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

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

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

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

Opinion by Ken Ham, special to CNN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- CNN Belief Blog

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

soundoff (4,336 Responses)
  1. Pavel

    The issue Evolutionist have is that there is no physical evidence of evolution. Theoretically, it makes sense and one can see evolution via adaptation simply by looking at the human race. ...the most adapted animals to any given set of criteria are the ones which survive to produce the next generation. This is simple adaptation. This does not show however how entirely new species evolve from older species. This lynch pin is still missing from the record- although DNA would suggest its there. Creationists, particularly American Creationists, have the issue of needing to devoid themselves of Judeo-Christianity and come to the table entirely neutral with regards to specifics on Divine origin. I've not met one yet who can truly make the distinction...so in my mind, this entire argument/debate is entirely pointless.

    February 3, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
    • evolveorelse

      The fossil record proves that all lifeforms have not existed at the same time. The fossil record also proves that lifeforms have changed over time with a well defined development. In addition, all lifeforms are transitional, including us. Please explain the fossil record without resorting to magic.

      February 3, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
    • Barcs

      Wow. Where do people get off, just flat out lying like this? No physical evidence at all for evolution? 😆

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

      February 3, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
  2. wat

    Which Bible do you think is infalliable?

    February 3, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
    • Aroobola

      Thanks for pointing this out, Wat. I was wondering the same thing. Even if you do believe that God created all this, why does it have to be a Mediterranean God, when the world is so much bigger than that one location?

      February 3, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
  3. Jay

    Sure, it's an opinion piece, but it contains numerous fallacies. The theory of evolution is in fact testable - in the laboratory, in the field, and in computer models. The "public schools" do not define science as Ham says; science is an organized investigation, grounded in observation, about the natural world. It does not have room for miracles, which are not reproducible. Third, no "considerable dissent" exists within the scientific community about the validity of evolution. That's simply a lie.

    February 3, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
  4. Frank

    “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
    Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

    February 3, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
    • Jay

      A cherry-picked quote. See discussion about this here:
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html
      Browse down to Quote #26.

      February 3, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
    • People we lost in 2013

      Darwinian Evolution

      1882-2013

      R.I.P!

      February 3, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
      • AJ

        1882? The Origin of Species was first published in 1859.

        February 3, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
      • Cpt. Obvious

        You have a strange definition of "people." I guess it makes sense, though, considering your stupid comment.

        February 3, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        Strange definition of lost as well. Evolution remains the best explanation of the evidence and accepted by the vast majority of scientists.

        February 3, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
    • AJ

      Simulations and experiments show that evolution tends to be extremely rapid, far more rapid than the typical resolution of the fossil record. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's only in rare cases of extremely high fidelity preservation that we see a full sequence of change. That does not mean that no chance took place during the times when there is no record. We know for other evidence (e.g., genetic relationships, comparative anatomy), that certain species are evolutionary descendants of others, and that the change took place in the intervals for which we don't have the record preserved.

      February 3, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
    • Frank

      Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to doc.ument a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” –
      Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University

      February 3, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
      • Frank

        Fossil record does not show a gradual evolution and therefore does not provide evidence for evolution,paucity of fossil record that show gaps in just about every phyletic series.

        February 3, 2014 at 5:17 pm |
        • G to the T

          Have any fossils ever been found that falsify common decsent? None that I'm aware of.

          Fossilization is a rare event (when considered against the number of life forms that die). That we have as good a record we have (and ALL of them transitional) is remarkable. In some cases (whales, birds, horses, etc.) we have an almost unbroken lineage of development from ancestor species to modern ones.

          February 3, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
        • Pete

          and every time we find a new fossil it gives Frank 2 new gaps to complain about.

          February 4, 2014 at 11:11 am |
      • Jahtez

        Has every fossil been found?

        February 3, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
    • Barcs

      Do you guys ever post anything that isn't a blatant lie?

      February 3, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
  5. Ford T

    Evolution: where reality ends and imagination begins!

    February 3, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
    • The Truth Hurts

      That's actually Creationism. Nothing but imagination.

      February 3, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
  6. Rob White

    Of course the theist wants to debate...someone who makes his living lying to children desperately wants to keep his delusion alive and the register ringing at the "museum" where children are shown riding dinosaurs . lol Hamm is a fraud, a huckster, a delusional imbecile throwback to the age of goat herders and miracle workers. Nye is an idiot giving this fool the time of day let alone any credibility.

