolution got underway so that they could hide on soot covered walls and trees. We can also see evidence in the fossil record of how animals evolved from other animals...as physical traits morph from their original form to their present day from. So if you are not seeing these things every day...you just are not looking.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
  7. CaptainObvious

    I have never truly understood how or why some creationists and some scientists claim to be at odds with one another. To me, science just represents our beginning to understand the tools God used in organizing his grand design.

    There are plenty of scientists who believe in a higher and intelligent being. To me, belief or disbelief in God is a personal preference, and nothing more. It is not something that can be tested, neither is one personal belief system superior to the other. Moreover, a simple look at the facts show that, throughout history and even in modern times, science on one end is certainly not mutually exclusive of God on the other. There always have been (and always will be) a great many scientific thinkers out there who will claim their personal beliefs in a supreme being are not in conflict with their observations.

    In short, I think this debate is somewhat of an exercise in futility and irrelevance. Just saying.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
    • scottca

      Because there is no evidence to support the existence of any god. And to believe in anything without evidence to support its existence is an act of irrationality. Just as its insane to believe in the blue 6ft tall monster in my closet without evidence to support its existence, so is it insane to believe in a god without evidence to support its existence.

      Science is nothing more than the application of rational deductive reasoning to understand and navigate reality.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
      • network

        That isn't true. There is plenty of proof about the existence of God. What is also true is that you can't prove a negative. So it is impossible to disprove God.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • Happy Atheist

          "What is also true is that you can't prove a negative. So it is impossible to disprove God."

          Yes but you see how silly your argument becomes when you just change one noun...

          What is also true is that you can't prove a negative. So it is impossible to disprove Leprechauns.

          What is also true is that you can't prove a negative. So it is impossible to disprove Unicorns.

          What is also true is that you can't prove a negative. So it is impossible to disprove elves.

          What is also true is that you can't prove a negative. So it is impossible to disprove Harry Potter is a wizard.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
      • Jacob Benjamin Taylor

        It all depends on your view of "God". It is absolutely fine to challenge evolution. It's important to challenge it. Just it's asinine to challenge it with a book that has been doctored more than any other book. I've been told since I was young that creationism would overshadow evolution one day..... Still waiting....

        February 4, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
      • CaptainObvious

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR8qIrJcJh4

        I am actually not telling anyone how or what they should believe. Again, I think it is merely a personal preference, nothing more. There are plenty of well known thinkers who are very open about their personal beliefs. Again, I don't think they are tying to convince anyone. Rather, they see their beliefs as personal and not in conflict with their observations. So it always has been, so it always will be.

        Again, this whole is an argument in futility. To many, including myself, God and science are not mutually exclusive of one another.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
    • Anonymous

      Did you take another person's handle unintentionally? Because you're not the Cpt. Obvious that is a regular poster here..

      February 4, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • ss

      The problem is when people inject belief as fact. You can believe in a higher power if you want but asking people to form facts based on the bible and make arguments that the bible is a source of evidence is nonsense.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • scottca

      There is no evidence to support the existence of any god. And to believe in anything without evidence to support its existence is an act of irrationality. Just as its insane to believe in the blue 6ft tall monster in my closet without evidence to support its existence, so is it insane to believe in a god without evidence to support its existence.

      Science is nothing more than the application of rational deductive reasoning to understand and navigate reality.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • wrap2tyt

      Dude... get off the fence. If you believe in God, that's fine, nobody holds that against you... but understand, Science is tangible and CAN be proven.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Dr. Greg Graffin's PhD study reveals that the worldview of the overwhelming majority of the world's evolutionary biologists is so different from traditional theology in that no gods exist for them, there is no such thing as the incorporeal spirit or soul, there is no life after death — all of the things that are held most passionately by traditional theology, all of them have to be abandoned. And if that condition is met, then religion is perfectly harmonious with the tenets of evolution. The only way to find compatibility in such a worldview is by accepting a religion with no authority on the most meaningful matters of human existence.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • scottca

      There is no evidence to support the existence of any god. And to believe in anything without evidence to support its existence is an act of irrationality. Just as its insane to believe in the blue 6ft tall monster in my closet without evidence to support its existence, so is it insane to believe in a god without evidence to support its existence.
      Science is nothing more than the application of rational deductive reasoning to understand and navigate reality.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
    • snowboarder

      does that go for all gods?

