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. CEC

    " I can believe in God and evolution, they are not mutually exclusive."

    What a muddle. What does god add to the equation. Evolution exists without reference to god.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
    • the real issue

      Remember that evolution is change based on selection. It says nothing about the origin of life at all. As a practicing scientist, I know evolution is a real, necessary process that occurs in all living things all the time. I do not have evidence that elucidates the origin of life. It is mere speculation by all people due to the lack of evidence. True scientists must be agnostic as there is a (vanishingly small) possibility there is a god/extraterrestrial who planted life here or that exists at all. Since then, however, it has been evolving in its many beautiful, adaptible forms. Evolution as a process is real. Origin of life is at debate. Why debate something for which there is no evidence to base a speculation on?

      Life is not meaningless in the absence of "an authority". We live to live and then die. What is so scary about that?

      February 4, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
  2. Fred

    How will all of NASA's fakery effect their debate?

    February 4, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
    • law is not order

      since they obviously 'mooned' us on the lunar landings, they're probably faking everything else.... yeah, i'd say they better not discuss "finding" by nasa because they'd have to dismiss the "evidence"...

      February 4, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
    • Eyeroll

      You're a creationist, aren't you, Fred?

      February 4, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
      • Fred

        Do "creationists" believe in the fake moon landings?

        February 4, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
  3. notsofastmyfriend

    For those who are boasting before the event: watch the debate. You've been indoctrinated- evolution today enjoys the same uncritiqued status that creation once did. There are "smart" people on both sides. Just watch and listen with an open mind. Boasting and jeering at Creationists shows an inability to admit your own preconceptions. No one has all the answers to all the questions- if you don't think there are problems with evolution, you simply haven't thought things through. The best way to be confident in your own position is to hear it fairly critiqued by someone who disagrees- so you've got nothing to lose!

    February 4, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Again, what are these "problems" with evolution?

      February 4, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
      • Scriptural Scientific Evidence

        Stephen J. Gould said himself that it would take a great deal of faith to believe in evolution. If you want to believe scientists blindly, then we do we ignore what one of the greatest evolutionary scientists have said?

        February 4, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
      • Christian Crusader

        There's nothing wrong with pointing out evolution's flaws. No I'm not going to tell you what they are. I'm going to laugh at you for blindly believing your evolutionary scriptures. Evidence? It's based on FAITH! Why do we need evidence? It's the truth, though, so ya'll have to believe it or else. A CELL IS TOO COMPLEX!!! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

        February 4, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
    • George Genius

      You're an idiot

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

      Baloney. Evolution has had severe criticism, and it stands up. Christianity has been shielded from criticism until recently, because of the power that its high priests and rulers had. No more, and we are tearing down the walls of your sick, evil religion. So go suck an egg, loser. Your religion is fading into history.

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

        Wow- how articulate and cordial. I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't be able to hear a fair critique from a scientific perspective of your own belief system. How could you? Self control in these sorts of situations is important. If you really care about the truth, then again I say, you have nothing to fear. Is Christianity "losing" in our country? Of course- just as Jesus said "there will be a great falling away before the end"- so you're fulfilling our own prophesy. But we will still bless you when we are cursed by you, and wish you nothing but the best. Some of us have actually thought through both sides of the arguments and come to a place where we don't feel the need to insult those who disagree. Debates like this use your own rules: the rules of the scientific community, to demonstrate flaws with conclusions that cannot be substantiated scientifically. Again- I encourage you to watch the debate and dispense with the immaturity and name-calling.

        February 4, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
    • zip

      An atheist can't convince me that god doesn't exist and a devout religious person can't convince me that god does exist. In addition, there are so many unanswered questions.

      Religious people fill in the answers with god... and you don't have to believe them. However, I noticed that many of the evolution supporters here, on this thread, fill in those unanswered questions with nothing.

      Keep in mind, the creation story is actually freakishly accurate.... the heavens and the earth first... then the sea, then fish, then the land animals and then people. Not bad... for a theory devised by ancient people. Is it really incompatible with the modern scientific view? Especially in Christianity, where creationism is a big deal, there is precedent of redoing the covenant with god. Why can't they just update it again to modern science? Its more or less the same story:) And the same questions about why we are here remain unanswered.

      February 4, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
  4. pixelologist

    Science isn't "arbitrarily" defined. It's defined. Period. Science IS the study of the natural world. Boom. Via controlled experiments that yield reproducible data; extrapolations BASED on that reproducible data; AND CORRECTIONS WHEN CONCLUSIONS ARE FOUND TO BE UNSUPPORTED BY THE DATA.