    February 3, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care

      His happy dino theme park is going bankrupt and he's just trying to find a way to make more money before it goes under and he walks away with a bunch of cash.

      February 3, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
      • Charm Quark

        Honey
        Got it, what a great way to get some free publicity for Ham. Topher is giddy with anticipation and will probably round up the family and use their food stamps to get into heaven on earth, HALLELUJAH!!

        February 3, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
  7. AJ

    "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."

    This is fundamentally wrong. We can experiment with elements of each of the things that occurred in the past. We can simulate and model events that occurred in the past. What Ham is trying to say is that because we can't recreate the entire history of life in a Petri dish, then it's not science.

    His comment is, for all intents and purposes, bull s***.

    February 3, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
  8. Ken

    The problems with evolution should be brought up in science class simply because true science should always recognize where we lack knowledge. It is the questioning of where we lack knowledge that leads us to more discoveries and more questions. Even as an individual who attends church regularly I don't believe we should teach creationism in our schools. Science is science, and religion is religion. I personally think they always go hand in hand as we haven't learned anything God doesn't already know, but trying to disprove one or the other to satisfy ones own personal need for validation and superiority goes against both science and religion. Both ultimately are about searching for the truth. Trying to prove what you already believe while ignoring the rest goes directly against that.

    February 3, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
    • ME II

      @Ken,
      "The problems with evolution should be brought up in science class simply because true science should always recognize where we lack knowledge. "

      I think it is a misunderstanding to say that there are "problems" with evolution. Few if any qualified biologists doubt that evolution occurs. (see http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve) There is always debates about the mechanisms at work, but not whether evolution occurs.

      February 3, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
    • Barcs

      The "problems" with evolution are just an illusion devised by dishonest creationists. None of them can provide any actual science to back their case. They make broad and hasty generalizations that show they are either intentionally dishonest or they legitimately know nothing about science. Take your pick.

      February 3, 2014 at 5:52 pm |
  9. Steve

    I kind of wish they would teach creationism like this: Here is a story that we have cherished for centuries. It is beautiful and you are welcome to continue to cherish it. However, if you want to study biology, genetics and the medicine, be aware all the progress in those fields over the past 150 years contradicts creationism. There is no truthful way of escaping this fact. Of course that doesn't mean that some aspect of creationism will never advance science (we all believe in miracles of one type or another). But if you are hoping to contribute to science, in these areas, your chances of success are pretty slim if you are a creationist.

    February 3, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
  10. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    The outcome of the debate I foresee is Mr Ham getting what he wants, which is an admission that God's magic could have brought about most anything. St. Augustine believed that the Universe, entire and pretty much as it is now, was created in an instant. That's hard to refute. Clearly that could have happened 6000 years ago, in 1941, 22 minutes ago, or even just now, by God's magic.

    February 3, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
    • ME II

      ... or now
      ... or now

      (unfortunately you are probably right.)

      February 3, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
  11. Fill

    I think Richard Dawkins said it best:

    http://www.youtube.Com/watch?v=O3v2m4_NHhA

    February 3, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      lol

      Yeah, it always makes me laugh when christards on here try to azzert that the scientific method is based on metaphysical faith. Ok, sure, but it runs your computer and your car and your medicine EXACTLY as the scientific method predicts. Try running a computer or an MRI machine on "faith," WITHOUT SCIENCE and see what happens.

      February 3, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
      • Fill

        Right, it is an interesting distinction. Science can be used to achieve an end, religion works the other way around, it explains the ends. It isn't relevant that explanations religion uses aren't provable or reproducible because they aren't meant to be. And so there's the rub when it comes to things like creation, evolution, and even geology (e.g. formation of the Grand Canyon being evidence of the Great Flood or just river erosion). When we extrapolate our science into understanding the past, it puts religion at odds with its self. (If that makes sense.)

        February 3, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Except you (nor any other believer) has any idea if your religion explains anything at all in "the end." All you have is your belief. And religious/god beliefs are a dime a dozen. Nothing at all to differentiate between what myth beliefs are more or less accurate.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
  12. Alias

    Okay Fundies, can you explain this?
    Genesis 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
    Genesis 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
    Acts 7:4, Genesis 12:4, Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.

    February 3, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      "Faith" means never having to explain anything for any reason, ever.