      February 4, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
    • RES

      Well stated – I agree

      February 4, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
  8. gspot

    Chuck Norris

    February 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
  9. Don Wall

    I understand that the purpose of science is to uncover the mechanisms of causality. This is an entirely different from a system of beliefs. I do believe that something miraculous is going on here – us, but you have to embrace science to "believe" it. We are an animal species that has theories about animal species, etc. The human race is like a huge herd of elephants that can do arithmetic – go figure.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
  10. scottca

    When one must argue against science to hold onto their beliefs, one has already lost the argument.
    Science is nothing more than the application of rational deductive reasoning to which the alternative is irrationality.
    To argue against science is to argue for irrationality.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
  11. ss

    Well it is simple, evolution has geological evidence and yes theory that can be debated as probable or not. Creationism has one book. Evolution has required the work of thousands of scientists, theory, testing and debate. Creationism has one book. Evolution asks to be analyzed and reviewed. Creationism has one book.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
    • The GOP need to pack up and leave

      Actually, the 'earth was created in 7 days' used in the Bible actually originated in Mesopotamia. It was later adapted by ancient peoples just like we take A Christmas Carol and adapt it to new audiences each year.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
  12. Aport725

    "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."

    Kind of like the way Christianity and many other religions established beliefs and practices modelled after other religious groups they wished to bring into the fold? Did God directly tell them to do that?

    And which is the proper absolute authority? Jesus? Allah? Buddha? Vishnu? Chuck Norris?

    February 4, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
    • ss

      And....please answer who created God if all is created.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
      • scott

        Umm...We did.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
  13. gspot

    same argument different players. I'm telling you Rambo can beat up Superman.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
  14. visitor

    You know what is also in Genesis? Eve ate an apple, and is punished by menstruation and childbirth that hurts. Prove it wrong, oh so high-and-mighty scientists. I think that should be taught in biology. Don't you?

    February 4, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
    • Jahtez

      That wonen menstruate? It already is. Wow.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
      • Happy Atheist

        I think his point was teaching causality. If the religious want creationism taught in school along side evolution then we should teach how God cursed women with monthly cramps because of what Eve did. Neither have any proof and are just opinion based on the reading of ancient peoples beliefs which when you really look into what crazy stuff people have believed throughout history it would make anyone skeptical of believing anything else without proof.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • visitor

          But it's in GENESIS Happy Athiest. Genesis. I have biological information from a Higher Authority.

          Plus I am female, so all you guys, you are my authorities also. But my value is high, as I am worth as much as a few she-goats. I think we need to return to the gold and she-goat standard. Libertarians, feel free to weigh in.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
    • Observer

      Also teach that she listened to a TALKING serpent.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
      • MBane

        Not only that, a serpent who was allowed to enter God's paradise after having been cast to earth. Someone how it opened a new portal to enter the garden of Eden. This serpent was Satan – the most beautiful of angels who has now also acquired the power to shape shift into animals and retain voice communication and poison apples even when the serpent can't reach the apples or even use it's ands to poison said apples. – all of this without God who is everywhere and knows everything not knowing what this serpent was up to. And as punishment God casts 2 humans out of paradise which is never seen again. Did it moved to a different dimension perhaps?

        February 4, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • The GOP need to pack up and leave

          Actually, the term 'serpent' means 'snake' to us, but it didn't mean that to the ancient who were telling those stories ages ago. There's no proof that the 'serpent' was Satan since Satan didn't show up in the bible until about mid-way through the Old Testament. As far as we know, the serpent was always part of the Garden.

          February 4, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • visitor

          Or it was an analogy to the older religion, as some feminist historians have posited.

