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. OldRick

    Not much point, as none of the religulous will change their irrational beliefs as a result, but Bill Nye is always worth listening to.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
  2. Sungrazer

    How many evolution deniers would deny evolution if it taught that humans were outside the scope of evolution? In other worlds, if all life today had a common ancestor except humans? I think some would still be opposed based on the Christian creation story, but I'm betting there would be a lot less anguish about it. The chimpanzee and gorilla evolved from a common ancestor? No problem. Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor? Ridiculous!

    February 4, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
  3. Adam

    Genesis over evolution? You've got to be kidding me. Screw your sky wizard and his talking snake. Wake up, it's 2014, not 300 BC. You don't have any reason to believe fairy tales over tested, peer reviewed science.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
  4. Shana

    What's funny about the comments here are how many people just decide Ken Ham is crazy because his science isn't the main stream. I challenge all of you to do a little research and not blindly follow the main stream media.
    I will admit that I've always believed in a creator but I use to think evolution/big bang had to somehow fit with Creation. After some research and looking at the science of it all, it takes more faith to believe man's explanation of evolution and big bang than to believe the Bible. The science for millions of years is SO flawed its almost comical.
    I ask that you go and do your own research and read Ken Ham's books. You'll be amazed at how much scientific proof backs up the Bible's Creation story.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • Eyeroll

      Creationism isn't science. That may be why.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      So your research was reading Ken Ham's books? You were not very honest or diligent in your research.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
    • Damocles

      'I encourage you to do your own research...' as long as one doesn't go any further than Ham's books. That's the cut-off point.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      So thousands of scientists get it wrong but Ham almost alone gets it right. Modern agriculture is heavily dependent on evolution. All evidence supports evolution, whereas there is no science to support creationism – all the ICR etc. do is try to find holes in cosmology, geology, evolution, etc. as if that disproves them and proved creationism. It doesn't – there is no science in creationism.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
    • truthprevails1

      Oh dear, here you are telling us to do our research yet it is quite apparent you haven't done your own. Ken Ham is a fraud. The science he offers is psuedo.
      Why do you suppose it is that creationism can't be taught in schools and yet evolution can?
      The fact that you don't comprehend the Big Bang or Evolution doesn't make Ken Ham or the bible correct.
      An education is a wonderful thing and there is no excuse in the 21st century for your level of ignorance.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
    • Horus

      Science for millions of years? Wait....according to creationism the planet is only 6k yrs old. And even if you accept modern science, recorded history is <10k yrs. Millions? really?

      February 4, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magic Underwear

      "His [Ham's] science isn't mainstream." No, his science isn't science. It's like saying, well, the theory of gravity is just that – a theory, and so we want to be able to present an alternative theory: magical invisible glue that God squirts out of his bu-tthole that keeps everything attached to the Earth. Because, you know, gravity is just a theory.

      The absolutely frightening thing is that something like over 40% of Americans believe in creationism. How?? How is that possible? How can so many people, in a supposedly advanced country, be so staggeringly blind and stupid about this? How?

      February 4, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
    • Danomite

      Of course it's much easier to believe that some divine being created the universe than it is to try to understand complex scientific laws and theories. Who wouldn't prefer to think that Thor sends lightning bolts down from Asgard than to learn how lightning is really formed?

      February 4, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
    • visitor

      Which actual science books you have read, that aren't adjuncts to religion?

      February 4, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
  5. TonyInDallas

    This quote seemed disturbing to me:
    "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."
    Why would that imply no meaning or purpose in life? If the universe came into existence by accident, and life began by accident, it's still a precious thing. Preserving humanity AND preserving biological diversity are purposes for life, accidental or not.
    Holier than thou crud.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • Eyeroll

      That quote right there is why I cannot take Ham seriously.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
    • Guest

      And therein you found the problem. The reason most people follow a religion (applies to nearly all religions) is because it gives them a sense of purpose and structure in their lives. Without that 'authority' or 'meaning', they would feel lost and hopeless. Some people are terrified of the thought that everything they are was brought about by 'accident'. They would rather live in a comfortable bubble where they don't have to face the fact that they control their own destiny, for good or bad. We will always have religion, because a large segment of people cannot bear the responsibility of being responsible for their own actions.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
  6. MikeT

    Mr. Nye should ask only 2 questions during the debate, and keep asking the two questions until he gets an answer. The questions are 1. What is the scientific theory of Creation? and 2. How can that theory be tested using the scientific method? Until Mr. Ham, or any creationist can answer those questions, and none have so far, there is no scientific debate possible between evolution and creation.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • igaftr

      There is no debate possible, since they each address different things.