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

        Not true at all. Why do you think some of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time came from Christian minds?

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

          because it was not politically safe to describe yourself as anything else.

          February 3, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
        • Jillette

          Except in most cases science confirmed and enhanced their understanding of God.

          February 3, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • Alias

          Really?
          So why is a christian debating a science guy about evolution?

          February 3, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
        • ME II

          @Jillette
          "Except in most cases science confirmed and enhanced their understanding of God."

          What? How so?
          There is no evidence that I'm aware of that confirms a supposed God.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • Jillette

          I don't know and don't care. Neither of them are elite scientists.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • Jillette

          ME II

          How does knowledge of our world enhance their understanding of God? Probably by seeing a great intelligence at play behind it all.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
        • ME II

          @Jillette

          "How does knowledge of our world enhance their understanding of God? Probably by seeing a great intelligence at play behind it all."

          Not what I asked, but okay.
          So, pretty much the same way knowledge enhances someones understand of Zeus, the Mother Goddess, or the Great Spirit.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
        • Jillette

          Sure. And some scientists say science confirms their atheism, just like it confirms Zeus to others.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:19 pm |
        • Bones McCoy

          Because they are scientists and we live in society that is something like 75% Christian. They are also rational people that don't let literal translations of ancient myths override fields of science.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:19 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          "Faith" means never having to explain anything for any reason, ever. Some of the faithful are scientists, but they don't have to be, because faith is just belief without evidence for anything, at all, anytime. That's what faith is.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:23 pm |
        • Jillette

          Captain Obvious
          Come on! To me, "faith" does not mean never having to explain anything for any reason, ever. And I know a lot of people that don't think faith means that.
          As far as Christianity, faith means complete trust and confidence in God. That is very close to the primary definition located in most dictionaries, too.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
        • Jillette

          “For myself, faith begins with a realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence—an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered—-’In the beginning God.’”

          –Arthur Compton, winner of the 1927 Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery of the Compton Effect.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Jillette
          "... say science ... confirms Zeus ..."

          What?
          Where is an example of that?

          February 3, 2014 at 5:31 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          It's such a shame to see you disagree with fact, Jileltte. Faith means never having to explain anything. All the believer need do is say that they have faith that it was "god's will" or that "god works in mysterious ways" or some other such silly bvllsh!t.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:31 pm |
        • Jillette

          Cpt. Obvious
          I'll ask around. I'm pretty sure most people will say that is not faith. I know I've seen people of faith prove the exact opposite of what you claim, though.

          In Santa we trust
          ME II provided the Zeus example first, not me. I've never heard anyone say science confirms Zeus, but I'm sure if some can say it confirms God or atheism, someone could say Zeus, too.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
        • ME II

          @Jillette,
          "Sure. And some scientists say science confirms their atheism, just like it confirms Zeus to others."

          Doesn't that imply that it says nothing about God or gods? As opposed to confirming one "understanding" or another?

          February 3, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
        • Jillette

          ME II
          I personally don't think God can be proven or disproven by science. But I think it is logical to consider there might be a higher power or intelligence behind all the order and complexities of the universe. Some scientists say science leads them to atheism. And some scientists say science leads them to God. But for sure, a lot of scientists do not see a conflict with their belief in God and their study of science.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:45 pm |
        • ME II

          Jillette
          "But for sure, a lot of scientists do not see a conflict with their belief in God and their study of science."

          I agree. I guess I have problem with the term "confirm", while some may see science as enhancing their own understanding of a god, I don't see how science can confirm such an understanding since it does not address the supernatural.
          That's all.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • Jillette

          Ok, I meant personally confirm. But to say scientifically confirmed would not be accurate, yes.

          February 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      what do Christians care about facts and logic, they have the "word of god".

      makes you wonder what kind of a confused, simple creature their god is though, if that book is "his word"?

      February 3, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
    • P Louise

      Alias-You are being too literal with a written work meant as allegorical. And if you must have a reason, know that the calendars of the ancient world were different than what we use today.

      I have to go with St. Thomas Aquinas- he believed that both Science and Religion were about seeking the truth-therefore, they "prove" each other. I see no conflict between Science and Religion.

      February 3, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
      • Alias

        Math is still math.
        A year is still a year.
        A mistake is still a mistake.