    Creationists don't trouble themselves with such trivialities as proof. They have faith. Which is fine, but THAT...is religion. Science is not based on faith unless you contort your definitions midway through. There is certainly faith in the scientific METHOD – which is what demands that conclusions to be supported and tested to the limits of current technology and peer-reviewed/tested before it is validated. Those validated theories never accepted merely on faith.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:45 pm |
    • notsofastmyfriend

      There is no ability to reproduce the results of evolution "Via controlled experiments that yield reproducible data"... and that's one of the points. Evolution is a faith system based on extrapolations from what you PRESUPOSE the process looked like. Just saying.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
    • Dorian

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

      February 4, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
  5. AndyDaniel

    Although I don't believe in creationism, good science requires that alternate viewpoints be listened to. This is not necessarily the same as teaching them in schools as a generally accepted fact. And, in the same way that scientists of earlier centuries got things wrong, we can't assume that everything we know today is correct.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
    • Primewonk

      "good science requires that alternate viewpoints be listened to"

      True. But any challenges to valid science MUST be grounded in science as well. That is why "goddidit" or "poof, then another miracle occurred" will never be valid answers to any question.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      If there are competing explanations based on observable evidence, teach that. There is no evidence for creationism and it should not be taught in a science class – teach it with all the other creation myths.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:50 pm |
  6. SkepticalOne

    You don't have to believe the universe was created by accident to establish any belief system you want. The Christians have proven that. It would be more accurate to say that, "If you don't require evidence to support your beliefs, you can establish any belief system you want"

    February 4, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
  7. rjrock

    I hold the following beliefs:

    1) science is generally getting more and more right over time and will likely continue.
    2) despite scientific progress understanding the world, there is still room for God if you don't get hung up on every word in the bible.
    3) I can believe in God and evolution, they are not mutually exclusive.
    4) Debates like this only fuel the science versus religion debate….which is silly to begin with.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
  8. hondroid

    your thoughts and words clearly show what is mandated to be taught in the education system and never should any one dare present any flaws in method or findings It is then assumed all that scientist say they KNOW must be true. And of course this excludes the creation Bible believing scientist . Listen closely to the difference between operational science and historical science. and you cam gain some understanding

    February 4, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      The gaps in our knowledge of evolution should be part of the education, but gaps do not refute evolution as a whole and most definitely do not support creationism.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
  9. bubba

    this argument occurred in the 19th century for decades: creationists lost.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
  10. Wild Omar

    What a complete waste of time. Scientists can stifle creationists with a single question. "Where did god come from?" Creationists can shutdown scientists with their question. "Who caused the singularity to suddenly expand and form the universe?" Why do these arguments have to be mutually exclusive. Why can't we agree that the mankind does not know even a fraction of a splinter in the mind's eye of the universe. In the absence of more information, there is considerable room for doubt, regardless of your affiliation.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Science does not claim to know, god believers do. Get it straight.

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

      "Who caused the singularity to suddenly expand and form the universe?"

      At the quantum level you do not need a cause for an event.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:45 pm |
  11. Buck Rogers

    As a follower of Christ the Creator and Savior, in this case I will actually 'side' with Bill Nye, even though evolution is 100% fraudulent. The reason is simply this – Ken Ham denies Scripture which emphatically denies that the Earth 'rotates' and 'orbits' the sun. To this very day, there is zero proof that Earth is 'moving' in space – none. In fact, all observations and experiments confirm that Earth is indeed fixed (i.e. "hung on nothing"). The Copernican model is a form of philosophy, and not science as the likes of Galileo scoffed at the Copernican model (not taught, but true and recorded). Even Copernican himself plainly stated that his conjectures 'do not explain what is actually observed'. In addition (take note those who fear the Lord), Copernicus said we should worship the sun which to him was the "visible g-d". Yes, the non-scientific, non-observed idea that we are "spinning" at 1,000 mph, and "orbiting" at 66,000 mph whilst "moving" through space at 550,000 mph, is a humanistic for of idolatry as well as a non-scientific laughing stock (not to mention that a 'solar system' that we are brainwashed with requires a reversal of the moon's east to west orbit).