          February 4, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
    • scottca

      Females of all mammalian species give birth, Are you going to tell me that mouse eve bit an apple too? How about sloth eve?
      You argument is so childish as to not even be worthy of a serious reply. It boils down to you saying its because of magic.
      Please grow up and learn something.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
      • visitor

        You will never hear a sloth wail as much as a North Shore mom. Take it from me. The answers are all there, in Genesis. Read it and weep.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
    • The GOP need to pack up and leave

      Genesis also proved how weak-minded men are and that they're easy to manipulate. After all, it took someone of extraordinary ability to get Eve to eat the apple because a mere human wouldn't have convinced someone as smart as the female of the species to do that whereas all she had to do was suggest that Adam eat the apple and he was more than happy to.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
  15. Kevin

    Wow. Let's go through everything this guy says and identify everything that's wrong:

    1) "instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with evolution"
    What problems? Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection is the most successful scientific theory of all time. Every "problem" raised against it is an argument from ignorance, an argument from incredulity, or simply a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.

    2) "we have Ph.D.s in astronomy, geology, biology, molecular genetics, the history of science, and medicine" – So what? Being a PhD doesn't, by definition, make you right or make your ideas any more credible, and to claim otherwise is an appeal to authority.

    3) "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." There is no dichotomy between "operational science" and... whatever he thinks the opposite is. Evolutionary theory is essential to understanding biology. Evolutionary theory does not only describe the past. Evolutionary theory can be, and is, routinely studied IN the laboratory, especially in organisms that reproduce quickly, like bacteria.

    4) "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." The challenges to evolutionary theory are not scientific in nature and therefore can and should not be taught in the science classroom. Evolutionary theory does not deal with the origin of life. There is no "other side" to evolutionary theory that does not consist of a marginally better-articulated "nuh-uh!" Not every "issue" (as if this is even an issue) has, or deserves, another side.

    5) "Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone." No, this does not come from the "public schools." Science is the rigorous, ordered study of the natural world. The instant one attempts to explain a phenomenon by invoking something outside of the natural world, it, by definition, ceases to be science.

    6) "Our young people — and adults — should be aware that considerable dissent exists in the scientific world regarding the validity of molecules-to-man evolution." This is simply a lie. The fact that scientists aren't yet sure how it happened is not an argument against the claim that it DID happen.

    7) "If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life". This is not only an opinion, it is utterly irrelevant to the theory of evolution (which is completely independent of the origin of the universe). And even if it WERE relevant to the theory of evolution, it would have absolutely no bearing on the validity of the theory.

    Overall and unsurprisingly, the author has extreme difficulty staying on the topic of evolution and tends to drift into attempts to bolster his own authority, undermine the credibility of Mr. Nye (who is much more than the host of a children's TV show, thank you), focus on the completely subjective and utterly irrelevant moral consequences of evolutionary theory being correct, and demonstrates a stark lack of understanding about the scope of evolutionary theory. He shows not even a cursory understanding of the evidence and research currently taking place,

    Richard Dawkins and the late Steven Jay Gould, while they disagreed substantially on some of the precise details of evolutionary theory, agreed on probably more than 99% of it – and had made an agreement never to publicly debate creationists. Why? Because creationists don't want to win debates. They just want the attention that a debate with a prominent scientist brings, because being on the same stage as someone like Dawkins, or Nye, or whoever makes it look like their argument has equal merit. Obviously, it does not.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
    • SurfGuy2107

      Great reply, Kevin.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
    • visitor

      And they would be correct. However there is a certain perverse fascination to those to attach what gives their lives meaning to everything and everyone else and then not far behind is their insistence that ONLY their type of attachment can result in "meaning" and happiness and morality for another human.

      My life had increased meaning when I simply stopped caring if there was a g-d or not. My life had even more meaning when I was in a heavy meditation practice and found simply awe-inspiring spiritual experiences. However, would Mr. Ham approve and are my experiences just as valid? It has absolutely no explanation anywhere in the Bible and in fact, my experience is can be considered downright evil.