        February 3, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • ME II

          Not true.
          A mistake is just God's will misunderstood.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
        • ME II

          p.s.
          /sacrasm

          February 3, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
    • Jahtez

      They didn't have a continuity editor

      February 3, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
    • goodquestion

      That was a good question. I found an equally good answer...according to Gen. 11:26 Terah began having children at the age of 70. In a patriarchal society the age at which one first becomes a father would no doubt be a significant milestone in a man's life worthy of mention. There are 3 children specifically named...Abram, Nahor, and Haran (one of which was born when Terah was in his 70th year of life...the other two born later). While Abraham is listed first, this could easily have been because he is the most famous of Terah’s sons rather than the firstborn. When Terah died at 205, Abraham was only 75, so Terah must have been 130 when Abraham was born. Since age 130 comes after age 70 there really is no conflict.

      February 3, 2014 at 9:53 pm |
      • Pete

        If you think that anyone has ever lived to be 205 years old then you are an idiot. If you think that a 130 year old has ever had a child then your are also an idiot.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:05 am |
        • goodquestion

          The issue of age was not the original question. I consider the original question to have been sufficiently answered for anyone asking sincerely.

          February 4, 2014 at 11:54 am |
  13. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    Science looks for natural explanations for natural phenomena because supernatural events and phenomena aren't around to be examined. They haven't been demonstrated in the present and the most important claims of them have them occurring in the inconveniently distant past.

    February 3, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
  14. Cpt. Obvious

    Even if Nye does extensive homework and researches all of the arguments these crazies have used in the past, he's still going to get beaten. Nye is walking into this debate under the delusion that the listeners and participants will HONESTLY evaluate the evidence according to logic and reason. That's incredibly stupid of him since anybody with half a brain realizes that the creationists aren't at all concerned with truth or scientific facts; the only thing the creatiionists care about is "winning" according to their own standards---that is. So, they'll lie, cheat, obfuscate, lie again, confuse the issue, muddy the water, nonseguiter, berate, belittle, call names, and use whatever flimsy excuse that they feel warrants its use.

    In summary, evil will win over good, here, and lies will win over fact. Exactly the way the Christians want it. How disgusting.

    February 3, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
  15. G Griselda

    Mr Ham despises science and confines all of his to twisting information to support his incredibly bizarre belief that the book of genesis is a science textbook. Creepy..

    February 3, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
  16. Jillette

    Science has a positive impact on the faith of the believer.
    The Bible teaches that “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1).
    Christians see God’s glory when looking up at the stars, and in colliding galaxies seen through a telescope.
    God’s glory is revealed in the beautiful symmetry of a maple leaf, and in the complex biochemical activity inside each cell in that leaf.
    Science and technology have shown us much more of God’s creation than was known in Biblical times, revealing more and more of God’s glory.

    February 3, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
    • bostontola

      Remove the second sentence and replace God with nature in your comment and we are pretty close.

      February 3, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      While this may be true of many Christians, there are the vociferous few who construe scientific inquiry as a challenge to the eternal, inerrant Wod of God as presented in the Bible.
      Anything that points to a Universe older than 10,000 years (give or take) or otherwise contradicts Genesis is deemed heretical and is therefore scornfully, and sometimes violently, dismissed.
      God is an explanation for the reason behind the Universe's existence, something which is unknowable and has no relation to what happens in the Universe.
      The world doesn't work how we want it to work. The world is. We can only describe it, and chronicle its workings.

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

        I know you meant Word of God, but Wod of God is funny.

        February 3, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
      • Jillette

        There are the vociferous few. They don't worry me. Most know that there is no conflict between science and God.

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

          That depends on which God you are referring to.

          February 3, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • Jillette

          The God that authored the science we are studying and trying to figure out.

          February 3, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
        • Pete

          Which god did that?

          February 4, 2014 at 10:06 am |
    • LOL!

      "Science and technology have shown us much more of God’s creation than was known in Biblical times, revealing more and more of God’s glory."

      LOL! Yup, hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, drought, famine, diseases, starvation, extinction of animals, cancer, etc... Oh, that’s right you’re denial of reality.

      February 3, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
    • Honey Hush

      Jillette Honey
      Which god? Which Creation myth? Be more specific, you come across as very limited in your thinking or perhaps you do not understand that five billion people don't think like Christians, do you?