    By denying the static Earth as the Scriptures proclaim, Ken Ham is rejecting the very Words of Christ and the Word of God which is inspired by the Holy Ghost, who is not to be blasphemed (as warned by Christ). Hence, Ken Ham and is a false teacher. Christ said "heaven and earth will pass away" and the creation that now exists is "reserved for fire" to be "clean dissolved" and "removed". Christ will make "all things new" which is what every true follower of Christ is to look forward to, i.e. a "new heaven" and "new earth" and a Holy City called New Jerusalem.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:41 pm |
    • John

      Surely you jest.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      I stopped reading your idiocy after you wrote "evolution is 100% fraudulent"

      February 4, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      Why do you think certain constellations are visible in the winter and others in the summer? It is because Earth has changed positions, and the nighttime side in January faces the opposite direction in July. The Earth has orbited 180 degrees around the sun.

      Not sure why I bothered.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
    • JohnM

      It's foolishness like this that bring unwarranted criticism to theists who embrace true science as much as non-theists.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
    • Mephistopheles

      Bucko, I would swear you're a Poe if I hadn't seen your posts before.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
    • Bob

      This has to be a joke. Literally NO ONE rejects the fact that the Earth is orbiting the sun these days. Even idiot Christians who believe human beings put saddles on dinosaurs and rode them have given up that battle.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
    • you need meds

      no, really, you need to take medication that allows you to deal with reality. Without those meds there really is no use in even trying to debate a totally whacked out looney toon... It is my hope that you were being sarcastic and didn't mean a word of what you just wrote.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
      • Buck Rogers

        Here's some 'meds' for you to ingest...

        "The falsity of the Copernican system should
        not in any way be called into question,
        above all, not by Catholics, since we have
        the unshakeable authority of the Sacred
        Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite
        theologians, whose consensus gives us
        certainty regarding the stability of the
        Earth, situated in the center, and the motion
        of the sun around the Earth. The
        conjectures employed by Copernicus and
        his followers in maintaining the contrary
        thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by that
        most solid argument deriving from the
        omnipotence of God. He is able to bring
        about in different ways, indeed, in an
        infinite number of ways, things that,
        according to our opinion and observation,
        appear to happen in one particular way. We
        should not seek to shorten the hand of God
        and boldly insist on something beyond the
        limits of our competence….

        March 29, 1641. I am writing the enclosed
        letter to Rev. Fr. Fulgenzio, from whom I
        have heard no news lately. I entrust it to
        Your Excellency to kindly make sure he
        receives it.

        6 Le Opere Di Galileo Galilei, Antonio Favaro, reprinted
        from the 1890-1909 edition by Firenze, G. Barbèra –
        Editore, 1968, vol. 18, p. 311, translated from the original
        Italian by Fr. Brian Harrison.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
        • Like being Gay

          you do realize that we have been able to orbit the earth and note it's rotation as well as keep track of the sun??? Once again it is my hope you are being sarcastic, because I would hate to think there is anyone as stupid as you on this planet.. that is orbiting around the sun and rotating on it's axis.

          February 4, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          The Catholic Church found him guilty of heresy and forced him to recant! He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

          February 4, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
    • epoxide

      And there you have it, folks. The opposition.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:52 pm |
    • Intruth24

      Buck excatly where in scripture does it say that the earth is static. I'm a student of the bible and a born againchristian. There is no place in scripture that says the earth is still...But it is FACT that the earth is moving just by obsering the movement of the sun in the sky. The sun is not a small dot but thousands of times larger than the earth thus it has a much larger mass and thus a greater gravitational pull. The earth is not pulling the sun it is the sun pulling the earth. Thus the earth is moving around the sun. THAT IS FACT! When you observe the position of the planets like Mars or jupiter they are at diffrent locations in the sky throughout the year which means they are moving not static. You need to really read the word of God for yourself instead of being in the bondage of dogmatic christians reading it for you because the fear scientist. I don't fear scientist becasue I know they are only uncovering what God has hidden for billions of eons.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
      • Buck Rogers

        Actually, there are dozens of Scripture which confirm the motion of the sun (Joshua ch 10, Psalm 19, Isaiah 38 are a few examples). No doubt most will scoff at the Geostatic Universe (coined by Dr. Jones) which confirms the accuracy of the Tychonian system and the motion of the firmament (which means "dome" in Hebrew). Yes, everything is moving out there no doubt, but remember that the Earth was created BEFORE the heavenly bodies.... So did The Almighty "sling" earth around the sun like a curve ball? Nay, the Holy Ghost said he Created it stationary, and that He will remove every bit of it "rolled together like a scroll" (Is. 34:4, Rev 6:14).

