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. apotropoxy

    If you want to teach the bible creation story then you'd better explain where it came from.

    It was introduced into Jewish tradition when the northern half of their Canaanite tribe was hauled off to Babylon and lived there for a little over 60 years. Once conquered, Judah became a Babylonian province called Yehud Medinata. When Babylon fell to the Persians, many Jews who had been held captive there returned home. When they did, they brought with them the Babylonian creation myth: creation lasting 6 days with the creator-god resting on the 7th. Darkness and then light, man formed of clay, etc.
    There are lots of creation myths. Let's teach them and let the kids pick the one they like best.

    February 5, 2014 at 9:45 am |
  2. ShawnDH

    It is so depressing that so many Americans are clinging to willful ignorance. Obviously, the world and humanity is not 6,000 years old. If you believe that, you are just stupid and our society is suffering because of this pure idiocy.

    Ancient Middle Eastern Fairy Tales are NOT REAL.

    February 5, 2014 at 9:44 am |
  3. Geo Bruno

    Sooo the devil put the dinos in the earth to test our faith then to turn into oil for BP

    February 5, 2014 at 9:40 am |
  4. ShawnDH

    Creationists SHOULD be censored!

    They want to make public school into church. NO.

    February 5, 2014 at 9:37 am |
  5. Geo Bruno

    Belief ion the bible?

    Like the below?

    "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

    (Lk 12:15) "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

    Matthew 6:19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.

    "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?"
    -Matthew 16:26

    Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"
    -Matthew 19:21

    February 5, 2014 at 9:37 am |
  6. Geo Bruno

    When does Ham explain how the marsupials from Australia got to Noah's ark

    and back

    February 5, 2014 at 9:36 am |
  7. mckinney_man

    Come on folks "The Theory Of Evolution" is still UNPROVED. Its still only a theory, cant be tested in a lab, to come to the same conclusion we see in the world.

    February 5, 2014 at 9:35 am |
    • cedar rapids

      oh for crying out loud, how many more people are there that think that the word 'theory' in science means the same as everyday usage?

      February 5, 2014 at 9:37 am |
    • ShawnDH

      And Creationism is pure mythology based on nothing with nothing to back it up. It's ridiculous that people actually believe that fairy tale is real. It's scary.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:39 am |
    • Sam Barber

      as opposed to Creationism, which isn't even at the level of a theory, can't be tested, can't ever be proven, and relies only on faith.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:40 am |
    • Milton Platt

      Evolution is a fact. It is the theory of evollutin which explains the fact. An as stated by others, you need to look up the SCIENTIFIC definition of theory.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:42 am |
    • want2believe

      Look up the theory of a "scientific theory" and then come back to reality if you want to have a legitimate discussion.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:53 am |
    • Lolly

      In order for a hypothesis to become a scientific theory it must be endlessly tested and peer reviewed. There is nothing higher than scientific theory. You shouldn't make statements about things which you clearly don't have a good understanding.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:57 am |
    • Jackson

      God can't be tested in a lab either, Einstein. What's the point you were trying (and failed) to make?

      February 5, 2014 at 10:47 am |
  8. carre1

    Who knew we had so many ignorant people in the US? This Ham guy is just another huckster who has found his gimmick to make money.

    February 5, 2014 at 9:03 am |
    • Alfred Schrader

      The first particle ever tested in the CERN Large Hadron Collider, the largest most complex and most expensive scientific device ever created by man, is a particle I discovered.
      Most of what Bill Nye is telling you in his programs is out of date information, though still quite entertaining.
      God created all of it. If we behave, he gives us a glimpse of his blessings and masterwork.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:27 am |
      • Geo Bruno

        Which god?

        The christian one.


        February 5, 2014 at 9:33 am |
      • ShawnDH

        Sure. God created everything. 6,000 years ago. Now back it up with scientific evidence.