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

        My God. I'm expressing my experience and opinion. I'm talking about science, not creation myths. 5 billion people don't think like you, either.

        February 3, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • Honey Hush

          Jillette Honety
          Excuse me for being pretentious but five billion people may agree with me that they wish to believe what they chose to without some arrogant religion or creation story that is the only truth. Stop it already believe what you want but keep your beliefs to yourself. Can't can you god of the bible needs new recruits and as George Carlin says the Christian god is all powerful but he can't handle money, he always needs more. It is called a scam.

          February 3, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          Sorry bad punctuation Can't, can you,......

          February 3, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
        • Jillette

          I understand not all people have the same understanding of God as me. And some people don't believe in God at all. You know what I'm asked to do about these people? Love them.
          It is possible you are being very presumptuous in declaring I belong to an arrogant religion or that I believe I have exclusive access to truth. Religion can be used as a scam, just like many other good things can be abused.

          If you think I'm in a scam, tell me what is the scam? What am I being scammed out of?

          February 3, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • Pete

          NO, because you do come across as arrogant.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:08 am |
      • Jillette

        I understand not all people have the same understanding of God as me. And some people don't believe in God at all. You know what I'm asked to do about these people? Love them.
        It is possible you are being very presumptuous in declaring I belong to an arrogant religion or that I believe I have exclusive access to truth. Religion can be used as a scam, just like many other good things can be abused.

        If you think I'm in a scam, tell me what is the scam? What am I being scammed out of?

        February 3, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
  17. Dash Vader

    There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever for creationism. It is treated by schools as what it is: Lies. Anyone who claims to be a scientist and also a creationist needs to do a background check on the people who gave them their degree. That anyone can even for a moment consider it possible despite the literal mountains of evidence to the contrary is mind-boggling.

    February 3, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
  18. midwest rail

    Will CNN be exhuming William Hanna or Joseph Barbera for their next guest column ?

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

      I think their evidence for a Young Earth was presented pretty in well in their mid 20th century docu/mentary series, "The Flintstones".

      February 3, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        *snerk*

        February 3, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
  19. mjr

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

    Mr. Ham there is a small problem here. The Bible was written by, wait for it, fallible humans. So what you are actually saying is that ultimately you have decided to accept the word of ancient fallible humans over observed and experimentally reproducible facts.We know that humans have been known to make mistakes in science and the Bible. For the Bible all one has to do is look at the different and conflicting translations to know that they all can't be right. I will leave it up to you to illustrate the example for science.

    Additionally, evolution is not a theory, it's a reproducible scientific fact. Natural selection is the theory that tries to explain the diverse population using evolution. By conflating the two you hold yourself up to justifiable criticism. Natural selection as a theory is a reasonable 1st order approximation but little more. Now that gene sequencing is affordable we will find out how truly complex life is. Even more then natural selection and much, much more then creationism.

    February 3, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
    • Dash Vader

      A scientific theory is a hypothesis that is supported by numerous repeatable tests and/or evidence of occurrence. Evolution is a theory by that logic. It still could be proven wrong, but that's so astronomically unlikely that presenting anything else as a legitimate alternative is not reasonable.

      February 3, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
    • Vic

      [
      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.

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

      I could not agree more. Pay attention to the expression "Operational Science," it says it all.

      February 3, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Operation science – like pharmaceutical bio-chemistry that is predicated on understanding and applying the principles of evolutionary theory?

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

          OPERATIONAL not operation!

          February 3, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
      • Science Works

        When is your favorite statement going to appear ?

        February 3, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
      • Science Works

        Vic ?

        February 3, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
      • Science Works

        and Vic what happened to your team last night they what ?

        February 3, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
      • Bones McCoy

        Semantics arguments again? You guys are really getting desperate. It's not a belief system, it's where the hard evidence points. There is no hard evidence for god. I know this hurts and is probably what inspires the anti-evolution "movement" (movement is too big, it's only a small minority of religious folk).

        February 3, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
  20. Vic

    That is a very well put statement by Ken Ham

    The Evolution-Creationism debate is mainly about "origins" and not mechanisms. "Empirical Science" has no actual facts whatsoever regarding the "Origin" of matter and life. All parties have the same empirical scientific facts—note that the word "fact" has polymorphism within the scientific community, in that case, there could also be a debate about that.