        Jesus is Creator, the risen Son of God and Satan is a liar. In addition, Satan is the "prince of this world" and the "power of the air" – i.e. he is controlling false science which is 'designed' to strip away biblical truth. If the bible is not true and earth "rotates" vs. being magnetically "hung on nothing", then there is no Kingdom of God, no resurrection of the dead, not judgment, no rewards etc. etc. Although keep in mind that evolution is destined to be demolished just before the rise of the beast, so brace yourself and keep you eyes on Christ and the hope of His return, as this time is drawing near, and Earth will be literally burned up with "fervent heat". This Earth is doomed before the face of the Lord (Rev. 20:11) when He returns to reap it and bring home the elect.

        If you are interested in knowing more about the stationary Earth, check out staticearth.net, and http://earth-central.weebly.com/

        February 4, 2014 at 6:19 pm |
  12. Kyle

    For those of you who don't believe the Bible's historical accuracy or it's God breathed inspiration that allowed for fallible man to be capable of preserving His Word, I urge you to read "a case for Christ" by lee strobel. You will be surprised.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Strobel's arguments are pathetically weak and easily demonstrated to be absolutely ridiculous by anyone without bias who has the slightest understanding of rhetoric and proper argumentation. How silly.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
  13. SimianLivin'

    At this point in time, I think creationism (at least the kind lending itself to a more scientific approach) accepts evolution as a valid theory, but still claims the universe and life was created at first by an intelligent being. That is a major caveat (or downright heresy) to fundamental creationists because it doesn't allow their god's continued dominion over all facets of life and hence consciousness and fate. But the creationists who are being written about here and engaging in debate with other members of the scientific community are much more moderate in their religious views. I, however, completely disagree with the assertion that "If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life..." A universe that was created by accident seems more meaningful, because it seems miraculous and unique and life is imbued with so much more purpose because you are the one get that has control over "meaning", whatever it may be. Same as to life, which if the result of a spontaneous interaction of chemicals and electricity, seems much more elegant, artistic, beauteous and meaningful than a controlled experiment (or in the case of the Bible just the haphazard child's games of a lonely deity). Just my two cents.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
  14. Adam

    This is such a bad idea. Creationism isn't even worth debating it is so pathetic.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
    • timurlane

      I'm an ardent evolutionist, but why is debate a bad thing? Letting the steel doors of one's mind slam shut without listening to the other side seems far more dangerous to evolved thinking.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
  15. Team Ham

    Science can only go so far….and then there's God.

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

      True – but where do we draw the line? Mr. Ham wants to teach a 6000 year old year...most of science disagrees with that. I believe n a creation of the universe – but from the Big Bang forward. This would disagree with what you want me to believe I suspect.

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

        Most of science disagrees with that because carbon dating has way too many issues to be accurate. Do some research instead of trusting scientists at their word.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Says the person who has no idea how radiometric dating works or how any of the other dating methods work. Think evolution is wrong? Prove it and become the most famous person on the planet; collect your Nobel prize and convert the masses. What's wrong?

          February 4, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Dating techniques use the same underpinning science as the atomic clocks in GPS which is what makes the accurate – do you deny that GPS works?

          February 4, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Which god?

      Ah Puch
      Ahura Mazda
      Anahita Anansi
      Ba Xian
      Bixia Yuanjin
      Chang Hsi
      Damkina Davlin
      Di Cang
      Geong Si
      Kinich Ahau
      Magna Mater
      Phoebus Apollo
      Shen Yi
      Xi Wang-mu
      Yum Kimil

      Or one of the ten thousand others not on this list?

      February 4, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
      • JimBoston

        I'd like to buy a vowel.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:45 pm |
    • KJC

      Science can only go so far – cause we don't know things we don't know – that doesn't mean we wont know the answer some day – but lets not fill in the blanks with fictional stories.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
    • Sciencefirst9

      You can't prove God, one way or the other. Belief in God is a matter of faith. Evolution is proven by hard data and facts.
      This is not a subject for debate, any more than the speed of light or the boiling point of water are up for debate. No one questions the laws of physics or any other scientific conclusions unless they get in the way of someone's ideology or economic interests. This is just like the so-called "debate" about global warming. The science is clear and undeniable, the phony " debate " only exists inthe political and economic realm, asit threatens the fossil fuel interests. Here, evolution threatens long-held beliefs learned in Sunday school. Then, suddenly people are willing to believe that science, which they otherwise regularly trust with their very lives, suddenly is wrong.

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

      So in other words, whatever the community of science doesn't understand, that means God did it? If that's your viewpoint, I can show you a list of things in the past that scientists (at the time) didn't understand...but then after so and so years of research and studying we finally DO understand those things. So if that's how you invoke your evidence for God, then realize that God is this ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on.

      February 4, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
  16. Joseph

    A Bible written by and transcribed by and translated by fallible humans.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
    • Oh Brother ^

      And scientists are what exactly ?