        February 5, 2014 at 9:40 am |
        • Alfred Schrader

          Sure. Go outside on any clear night away from city lights and look up. You are seeing about a billion light years out into the universe, it's as far as your eyes can see. The universe goes on at least another 6 billlion light years only because this is as far as our instruments can see so far. No one on this planet created that, trust me, only God.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:47 am |
      • Milton Platt

        Calling B.S. on your post...........you are a nobody posting under an assumed name.

        February 5, 2014 at 9:46 am |
  9. Ben

    nothing in the Bible says the earth was created 6,000 years ago by the way…it says in the beginning God created heaven and earth, nothing says 6,000 years ago He created earth, just the creation of man

    February 5, 2014 at 8:43 am |
    • pourmonamiJC

      Absolutely, and that's what the problem is with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Sola Scriptura simply doesn't work. That's why we need the theological Tradition of interpretation handed down from generation to generation and the Magisterium to talk intelligently about what the Bible really means. There is no contradiction between reason and faith, just poor understanding and communication between the two. Truth is one and indivisible. I share many objections with atheists and agnostics. They often have very intelligent arguments to which they get very poor answers.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:26 am |
    • nepawoods

      Nothing in the Bible suggests Genesis should be taken literally.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:33 am |
    • ShawnDH

      Well human civilization is much older than 6,000 years, so the Bible is wrong. Next.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:41 am |
  10. Reality #2

    Only for the new members of this thread:

    More details from National Geographic's Genographic project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

    "Our spe-cies is an African one: Africa is where we first ev-olved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fos-sils of recognizably modern Ho-mo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated.

    According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.

    Once the climate started to improve, after 70,000 years ago, we came back from this near-extinction event. The population expanded, and some intrepid explorers ventured beyond Africa. The earliest people to colonize the Eurasian landma-ss likely did so across the Bab-al-Mandab Strait separating present-day Yemen from Djibouti. These early beachcombers expanded rapidly along the coast to India, and reached Southeast Asia and Australia by 50,000 years ago. The first great foray of our species beyond Africa had led us all the way across the globe."

    February 5, 2014 at 8:08 am |
  11. Everyone

    Everyone needs to be as educated as they can about Science, because in the long run you are consumers.

    February 5, 2014 at 8:00 am |
  12. John F C Taylor

    Both are accurate. GOD's "day" is a billion years long. Thus, what GOD "created" in a day, evolved according to science.

    February 5, 2014 at 5:51 am |
    • Elizabeth

      If people would only realize that a God does not need or use a calendar or clock, they might see just how silly they sound by claiming creation occurred in one week. How does a God reckon time?

      February 5, 2014 at 6:41 am |
      • Mike

        Why would someone think God doesn't mark time. No, he doesn't need time but his creation does in fact before God started his creation there was no time. God created time for man and one of the major reasons was to observe Sabbath in the old testament and the Lord's day in the new. He created seasons, years days morning and evening. Gen 1:5
        And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
        Get that in Genesis 1:5 he created day. Each day he created different things and names them. This continued for six days then on the seventh day God rested. Did he rest because he was tired? No he rested to show how man should work six days and rest on the seventh day. The Bible explains its self but we must read it to start understanding it. Pro 2:2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Pro 2:3Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding. Pro 2:4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Pro 2:5 then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.

        February 5, 2014 at 9:25 am |
    • cedar rapids

      'GOD's "day" is a billion years long. '

      and you picked that number out of where? and why would an all powerful god need anything more than an instant to create everything?

      February 5, 2014 at 9:08 am |
      • Armando Ortiz

        If God only needed an instant to create anything, what took him so long? (7 days? Really?)

        February 5, 2014 at 9:49 am |
        • cedar rapids

          why would an all powerful god need 7 days?

          February 5, 2014 at 11:00 am |
    • Btea

      Well actually, he described the day he was speaking of. There was morning and evening, one day.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:15 am |
      • Landon

        A day where? Traditionally humanity has defined a day as roughly 24 hours, or the time it takes for the earth to complete one full rotation. So does that mean God set the earth rotating in the first moment of existence and then created the heavens during that first rotation?

        As a previous comment pointed out, an all powerful God would require only an infinitely small amount of time to create everything. Why take a whole week?