      Creation speaks to how things came to be. Just one possibilitiy among an infinite number of possibilities.

      Evolution does not involve how things came to be, but how life adapts and changes. A scientifically proven mechanism.

      This is a debate between a guy who thinks apples are good for you, and a guy who thinks that oranges taste good.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
      • Eiuelos

        Adapting (adaptation) and changing is not evolution. As a creationist, I believe in adaptation (due to an environmental change, suddenly white moths take over where black moths were), but I do not believe that moths will turn into anything but moths. Humans are becoming taller, living longer, passing down desirable traits. Is that evolution? No, we have not become another species.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • igaftr

          You have a small change in a species, then another, then another, and another, multiplied by thousands, millions. Now compare an animal that is the same as it was when it was started, and the two will be so vastly different as to be a new species. ALL creatures are related in that way.

          Humans are living longer due to medical advances, hygene and nutrition. We are taller and generally larger, but that is Epigenetics at work. when you combine epigenetics with genetic mutations that occur naturally, it is easy to see how slight changes become amplified over time. We can read it in DNA and get solid confirmation from some of the fossil record.

          You are arguing the macro vs micro evolution, and there is no such thing. There is evolution, and time.

          February 4, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
    • ???

      Ken Ham could ask the same questions. Is there any way to truly replicate either theory in a lab?

      February 4, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
      • Steel On Target

        Evolution is replicated every day around the world. It is a proven scientific fact. There is not a food on your dinner plate you eat that isn't in some way shape or form a product of evolution.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
      • Attack of the 50 Foot Magic Underwear

        And Bill Nye could answer truthfully that yes, evolution has been demonstrated in lab experiments

        February 4, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
      • Barcs

        Yes. It's been done numerous times.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
    • Maximus

      You are assuming that the scientific method is the ultimate authority on what is true and real. I don't believe humans can fathom even 5% of what's true and real. So my answer to your question is that you are asking the wrong question.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        If true, how does that make the bible story correct? What we know points to evolution and away from creationism, so why do you think ancient desert nomads have a better understanding than us?

        February 4, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
      • Clayton Colwell

        The Scientific Method has corrective mechanisms in place to continue study if certain of its theories end up being iffy or even plain wrong. Religious dogma doesn't, because it's purely axiomatic, and cannot correct for conflicting data - in fact, it can simply ignore any conflicting data it wants because, well, "God did it".

        February 4, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
      • Barcs

        The scientific method is a METHOD, not an authority. It's a method of gathering facts, via rigorous testing and experimentation. When an experiment shows genetic mutations in thousands of genomes and can be shown in any creature on earth that has ever given birth. Falsifying evolution would be easy. All you have to do is find a parent giving birth where the genes do not mutate. This has never happened in any observed genome.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
    • Scott

      I think the same questions can apply to evolutionism as well...can we use the scientific method to test them? As for your theory...a theory is just a well supported hypothesis (it is "uncertain")

      February 4, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
      • Steel On Target

        Evolution is a fact and is proven countless times over every day. It has been subjected to the scientific method and has passed with flying colors. Otherwise nobody would have anything to debate.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
      • Keith

        So what is the support for Creationism? There is just as much scientific support for Zeus and Apollo that for the single "god" hypothesis.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
      • Barcs

        😆 Why do people keep bringing up the same lies? I don't get it. Evolution has been tested and is pretty much undeniable to anybody that has ever studied it. But yeah biblical creationists that have never picked up a biology book in their lives know better than a scientist that has spend decades working in the field.


        February 4, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
  7. Live4Him

    @LightHouse : Evolution on a small scale based on these principles is not difficult to reproduce in the laboratory.

    Actually, when testing forced mutations in a labratory setting failed to produce a single new species even though the scientists involved in the experiment forced an equivalent to more than a million years of evolution. Goggle Fruit Fly experiments for further information.

    @LightHouse : a creationist needs to provide a clear, mathematical reason why a certain branching-off process that must have happened could not have happened.

