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. Maleficent

    This shouldn't even be a debate. Religious beliefs belong in the church. Not in the field of science and not in public schools that teach science. The fact that in 2014 we are still having to fight bible thumpers over the science curriculum taught in public schools is mind boggling. If you do not want to teach your kids science, then homeschool them with the creationist curriculum. The rest of us prefer our children to be educated in science – not mythology.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
  2. Joe A

    Here's a quote from St. Augustine – a Doctor of the Church who wrote the following in the early FIFTH Century:

    "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

    With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

    To sum Augustine up, and as Galileo warned the Pope of his day, the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not as the heavens go. Science is the investigation of Nature using the scientific method – theory backed up by repeatable experiment and PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Anything not living up to that standard is not science, it's something else. What Mr. Ham wants to teach is not Science – it belongs in a metaphysics course, or a philosophy course.

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

      Joe, Well said,. Many of the uber religious need to research the "sola Scriptura" It is a principle from the Reformation age that clearly states the bible, scripture, etc., is great for trying to save your "soul", but it has no bearing on science.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
  3. Overmann

    "problems with evolution"

    I've heard enough, thank you!

    February 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
  4. Observer

    He says the creationist view doesn't get coverage in school? We learned all kinds of mythology like Zeus, Poseidon, etc. in history class.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
    • ellid

      Agreed. Religion has no place in the science classroom. Period.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
  5. Jonny Zuhalter

    "Evolutionary Belief System". What an interesting way of relabeling the Theory of Evolution to make it sound like something else and make it seem more in line with Creationism. A scientific theory, based on ideas rationalized outside of whats being observed, that's carefully peer-reviewed, and can be consentually changed by the community itself when it's determined to be inaccurate, can not be lumped in with something that's faith-based and constructed on personal feelings and strict, unchanging dogma. Science welcomes and revels change, faith does not. It's not even close to comparing apples to oranges... its more like comparing bananas to rocks.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
  6. Richard

    In order to be a Creationist, one must ignore an entire Universe of logic, reason, rationality, and evidence that should have convinced them, otherwise. Therefore, Bill Nye doesn't stand a chance of convincing them of a damned thing. He may win the debate, but the only thing he will prove is just how willfully ignorant Creationists really are.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
    • kyzaadrao

      Sometimes I feel the same way about the news media.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
    • Jon

      If you study some areas of science, especially quantum theory, brane theory, expansion of the universe, origin of matter, wave collapse, etc., you begin to understand how little science can explain the behavior of matter in the universe. As we identify more areas of science we are unable to explain using scientific method, the more we validate creation. No scientist that we know of can prove the origin of matter in our visible universe, why the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, the nature of virtual particles, the exact cause of waveform collapse, and any number of other scientific issues that cannot be rationally explained by science; they all defy logic and scientific method. Until science is able to explain all of these things, creation cannot be ruled-out.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
      • bobsyuruncle

        No one is "ruling it out." Even Richard Dawkins allows for it's very, very, very unlikely possibility. However, there is NO evidence, none, zero, nada to rule creation in.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
        • Richard

          The Bible proves that its God thingy does not exist – through its countless contradictions about it. But, the Creationists are too shallow, ignorant, lazy, and stupid to notice..

          February 4, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
      • Richard

        And, all of that was to justify believing in campfire stories intended for children in the Iron Age? It's not like Creationists merely maintain the possibility of a God thingy. They also maintain that it is the cartoon character described in their Bibles. So, I can't take them seriously – at all.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        That is called the god of the gaps... and it is a very juvenile form of apologetics and explaining what you don't understand... the answer should not automatically be... "god did it"

        February 4, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
  7. heroicslugtest

    More YouTube material where we atheists can brag and the supers can facepalm. Go Bill Nye! Science rules!

    February 4, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
  8. blf83

    He's not reading or listening to fact.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
  9. Bob

    I pray that Bill will come to know Jesus as his savior!

    February 4, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Would that make the bible literally true?

      February 4, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
      • Bob

        The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

        Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

        It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword and the Christian’s charter. Here too, Heaven is opened and the gates of Hell disclosed.

        Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

        It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
        • snowboarder

          @bob, the bible is a collection of myths and fables.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • Madtown

          The Bible contains the mind of God
          Even though it was written by men? How can this be?