        February 5, 2014 at 9:49 am |
    • Larry

      The Bible does use the word for day as representing various lengths of time just as it uses the word for 'day' as a literal 24 hour period. Nowhere does it specifically state that a day to God is a 'billion' years, however each creative day may well have been millions of years or more. Clearly each was longer than a literal 24 hour day. In fact the greater and lesser luminaries (sun and moon) were not discernible from the earth's view until sometime during the fourth day according to the Bible's account even though the words 'day' were used to describe the previous three days.

      As for evolution...The Bible allows for absolutely zero room for evolution to be an option in the creation of all things. When it states that each was created according to it's own 'kind' it means just that. Also of note is the reality that the geologic record
      and science completely support just that. There is nothing in truth that supports evolution. Mutations are not evolution in any wise and that there are many species among a single kind all such species are still of their own individual and unique kind, without exception...

      February 5, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
  13. autumn

    Why does it always have to be either/or? There is room for God in Evolution- just look for the word "chance". Why should'nt an all knowing God use evolution as a tool in creating the universe? God is far more powerful and wonderful than any of our religions can possibly convey. Quantum Mechanics states that for the universe to come into existence, it had to have had an observer. Pure science- yet room for God. Why is a literal interpretation of Genesis so necessary to creationists? Can they not see beyond a story meant for people who couldnt possibly have understood the true extent of God and the universe? We're now hearing the adult version via science. Some say we're all made in God's image, but its the soul, not the body, that is the image of God. The body is just a vehicle, the soul is eternal. So, instead of constant opposition, why not embrace a much greater God revealed thru the modern understanding of the universe, and retire Adam and Eve as a metaphor?

    February 5, 2014 at 3:32 am |
    • Fill

      "Quantum Mechanics states that for the universe to come into existence, it had to have had an observe"

      An 'observer' can be just a rock or anything inanimate, it's just a description of how quantum of energy is realized into energy. It has nothing to do with sentience or observation by humans.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:39 am |
      • autumn

        That's not what the Quantum Mechanics books I've read say. A rock has no awareness of anything, therefore cannot observe, only be observed.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:47 am |
        • saysame

          You are confusing Quantum Mechanics with it's philosophical interpretations. There are various opinions on the subject.

          February 5, 2014 at 3:50 am |
        • autumn

          LOL! There are various opinions on every subject. Have you ever followed a scientific debate? The scientists who back different interpretations of the evidence (read philosophy) will tear into each other like starving lions! There have been many eminent scientists whose chosen beliefs of what the evidence says have been proven wrong by subsequent evidence. I've even heard of younger, less eminent scientists hesitating to challenge their more established peers even to the point of not immediately publishing their new evidence! Yes, science is our best method of discovering facts, but dont make the mistake of thinking that the present facts and theories are established doctrine for all time. Tomorrow other evidence can be discovered that forces revision of our present views. Just remember 19th century Physics- the scientists of the time were utterly certain that Newtonian Physics, the only Physics they knew, was the end-all of PHYSICS, that it was a mature science, and nothing more could be learned. How wrong they were! Today's 'Philosophy" could be next year's proven fact, its dangerous to think nothing will ever change, that there wont ever be new understandings. That's the Creationist's mistake.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
        • Fill

          OK, this is before even QM 101. Schrodinger's Cat is a start. There is no cat in superposition. The cat witnessed it's self dying, so did the bacteria in it's gut ,on down. There's no sentience required to examine the world to have it exist. Layers of rock show it's been around a lot longer than we have, for example. The evidence is all around us. Look at the stars in the sky which are billions of years old.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:00 am |
        • autumn

          I surely never claimed that humans were responsible for creating the universe, though there are those who have!. I merely stated that an aware observer was required for the universe to come into existence. I would assume that the same observer would have been around to observe all the things you mentioned. HUMAN intervention was never implied. It is interesting that the universe seems to be ideal for life- organic molecules are even found in interstellar clouds. I suppose you'd call that chance, I have to wonder at a universe so supportive of life. Just too many "coincidences."