    Every 'branching-off process' would result in a doubling of the number of species involved. Thus, a single species htat branched off would result in a single new specie and the original specie – thus, two species.

    Evolution is postulated as a random occurrance. Given sufficient occurances and time, average time of occurance can be used in lieu of the time of occurance for a non-random event (see: Law of Averages).

    If we knew the number of 'branching-off process' for a single line from first specie to a specie living today, then we could assume this same value would be the average for every random 'branching-off' event. Given that assumption, then we could utilize standard mathematics to calculate the number of species that should have resulted, assuming that evolution is valid. This formula would be 2 power of #-of-events. For example, 2 power of 8 would result in 256 species. We could then compare this result with the known number of species identified today (extinct and living). Currently this number is just under 2 million species. Since each of these species would need to result from a random mutation, this would indicate that the Law of Averages would apply to all evolutionary random mutations.

    Richard Dawkins postulated a low-end of 1,000 'branching-off' events and a high-end of 100,000 'branching-off' events for the evolution of the eye alone. Using the former number, there should be almost 1 centillion species just for the evolution of the eye to have occurred. A centillion is a one followed by 303 zeros (1E303). Even if we assume that only 1 millionth of these species left a fossil record, we should have around 1E297 species, not the 2E6 (i.e. 2 million) species currently known. This is a mathematical reason why evolution could not have happened.


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

      Try that again. You missed a few points, like soft tissue creatures tend not to leave fossil records, or do so very rarely. Also,fossils of new species are found every so often.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
      • Live4Him

        Read my entire post. I addressed your point with the following comment:

        Even if we assume that only 1 millionth of these species left a fossil record, we should have around 1E297 species,

        February 4, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • TonyInDallas

          You also left out large extinction events.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:21 am |
    • Sungrazer

      Go look at a cladistics diagram to see why you are wrong to declare evolution exponential.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Sungrazer : Go look at a cladistics diagram to see why you are wrong to declare evolution exponential.

        No one declared that evolution is exponential. Remember, it is a random event. The number of species is another issue.


        February 4, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • Eyeroll

          How many species are there?

          February 4, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • Live4Him

          Again, this was included in the original post:

          Currently this number is just under 2 million species.

          February 4, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          You know what I meant. I mean that the following statement is false:

          "This formula would be 2 power of #-of-events. For example, 2 power of 8 would result in 256 species."

          Let's say species A branches into species B and C. Let's say species B branches into D and E. And D branches into F and G. We started with A and ended up with C, E, F, and G. Do you understand now that it's not ilke a college basketball bracket? Not all species undergo branching events. Species C didn't branch at all in this case. Neither did E.

          February 4, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Sungrazer : Let's say species A branches into species B and C.

          It cannot. It could only branch into 'A and B' or 'A and C', not both. When you branch, the original species still exists (until it becomes extinct, if it does).

          @Sungrazer : Not all species undergo branching events.

          Given sufficient time and given that evolution is a random mutation event, yes it WILL undergo a branching event. And it will average the same number of branches as any other branch. Its the law of averages.


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

          "When you branch, the original species still exists (until it becomes extinct, if it does)."

          Nope. Do some research on cladogenesis.

          "Given sufficient time and given that evolution is a random mutation event, yes it WILL undergo a branching event. And it will average the same number of branches as any other branch. Its the law of averages."

          The rate of evolution is not same and does not conform to any law of averages.

          Please take some time to learn about evolution from somewhere other than creationist or apologetic sources. Then we can have a real conversation about perceived merits and flaws.

          February 4, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      This "1 centillion" number, no matter how much obfuscatory sophistry is tossed around to aggrandize it, is pulled straight from the fundamentalist fundament.

      Some very simple animals have nothing more than light sensitive spots that enable them to differentiate light and dark.
      If a patch of such spots developed even the slightest of pits, it would cast a shadow and thereby show the direction of light. If the pit got deeper and started to close,then light would form a blurred image. Mucous secreted by the cells would bend the light and focus it. If this mucous hardened, it would form a lens and transmit a better image.
      All these different fully functional stages at different levels of complexity are found in living animals today.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
      • Live4Him

        I addressed your point with the following comment:

        Even if we assume that only 1 millionth of these species left a fossil record, we should have around 1E297 species,


        February 4, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          I'm not talking about fossils.
          Each stage of the eye's development is present in extant species.