    February 3, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
    • Charm Quark

      Vic
      Do you think that Brother Ham will disregard all the dozens of other creation myths and the thousands of other man made gods, so he can concentrate on only his belief system? If so why?

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

        That's a different debate involving different beliefs in God.

        February 3, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          Vic
          That is a major problem with the Christian mind set, disregarding what the other five billion people on earth might believe in, doesn't matter, your view is always right even though you can't agree with your own biblical interpretations. Quite sad and silly really, a very minor religious cult, the creationists gaining any repute at all by telling the same lies ad nauseam. Creating a Creation Museum on fantasy, making a buck, but Walt Disney did it better and admitted it was fantasy, not Mr. Ham.

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

          Total 'assertion!'

          February 3, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          Vic
          Lame response. How many creationists do you think there are? Tiny fraction of the population and they all seem to dwell on this blog. Willful ignorance is not an endearing quality, except for Topher, comedy gold.

          February 3, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
    • bostontola

      Vic,
      I disagree. While origins is key, Mr. Ham has an issue with anything that varies from Genesis in a literal sense. Catholics have the origins being God, and evolution is a tool. That can not be proven wrong as yet (but I believe it will be). Evolution restricted to after the origin is still not consistent with a literal reading of the bible.

      February 3, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
      • Vic

        Still this a debate about the "Origin" of matter and life. Plus, 'Evolution of Species,' aka 'Macro-Evolution,' has NEVER been empirically proven, hence lacking testability like Mr. Ham puts it.

        [
        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.
        ]

        February 3, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • bostontola

          Vic,
          Engineering builds technologies, not science. Macro-evolution is testable. There has been speciation demonstrated at the single celled organism level. Origins will be tested when we create life in the lab. It won't be the same as our life, but there will be an existence proof that life can come from chemistry. Just because the science isn't finished, isn't evidence it is wrong.

          February 3, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
        • G to the T

          But we can. We can find supporting evidence for things that happened in the past. If Evolution is true, we should NEVER find a rabbit in the same strata as a T-Rex. Evolution states that we should find a progression of transitions in the fossil record – that what we find.

          Now, if you have a evidence that falsifies evolution and/or can find a theory that better fits the evidence at hand, that's another story.

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

          Macroevolution is a term that has been created by creationists. Very few, if any, biologists will use that term. If you take what you call microevolution and apply it to millions of years, you get speciation. The genetic code of a population changes rapidly. It is possible for an elephant population to become mice in 100000 generations. (http://phys.org/news/2012-01-mouse-elephant-million.html)

          February 3, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • Vic

          For Evolution to be valid, it requires "the presence of the ancestral fossils prior to the emergence of the first forms of animal life," which are completely missing from Charles Darwin's research and from Evolutionary Biology to date! Meaning, life DID NOT evolve!

          Furthermore, "there exists no evidence in the fossil record that any species has ever evolved from another species since no undisputed transitional forms have ever been discovered."

          [
          “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, (why) do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”

          Charles Darwin
          ]

          February 3, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
        • Bones McCoy

          How much do they pay you to spread this nonsense, Vic?

          "For Evolution to be valid, it requires "the presence of the ancestral fossils prior to the emergence of the first forms of animal life," which are completely missing from Charles Darwin's research and from Evolutionary Biology to date! Meaning, life DID NOT evolve!"

          Charles Darwin's research came long before we even had cell theory or knew about the majority of evolutionary fossils. We have found thousands upon thousands of fossils since the days of Darwin. Typical lying creationist invoking Darwin, when the theory evolution has LONG evolved since then. We have 2 entire fields of science based on evolution now, biology and genetics.

          "Furthermore, "there exists no evidence in the fossil record that any species has ever evolved from another species since no undisputed transitional forms have ever been discovered.""

          Baaahahahaahahahahahaha!

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

          This is why Nye is going to destroy this clown. He makes flat out lies his primary argument. The audience will be mostly creationists however, so they will automatically cheer for Ham nomatter what sillyness comes out of his mouth.

          “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, (why) do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”

          Charles Darwin

          Mr. Darwin, to answer your question, we have found thousands of them since you died.

          February 3, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
    • Bones McCoy

      This lie has already been posted. It is indeed a lie, as there are a couple abiogenesis experiments that were successful. Parts of the abiogenesis process have been duplicated. There's still a long way to go but to say no facts whatsoever is a flat out lie. Deny ignorance.

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

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.