          February 5, 2014 at 7:36 pm |
        • Bill

          Something to think about....When God made Adam and Eve they were not babies, they were adults. Same goes for the trees, they were fruit bearing trees, not saplings. We are 3 dimensional people trying to figure out or box up a multi-dimensional God.

          February 5, 2014 at 6:28 am |
        • No Evidence

          Don't say "we" Bill, unless you have a mouse in your pocket...

          February 5, 2014 at 11:07 am |
    • Saraswati

      This are at least 8 main theories of quantum mechanics only some of which demand this, and as pointed out and observer could, depending on theory be anything. But if you are at the other end, say Bohemian mechanics or even most multiverses you don't even need that.

      However, keep in mind that by existence we are talking about reality at our accustomed level definitiveness. That can well come about late in the scenario.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:35 am |
      • Saraswati

        Bohmian. Gotta love auto correct.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:37 am |
    • Jon

      I have a B.A. in physics and I can assure you that early 20th century quantum mechanics, which developed the idea you are twisting, says nothing about about the creation of the universe. It simply describes particle phenomenon. If you can find me a peer reviewed paper by Dirac, Schrodinger, Pauli, Bell, or any of the founders of quantum mechanics that says "Well the universe had to be observed in order to have been created" i'll eat my own hat.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:57 am |
  14. Mike

    I thought the debate was a bit simplistic, but i'm glad we're at least debating. I immediately recorded my thoughts in a podcast here: http://www.looktothecookie.org/2014/02/girls-bill-nye-vs-god-his-and-hers.html

    February 5, 2014 at 3:24 am |
  15. Larry

    The most unfortunate thing about Ken Ham's argument is that he misrepresents what the Bible actually teaches and states so thoroughly...

    The Bible mentions many times throughout it's pages that a 'day' can and is representative of a thousand years, a generation, or a set period of time unspecified. In the account of creation in Genesis each creative 'day' is in fact clearly representative of a long period of time perhaps millions or billions of years in length. One only has to read the Bible's words to appreciate that the literal division of a 24 hour day from the standpoint of earth did not even come to be until the fourth day!

    In fact to go further one must appreciate that in the Bible's account of creation Genesis verse 1 speaks of the creation of the heavens and the earth. This is mentioned apart and separate from the six creative days which begins at Genesis verse 3. So the literal earth and heavens were in existence for some indefinite period of time before the sis days began according to the Bible's account.

    Consider... When summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” Clearly those who claim to represent the Bible's actual teachings and yet maintain that the creative days were 24 hours are not only misinformed but completely ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches. Also in a similar consideration those who debate or argue against the such ideas are arguing against the lie and misrepresentation of such ones and not the Bible since the Bible does not teach that...

    As for Bill Nye, his science is good and accurate in many respects but when he assumes that there are missing links that close the huge and real gaps in his evolution ideas he is leaving science and interpreting ideas that are not supported by anything concrete or scientific at all. That is true from a macro-evolutionary and genetic/DNA perspective entirely.

    The Bible states that living creatures “swarmed forth according to their kinds.” (Genesis
    1:21) The actual fossil record as well as the whole of the real geological record shows that to be exactly the case with absolutely no variation or or contrary evidences at all...

    The video above was interesting for it's informative nature only but it was/is largely based on false assumptions from both sides of the debate since neither person addresses what the actual Bible teaches on the matter. The Bible in fact is 100% in harmony with science in all that it states. Not one single aspect of science can disprove or contradict with any accuracy a single word of the truth of the Bible. That does not mean that everything that the Bible states can be proved by science, of course. But it is a pity that so many who consider themselves to be 'authorities' on the Bible and religion do in fact have no idea of the truth and accurate teachings of what the Bible states as the word of God.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:15 am |
    • Fill

      "As for Bill Nye, his science is good and accurate"

      I have to stop you right there. It's not *anybody's* science. It's the world's. Ham has an idea, a closed defense. Nye is just saying that everything is up for grabs! Test it! Learn, and have yours eyes open! The world is for you to discover.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:32 am |
    • Shaun

      Thats your interpretation and can be debated. No solid facts mentioned and everything you have said is self serving. You take what science knows as fact and bend what the bible says to try to make them match. Who r u fooling? My guess is yourself......