          February 4, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
    • Joe

      If evolution never happened than why did we have an appendix? As it is we have it without purpose, according to you it never had a purpose. Also why is average human height increasing and not remaining the same? Simple examples of evolution of the human race.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
    • Scientist

      Your logic is flawed: Does a variation in the eye make a new species? How many variations of Humans exist on this planet right now? The truth is, from the moment of birth, EVERY single one of us is different from each other, in nearly uncountable ways. These variations and mutations do not make you a new species. Adaptation and Natural Selection are all logical arguments explaining why some traits become more prominent and branch off points occur. Your hole numbers argument is so fallacious because there needs to be more than just random mutations driving the evolution. You also need environmental factors that make the mutations relevant to the evolutionary process.

      I'm not proclaiming evolution as an answer-all scientific theory (as it leads tons of questions), but it forms a logical base to perform many repeatable experiments to help us understand the progression of changes in all forms of live around us. Creationism provides no such foundation and has no scientifically testable solutions. Hell, every creationist "experiment" i have ever read about is simply a test on evolution, showing areas that need further exploration on evolutionary mechanisms, and do NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, to validate creationism as a scientific theory.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
  8. Scott

    Ken Ham is a dunder headed ignorant fool.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
  9. David

    Evolution-creationism debate can be a useful one for a government or maybe history class, as we try to learn why we separate religion (creationism) from state (education).

    Trying to teach creationism in school is nothing more than forcing students to learn tenants of your religion.

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


      February 4, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
  10. Vic of New York

    Somehow it seems that in Ken Ham's opinion, there are only two options for creation: Either some guy in the sky with a grey beard created us, or in the "molecules to man" notion life is meaningless. Not to pre-empt the debate, but who said these are the only two options? And by the way, who created the old man with the beard? And why does he/she have to be an external diety separate and superior to all of life? By the way, where was he at the "Big Bang"? And who says he/she had to build a "magic manaquin" out of mud? And, oh yeah, who decided what "his image" is that he/she created us in? Maybe he/she is an ameoba and that's how we got started as ameobas!

    Which brings me to my point: maybe God is nothing more than the force of life, that animates anything and everything that can be animated. And maybe the more complex the life form the more life force gathers in it. And maybe that is what motivates all life to grow and procreate.

    And there you have; science and creationism as one and the same. But then again, maybe our egos are to strong to accept that god begins and ends with us (ALL).

    February 4, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magic Underwear

      @ Vic – but what you are postulating – some kind of life force – is certainly NOT what the Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, believe and preach. Their god has essentially human characteristics grafted onto such characteristics as omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence. The god of the bible is capable of human emotions – love, hate, anger, jealously.

      Very, very different than a "force". in fact, why not just say, a force? Why label it as a god. that carries a pretty specific connotation.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
  11. Praisethelards

    The Bible should be allowed to be discussed in schools – in the Creative Writing and Ancient Myths courses...

    February 4, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
  12. ryan050973

    Proponents of evolution base their belief so only absence of God.

    Objectivism rejects any notion of the supernatural as incompatible with the objectivity and regularity of nature as identified by reason. There is no credible evidence of miracles, magic, or other supernatural phenomena in nature.

    There's no credible evidence for the theory that everything materialized without an intelligent designer either. That's many if not most persons are agnostic.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
    • Yellow#5

      LMAO, Objectivists are even more deluded than creationists.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magic Underwear

      There's lots of evidence against the theory that there is an "intelligent designer". There are many, many examples in biology which clearly demonstrate that, if there was designer, that designer was far from intelligent. In humans, we have the remnants of nict-itating membranes in the corners of our eyes. We have the appendix. We have the coccyx. Those are clearly vestigial biological remnants of our evolutionary past. Or, one of my favourites – the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe. Instead of travelling a few inches, this nerve travels down one side of the giraffe's neck, and then up the other side – a distance of 10-15 feet. Why, oh why, would an "intelligent" designer create such an inefficient, wasteful, vulnerable design?

      February 4, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
    • epoxide

      Fool... evolution says nothing about whether or not a god exists. It does say that things didn't happen like they did in Genesis, but then again so do geology, atomic theory and physics, to name a few...