      February 4, 2014 at 5:32 pm |
      • Primewonk

        Exceedingly well trained and well educated folks. As opposed to fundiot nutters who buy their degree's from christian websites.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
        • Doug Lynn

          Circular reasoning is an unacceptable method of debate. You cannot assume that people are very well educated because what they have learned could be wrong when it is based on a foundation of theory. However, if what they have learned is comprehensive in scope and is provable fact, then we can say they are well educated. Evolution theory is built on faith that a creator was not involved. Creation theory is built on faith that a creator was involved.

          Adaption, variation within a kind, is readily observable, but there is no evidence for evolution from ape to man. If Evolutionists could show us even one evidence of genetic jump from one form of life to another, there would be no debate necessary, but they cannot. Evolution theory cannot explain the origin of life and it cannot explain away the mathematically improbability of thousands of perfect genetic mutations occurring in one generation as is necessary for reproducible life.

          February 4, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
      • JimBoston

        Scientists search for the truth by making assumptions and testing them to see if they are true, whereas creationists only make assumptions and refuse to test them.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
      • Tom

        Science IS the process of replacing incorrect information with correct information. It has nothing to do with one individual's opinions.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
      • OhBrother

        Scientists are educated, cautious analyzers of information, producers of theories that can be tested, challenged, confirmed or refuted, as opposed to depending on tales created by who knows who, passed down a-la the Telephone Game (we know how that goes) from a time when people thought the Aurora Borealis was magic and the earth was flat.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
    • TheTruth

      A Bible written by God, penned by men.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
  17. kabelme

    as much as Bill Nye does not represent the scientific community, neither does Ken Ham represent creationism. Neither will be open to the others ideas. So the result will be the same as democrats and republicans debating abortion, healthcare, taxes, morality, death, human rights, civil rights, security, privacy, etc etc. NOWHERE.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
    • Bob

      You can't fix stupid. If people want to believe in a magic wish-fulfilling fairy in outer space, they've already given up on logic and reason.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
      • Jer

        Some day you're going to die; and according to your beliefs, your consciousness will be lost in oblivion. Universal nonexistence. Why are you using your precious little time arguing about belief, or non-belief in God on the internet with strangers? What's sillier; believing in the existence of a Mind responsible for reality, or believing that you are going to die and everything is going to be okay for you when that happens?

        February 4, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
  18. Marc davis

    I encourage everyone to watch and be amazed at the scientific facts that are in the Bible and that agree with the Bible. Many of the "tests" that many of you say is fact is nothing more than someone's opinion as to what the test results are. Many of them are not proven interpretations of the results. Just Watch. I double dare you. I can guarantee it will be better than that spectacle that happened Sunday in New Jersey.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
    • Primewonk

      "Many of the "tests" that many of you say is fact is nothing more than someone's opinion as to what the test results are. "

      So where is your science that supports this?

      February 4, 2014 at 5:32 pm |
      • Scriptural Scientific Evidence

        Excuse me, but have you heard of the second law of thermodynamics? This law, clearly accepted by major sciences of both religious and atheistic faiths, states that life can only come from life. Order can only come from order. You can't create anything by random chance from chaos. That's our scientific evidence–what's yours? Do you have any proof that evolution ever happened? If you have any evidence in support of evolution, please show it.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ is a good start.

          February 4, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
        • Scriptural Scientific Evidence

          Do you have anything that can disprove the second law of thermodynamics?

          February 4, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
    • Stanton Allaben

      Surely you jest. Who would want to waste their time watching such a dog and pony show?

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

      Of course, science is all just somebody's opinion. Like, for example, aerodynamics, which has allowed us to create one of the fastest and safest forms of transportation on the planet. They should teach alternatives to aerodynamics, like the theory that airplanes are being held up by angels who magically lift them from point A to point B.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
    • john barthelme

      Totally agree. Remember: Ken Ham's " Museum of Creationism " portrays dinosaurs and people living together as contemporaries ! His museum also portrays meat eating dinosaurs ( yes… Tyrannosaurus rex ) as vegetarians until " sin " came into the word via Eve and the apple. In other words, eating another organism was unknown- for instance lions and gazelles, spiders and insects, bears and salmon- until humankind became full on sin. And this man wants to call himself a scientist and biologist ? He's a hoax, a prisoner of an outdated origin myth related thousands of years ago by illiterate shepherds. Creationists are not interested in free inquiry or scientific thinking.
      They are true believers with no room set aside for scientific inquiry and thinking. They are an embarrassment to the modern world.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:55 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.