          February 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • Alias

          So, an all-powerful being wanted one garden with a Minnie-him and a woman,
          so he made billions and billions of stars.
          He also made a heaven and hell, because he was all knowing too.
          He put a tree of knowledge in this garden,
          just to tempt Adam who he had created without the will power to resist it.
          When Adam ate from the tree, god threw him and his woman out of the garden
          and put a sin on everyone who had not been born yet,
          because he is just and loving and fair.
          Several centuries later, after he drown almost everyone,
          he got a married virgin pregnant and tortured the child to death.
          He did this because he had to.
          There was no other option for this all powerful creator of everything and maker of the rules.
          If god had not done this, there would have been no way for god to have forgiven us
          or judged us fairly when we died.

          And anyone who does not understand this and believe it is a fool who will burn in hell forever,
          because it is a part of the plan.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          Straight up copy and paste from other web sites.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • Tom

          It' a book of fiction.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
        • ellid

          And it contains not a single word about science. Ken Ham is lying if he says otherwise.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
        • Bob

          2peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
        • Bob

          Ellis, the bible is not a science book however all that we know about science the bible affirms it.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          Bob, science disconfirms much of what the bible says, and what science does the bible affirm?

          February 4, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
        • Bob

          Other Bob, don't go quoting your filthy Christian book so flagrantly. We know what else your Christian book of horrors contains. Fine stuff like this, from both foul testaments of your mythbook:

          Numbers 31:17-18
          17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
          18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

          Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

          Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

          Leviticus 25
          44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
          45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
          46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

          Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

          Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

          And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

          So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:17 pm |
        • Stacy

          Beautifully stated!!

          February 4, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
    • ooo


      February 4, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
    • Don Lee

      Why in the world do you assume he isn't saved? Because he doesn't agree with you?

      February 4, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
      • Bob

        John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
        Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

        If he believes this he will be saved from hell.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
  10. Awake

    There's a special place to teach creationism, and its called the Church. Keep it out of public schools !

    February 4, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
    • CEC

      Keep it completely away from children.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
    • Bill, Bloominton IL

      along with the "Theory" of evolution

      February 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
      • CEC

        Good one. Got me there. You nailed. No more debate! Thanks

        February 4, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
      • Alias

        And the theory of gravity.
        Let's not tell those lies to the next generation!

        February 4, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
      • Sungrazer

        Do you know what a scientific theory means? It doesn't mean hunch or guess. When something in science is elevated to a theory, it is an established fact.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
      • ellid

        Sorry, but evolution is not in doubt. FAIL.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
  11. E

    Day and Night.....
    Day 1: Light, which He separated from the dark (evening and day)
    Day 2: Atmosphere/Atmospheric water/oceanic and subterranean water.
    Day 3: Dry land and the oceans, as well as vegetation.
    Day 4: The sun, the moon, and the stars (and seemingly the other planets too)

    On Day 4 the filaments of the sky are created.... No Sun for Days 1 through 3, light and darkness, just no Sun. Plants on Day 3, with no Sun. Let alone, the notions that the immense vastness of the Universe is created as the lesser lights to illuminate the Earth at night (in just one day) and that the moon is not a filament but is a reflector.

    Believe what you like. Creation has no basis in science. With any theory there are opportunities for debate and critical peer review. Faith is faith. You accept it, or you do not. But faith does not make fact, and in this case, does not make science.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
    • CEC

      That part is a metaphor ... 🙂

      February 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        So is the rest of it.

        February 4, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
    • ellid

      "Filaments of the sky"???? What? The word in the KJV is FIRMAMENTS.

      Good God in heaven!

      February 4, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
  12. Jim A.

    There is plenty of science to provide as "proof" that the creation model is just as good, if not better than the evolution model.
    Example: All the fossils show up at once. There is no column with the oldest thing at the bottom.
    Example: There are no transition species in the fossil record when there should be more transition species than species. Archeoptrix was a species, so is the duckbilled Platypus.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Actually the fossils do not show up "all at once"
      I suggest you read this or similar: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
      There's a reason that evolution is taught at college level and creationism isn't – there's evidence for the former and none for the latter.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
    • michaellocher

      One obvious difficulty in dicussing evolution with someone such as yourself, Jim, is that you're not getting your "facts" about the scientific theory from a credible source.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
    • snowboarder