      February 4, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
  13. Sarge1400

    I stopped reading at the point the author defined evolution as a 'belief system'. Evolution has been proven in the lab time and time again.
    And to anyone whose argument is that evolution is only a theory: you clearly do not understand the scientific definition and usage of the word 'theory'. Here's a hint: it's not the same as a hypothesis.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
    • Guod

      Please name on of those experiments that "prove" evolution. Bet you cannot do it.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
      • Barcs


        February 4, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
    • Ichthyosaurus


      Just to clarify not to disagree: Science doesn't deal with proof. If you want proof you should be in the field of math. Its more accurate to say that a "theory is supported by the evidence." If your going to be picky about the use of theory in and out of the scientific vernacular you need to be consistent and excise the phrase "proof".

      February 4, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
      • Barcs

        That's like saying that science never proved that the earth revolves around the sun. Science proves things all the time. For example genetic mutations and natural selection, the 2 main mechanisms of evolution are conclusively proven.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
    • Guod

      Let me help you out: You actually have to break all the accepted (and observable) laws of science to make "goo-to-you" evolution work. Such as the First Law of Thermodynamics – Matter can neither be created nor destroyed; therefore, where did the energy and mass come from to create the Big Bang????? Second Law of Thermodynamics – Entropy where systems move towards disorder; therefore, where did all of the marvelous order in the universe come from (and how did early molecules and cells "know" to create more complicated and orderly systems)???? (hint: it was not from random molecular collisions). Humans and everything we observe in the universe is not the end result of a lightning strike in an ancient mud puddle!
      How did life spring from non-life? Let's see – spontaneous generation (no Pasteur – a creationist – disproved that one, chemical evolution – no, biogenesis (yeah that sounds kind of scientific). The only experiment that comes close to "proving" this one is the Miller-Urey experiment which only creates amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins which are the building blocks of DNA, which is the code for genetic information, etc. However, to get from a few simple amino acids to life is a HUGE stretch, and have NEVER been proven in the lab.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
      • Clayton Colwell

        Aside from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics involving closed systems instead of open systems (and thus not really applicable re abiogenesis on Earth), the study of cellular automata shows that complex behavior can easily self-organize from a small set of simple rules. Claiming that such violates the notion of entropy is, well, kinda silly.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
      • Barcs


        Pay attention folks. Ken Ham will undoubtedly use the same arguments as the uninformed person above. Goo to man evolution? Could you please cite me the part of the theory of evolution that addresses that? If you don't even know what evolution is, you probably shouldn't tell people its wrong. Just a thought.

        February 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • charleschapmantest

          And... it's pretty obvious: Bill Nye should stick to teaching children his modern-day "science" conjectures and stories and fiction. Bill got pounded by a man who spends most of his time teaching grownups about the REAL universe. Bill is OK as long as his main objective is to teach children. They can always learn about reality later in life...

          February 5, 2014 at 2:48 am |
  14. Manmohan NJ

    We must never take out the creator from creation i.e the creator is not different from the creation. That is why they say everything's divine Man, Food, Animals, Birds, Trees, Earth, Sun, Moon, etc etc. Evolution is a continuity and man its highest fruit. You may argue why evolution stopped ? It is for the same reason's computer has stopped to evolve. Doesn't a computer have a keyboard and a display? Man (and anyone) in himself is not less than the Whole, so you may ask why he stopped evolving computers? Enough food for thought for the debate.

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

      Except evolution hasn't stopped. So, no wondering

      February 4, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • Damocles


      February 4, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
    • Barcs

      Evolution is still happening, it can be measured in the genetic mutations from parent to offspring. Similarly computers are still "evolving" as well. I just upgraded my video card last week so I can play all the newest games at max settings. It's a different version of evolution, obviously, but your post makes no sense. Stop making NJ look bad. The one thing good about jersey is that religious nutjobs are few and far between.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
  15. Zoup

    I see the Atheists have come out in full force.

    I for one believe that science and religion can co-exist. As a Christian and Amateur Astronomer, I can tell you about string theory and the big bang 14 Billion years ago, which I do indeed believe happened. In regards to the big bang though, there is one question that even Stephen Hawking could not solve, and that was how it all started. How those hadrons, protons and neutrons formed is still theory, As a Christian, I myself (along with Hawking up until recently) believe it all started one way. Others will continue to theorize. Just as we continue to try and unify gravity and quantum physics.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
    • Madtown

      I myself believe it all started one way. Others will continue to theorize.
      You're theorizing too, religions are creations of the human mind. That said, you of course are free to believe what you wish. But, why christianity? Why do you select it, instead of other available religions?