      These people are just disingenuous preachers. They want to use the public schools to preach to our kids. Thinking humans know this.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
    • TheNewerGuest

      This is a great rebuttal. I hope Bill is able to pick through Mr. Ham's arguments in a similar manner.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
  16. scottca

    When one must argue against Science to try and hold onto their beliefs, they have already lost their argument,
    Science is nothing more than the application of rational deductive reasoning, the alternative to this is irrationality. To argue against science is to argue for irrationality.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
  17. Joseph

    Bill Nye is about to get his patookie kicked to the moon. He will never admit it, but it WILL in fact happen. I once saw a debate at the Florida School of Law auditorium between Harry Binswanger – a noted atheist scholar – and Norman Geisler – a Christian scholar – over the existence of God. Geisler kicked Binswanger's but, albeit very graciously, and it was totally obvious to all, but Geisler did not have the integrity or the honesty to admit it.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
    • tony

      Did you have the last bit backwards?

      February 4, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
    • wrap2tyt

      "Bill Nye is about to get his patookie kicked to the moon." I seriously doubt that, but if that were to happen I bet his explanation would not be "...it's God's will...".

      February 4, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
    • Horus

      1) what does your anecdotal experience of a different debate with different people have to do with this one?
      2) The 'winner' of a debate about religion or god usually comes down to which side you choose to believe.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
    • igaftr

      joseph
      Someone arguing that god exists will always fail since there is no evidence at all anywhere.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
  18. Juergen

    This 'debate' will be a waste of time. I don't care what credentials creationists hold. The scientific evidence of evolution is overwhelming.

    Why don't we teach creationism in schools? Because it's a backward religious doctrine that has no reason being there.

    But what the heck, why let the science of the world's evolution get in the way of religious doctrine?

    February 4, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
    • wannabegates

      Again I say, show me the facts... you have none! Science is just as bad at showing facts as most religions are... it's all conjecture.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
    • Joseph

      You know absolutely nothing you i d i o t.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
  19. dlh

    A debate on this subject is moot. If there is a divine supernatural being that could create the universe in 7 days as Genisis states and the creationists believe, such a diety could also create all the scientific evidence that evolutionists use to dispute creationism. Why? To challenge faith. To seperate the faithful from the skeptical.

    If you chose to not believe there is such a diety, and you are wrong, you risk eternal damnation. If you chose to believe in said diety and you're wrong, you're existence ends when your life ends – no different than if you believed otherwise. The choice is up to you, Peter Pan.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
    • Jahtez

      Pascal's Wager? Not very convincing.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
    • snowboarder

      that is a fun fallacy. god loves you, but you will have eternal damnation if you exercise the supposed free will he provided you to choose differently than he would like.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
    • igaftr

      Pascals wager, which is a false argument.
      By your logic, you need to believe in every one of the thousands of gods men have worshipped. Better get crackin'...you have to make up for a lot of lost time with a LOT of gods.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
    • JC

      Yawn. Yet another creatard making a hell and damnation argument to justify their belief in an imaginery sky fairy. Here's my response. If indeed your god would subject someone to eternal damnation for not believing in him, when he (supposedly) created us with the ability to reason, then he's no god at all. He's nothing more than a supernatural dictator. Given a choice between a heaven filled with your god and a bunch of hypocritical tea baggers or a hell filled with rational people, I'll take hell every time. .

      February 4, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
    • What IF

      dlh,

      This is another tired repeti.tion of Pascal's Wager - thoroughly refuted since the 17th century (where have you been?)

      - What if the real "God" is Allah, or Vishnu, or Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl, or any of the other of thousands which have been dreamed up over the centuries? Some of them are very jealous and vengeful and will relegate you to nasty places for not worshiping them. You'd better cover your butt by believing in ALL of them and fulfill their wishes and demands.

      - What if the real "God" prefers those who use logic and reason and punishes you as a silly sycophant?

      - What if the real "God" detests those who believe something just to cover their butts in eternity?

      February 4, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
  20. jed

    Bill Nye? are you kidding me. Might as well get Bullwinkle the moose.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
    • Observer

      jed,

      Not a problem. Consider who he is debating against.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Advertisement
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.