      @jim, fossil definitely show up in the column of sediment and most important, every species is a transitional species.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
    • Barcs

      I'm not sure why you'd post a blatant lie like that. Both statements are demonstrably wrong. Sorry! Lying for god is still a sin.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
  13. FrankinSD

    "Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system..." That tells you all that you need to know about Mr. Ham. The difference between a belief system and an empirical theory escapes him entirely. The one is beyond falsification, the other can be proven wrong. The reason why you don't see these debates anymore is that evolution through genetic mutation and natural selection has been explored so thoroughly and demonstrated so conclusively that there is nothing left to debate. And even if there were, you would have to pose an alternate empirical theory, not a belief system.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
  14. kendallpeak

    According to evolution, certain reptiles slowly developed weak hollow bones, useless deformed front appendages, weakened scales that eventually made them birds. This took a long time where the creature was a deformed and worthless creature, no good as reptile, no good as bird. Yet this creature evolved for millions of years as a handicapped and worthless creature. So much for the golden rule of survival of the fittest.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Read and learn: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

      February 4, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
      • kendallpeak

        I have read much. Once again, the flaws in evolution are big enough to drive trucks through.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
        • michaellocher

          "Flaws?" They're not called "flaws" to individuals lacking an ulterior motive; they're called questions. Frankly, the knoweldge gaps and questions which pepper evolutionary science are child's play compared to the chasms which mark complex astrophysics or cosmology, but that doesn't give us license to cease inquiry and start plugging magical answers in there, either.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          There are gaps in the knowledge but evolution is the only thing that explains the evidence. There is no evidence for creationism which is why it is not taught at levels of higher education.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          What were your sources on evolution? Were they creationist? Christian? Apologetic? When you educate yourself on what evolution really is, then we can have a real conversation on its perceived merits and flaws.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
        • Barcs

          You didn't explain a single flaw. You asked a question and a link was provided to help answer it. It's hilarious how you guys think you know more than scientists about a field of science they have studied their entire life, while you have barely even scratched the surface and claim to know more. 😆

          February 4, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
    • michaellocher

      Who ever said "survival of the fittest" was a "golden rule?" It's a broad description of a basic mechanism – subject, in reality, to chaotic variables like anything else.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
  15. Gumby

    Ken Ham is a con man who makes boatloads of money lying to the ignorant. He should be in prison.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
    • Barcs


      February 4, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
  16. time_store

    This debate could prove to be a win-win situation from my perspective if Nye attacks the lack of sound evidence for Flood Geology, and if Ham exposes the inadequacy of mutation-selection as a mechanism capable of producing a single body type, let alone the sudden appearance of many body types in the Cambrian explosion. Ham uses obfuscating jargon when he divides science into 'operational' and 'historical' variations. 'Historical' science by whatever name still uses abductive inference to reach a conclusion. Abductive inference is simply 'inference to the best explanation', and is a perfectly valid methodology. Crime scene investigators assess the evidence and create a story about what happened and who could have done it. Geologists and paleontologists assess the evidence they find from all angles and produce a story that makes the best use of all the evidence. The question to ask in historical science like CSI and geology is: "What phenomena do we know that can produce the evidence we see?" Flood geologists attempt to insert a particular interpretation of scripture regarding the creation time-line into their use of abductive inference to infer how the evidence in geology and paleontology fits. The difficulty for Flood Geology is that the causal adequacy of mainstream geology and paleontology fits the evidence much better than any of the explanations they have produced to date. If Nye attacks Flood Geology on the actual evidence in geology and paleontology, he will score points for his supporters. If Ham has been wise enough to steep himself in the information contained in the book "Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen C. Meyer, he will score points for his supporters. Abductive inference, the method of multiple competing hypotheses, and causal adequacy are important terms to understand whether you are trying to understand evolution vs intelligent design, or Flood Geology vs mainstream geology, or if you are on a jury deliberating the fate of a defendant in a criminal trial.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      There is no sound evidence for "Flood Geology" to support the Noah myth.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        Oh I misread.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
    • Barcs

      Cambrian explosion was a 70 to 80 million long year process. Evolution does not follow a timetable, it follows the environment, which must have been constantly changing during that time, leading to quicker noticeable changes in species. Nye knows this. He will win easy unless he's just doing it for kicks or Ham paid him off.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:50 pm |
      • time_store