      February 4, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
    • Clayton Colwell

      For all I know, the Biblical account of creation may be absolutely correct. However, one cannot base scientific principles from that starting point - there is no scientific utility in "God waved and it was so." That's why scientific inquiry *must* ignore supernatural wildcard variables and focus on observable data to test hypotheses.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
    • Barcs

      They can coexist, but not in the eyes of the fundamentalist christians who take the bible as absolute literal truth. They instigate 99% of the arguments about evolution that show nothing but ignorance of the actual theory of evolution and misrepresent facts.

      February 4, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
  16. CriticalThoughtQuestionsEverything

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

    This one sentence illustrates my problem with creationism. My personal thought, not belief, is that the Bible is the word fallible humans, and not an infallible creator.

    Personally, I tend to think a creator did/does exist and that evolution was simply the method that was used. I also entertain the idea that the creator may be just as fallible as we are.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
  17. jeffc6578

    The biggest problem with creationism is that it is founded in the beliefs of one particular strain of religion. Believe whatever you will, but keep your beliefs and the teaching of your religious beliefs to your home and your church, where you can teach your children whatever you believe, without involving MY children.
    But I'll be damned if anyone is going to use the public school where I send my child to indoctrinate my child into ANY religion, especially any religion that goes counter to my beliefs – and Christians need to appreciate that means keeping Muslims and Satanists from having access to their children, too.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
  18. Obamabus

    I am in the (small, it appears) camp that believe both evolution and creationism can be true and logically coexist. In fact, I believe that is the most logical answer.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
    • Horus

      Creationism claims the earth is apprx: 6k yrs old (go to the Creationist Museum's website). Modern science provides core samples dated to apprx. 4.5 billion years. How can both be correct? There are many claims under the umbrella of creationism which run counter to modern understanding. You cannot reconcile Ham's version of Creationism with modern science.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
    • yf2

      And a tossed coin can land both heads and tails at the same time. It is the only logical solution, by your thinking.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
  19. methos75

    Oh yes it is on tonight, the prophesied debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on Evolution is now upon us. That is if it can indeed be properly called a debate, since a debate is usually between two rational speakers using evidence to make their cases its hard to call this one when one said holds no verifiable evidence to speak of at all. And one does not "win" a debate about two completely different world views when one side merely creates false rationales and spectacle and insist on using unprovable supernatural elements in opposition to actual verifiable scientific. There is no debate between belief and facts, and one who's stance is built upon the backbone of the lack of those things. One must also question the motives here, funny that Ken Ham is $26 Million in debt and has until the 6th to payback most of it. One really needs to seriously question the why and when of this exercise in theatrics.

    The issue here is that Ken Ham will as per usual try to insist that the bible is an accurate retelling of creation and is there fore all the evidence needed. Which is hilarious in itself due to his insistence of asking "where you there" in response to statements defending Macro-evolution, in the same slippery sloop can be attributed to his stance as well. Was he there to observe creation? No. But he insist that since he has faith that the bible word's are divinely ordained, he shrugs that fact off. But we still have the perplexing question of rather the bible is indeed the word of god to look into. Without being there as it was written, he just does not know, since he was not there as he so likes to utter forth. Faith in something is not evidence of it, faith is at the end of the day nothing but hope in the fact that something might be tangible and nothing more.

    That is why this debate is only really useful as something to mock, not to try to gain and understanding of two different world views from. You simply cannot give real credence to a stance that relies on the hope that it is correct. Science might be faulty and in time new evidence can override past beliefs of how systems work, but at the end of the day it is still based on testable, observable, and tangible evidence, something creationist lack entirely.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
  20. erinogirl123

    But which story of creation do they believe should be included in the discussion in schools? Greek mythology? The Bible? Central Asian?

    Evolution should be taught in science classes. Theories of creation should be taught in religion or ancient history classes.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
    • SarahFalin

      I agree however they can only propose hypotheses not theories. In fact they are untestable hypotheses.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:40 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
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.