        The appearance of phylum-level organisms during the Cambrian was not evenly spaced. Some scientists group many of the first appearances within a much shorter window. The quantum leap in complexity from Pre-Cambrian organisms to the first appearance of the better known Cambrian organisms is interesting for what is not shown in the fossil record. What is missing is the Darwinian tree of gradually increasing complexity. The Pre-Cambrian sediments and the Cambrian sediments were certainly capable of preserving very small and very soft-bodied organisms. Where are the precursors to the Trilobites or Anomalocaris or the other amazing creatures of the time? Darwinian gradualism clearly predicts that species-level organisms should precede genus-level, class-level, on up to phylum-level organisms. And yet the fossil record shows that disparity preceded diversity. I think that is an interesting puzzle. If you have well-reasoned responses to the information in "Darwin's Doubt" then I hope I run across your writing in the future. I think Dr. Meyer raises good questions from the mainstream technical literature, but I would also like to see responses to his book that are not infused with emotional rhetoric.

        February 4, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
  17. JimBoston

    Science is correct and creationists base their assumption on a mistranslation of the first two sentences in the Bible. I can prove it.
    First sentence: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
    First of all, 'God' is the English translation of the Hebrew word Elohim, which is in the plural form. It does not say an individual, who's name is 'God,' created the universe at the beginning of time. What? Yes, that's right. It literally says, In the beginning a group of individuals going by the name of Elohim, created the heavens (the sky, the atmosphere) and the earth ( the ground). The first sentence is an introduction to the creation of this planet not the universe. Second sentence makes it more clear.
    Second sentence: "and the earth was void" Another simple mistranslation of a word but this word is what creationists hinge their entire belief on. The word 'was' in this sentence is translated elsewhere in the same chapters as 'became'. So this sentence should read, "and the earth BECAME void".
    So the literal translation should read, "In the beginning, a group of individuals, terraformed the atmosphere and the planet. The earth had become void."
    Simply stated, some catastrophe had wiped out the atmosphere and all life on the planet earth. Technologically advanced beings going by the name Elohim had terraformed the earth much like scientists today are discussing the terraforming of Mars, by creating an artificial green-house effect, melting the polar ice caps, and creating an oxygen rich environment where we can introduce plant and eventually animal life. Can these be done in a matter of days as the Bible states. Of course not, and neither does the Bible state that. In the following verses it speaks of things being done in days but the Bible also states clearly that "To God a day is like a thousand years, and a thousands years is like a day." It's pretty clear then that the "creation week" isn't really a week but thousands of years.
    God did not create the universe or the planet earth. In the beginning of the current state of affairs, God reintroduced life by terraforming this planet and it took him thousands of years.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
    • BobNewark

      So Elohim terraformed earth what? 4 billion years ago? Or are you saying this was a more recent occurrence? Maybe they did it after the dinosaur extinction?

      February 4, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
  18. Richard

    The Bible has no credibility. None!

    February 4, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
    • Rett

      How do we know you do?

      February 4, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        We know he does with that statement. The bible is fable; obviously some people and places are historically correct but you'd expect that. The foundational stories are proven to be incorrect.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
  19. David T

    Why do I have such a sinking feeling in my gut when I hear someone try to sound supportive of the scientific method of discovery and then end with 'my creator' and the rest of such nonsense? There is no benefit in disrespecting anyone or putting them down for beliefs that have no credible evidence or support and for which there is no rational means of testing. Leave it as it is, mystical and wishful thinking. Just don't confuse it for rational, testable and progressive discovery.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
    • michaellocher

      I'm generally a "leave it as it is" guy myself; a real fan of pluralistic society, where people can believe what Ken Ham does without ridicule...

      ...except that Ken Ham and his ilk are on a mission to inject their beliefs into contexts where they've got no business whatsoever, like the science classroom. So – where guys like this are concerned, the science-loving agnostic in me says take no prisoners. Terminate with extreme prejudice. Humiliate, expose, and chase away the creationist baddies.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
  20. Ashley

    Headline should've read: "Ken Ham to debate Evolutionist"

    February 4, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
    • Barcs

      Except there's no such thing as an evolutionist.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
      • michaellocher

        Very true.

        We call them "normal scientists," or even just "people who passed high school biology and understood it."

        February 4, 2014 at 4:50 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.