      February 5, 2014 at 5:08 am |
      • Larry

        Thanks for your reply Shaun...

        Actually in the Bible one must actually read and see the context to get the right and accurate meaning.

        The context of Genesis 1 clearly says exactly what I stated regarding day's creative works overlapping, regarding the literal 24 hour day only being discernible from earth on the fourth creative day, regarding the thousand year 'judgement day' found in Revelation, regarding a day to God being as a thousand years to man, and more...

        Also my points about the so-called and elusive missing link which in truth does not exist to date nowhere to eny extent.

        Indeed, nothing I said was or is inaccurate even a small bit. On the contrary it is absolutely accurate and that is so from a religious, academic, and scientific point of view.

        It does not require your agreement or approval, but I appreciate your taking the time to state your opinion and certainly invite you to simply to a bit of research having listed the topics for you to look up. Make the effort and become a bit more enlightened and informed...


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

      You must also believe that it rained for 40,000 years (or longer) as the same use of the word day (yom) in Chapter 1 of Genesis, is also applied in Chapter 6?

      February 5, 2014 at 5:45 am |
      • Larry

        Have to appreciate your humor...that along with an appropriate feeling regarding your ignorance and failure to actually read and reply to my whole comment and not just the selective bit that allowed you to reveal your lack...

        The context determines the accurate meaning and if one reads the Genesis account of creation then my points become very clear. Also consider that the Bible uses like Greek and Hebrew words that each respectively refer to a literal 24 hour day as well as longer periods of time. Such as when the Bible states that 'a day to God is as a thousand years to man'. Or when the Bible book of Revelation refers to the 'judgement day' which the context specifically states will last a thousand years. Or Jesus' words regarding the 'last day(s)' which are not specified in length or duration but clearly cover part(s) of one or more generations.

        As for the flood, the context tells and shows that the times are literal clearly. The 40 years to construct the ark and the times mentioned for other details are literal. What you and Mr. Nye as well as most others fail to appreciate about the flood account is that since man was much closer to the perfect man Adam then his life was longer lived and his person as a whole was that much closer to perfection. *Funny how science today shows that genetics plays a tremendous role in sickness and longevity of life. That is true to the extent that geneticists and DNA studies are causing many scientists to declare with truth that science will be able to extend the life of a person through genetic manipulation in time. They are attacking diseases through DNA advances in medicine...

        The Bible did not give a lesson on these issues but the fact that the Bible tells a story about the lessening of the life span of humans progressively until after relatively soon the flood gives much 'food for thought'. It was also at that time that man was permitted to consume meat/animals for food as the less perfect body wold be less capable of deriving sufficient protein from plants alone.

        The waters from the flood and the land masses and animals on the ark? The Bible tells of a water canopy that existed in the heavens, or atmospheric vicinity of the earth and similar canopies can be seen today with varying elements in the atmospheres of many celestial bodies. One close to earth is that of Venus...With the water in the atmosphere as described in the Bible much of the land masses would be connected as the oceans would contain much less water. That coupled with the Bible's statement that there was also more of the earth's water under the ground. Yes, the Bible is not a science book at all but the details that it speaks of are most certainly either supported by science in fact, as plausible, or in some cases unable to be determined...but NEVER outright proved false at all.

        It is easy to find a way to insult someone with whom you disagree Shaun, but it is more believable and intelligent to offer a 'learned' reply that shows that you have something to actually say. Again, I thank you for your effort and reply.


        February 5, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
    • DeCi

      Hi Larry. Your analysis of the debate was overall good. Being a former bible scholar myself, I agree with many aspects of your analysis. The problem is there is not clear agreement among bible scholars as to the numbers of years associated creation. This leaves and opening for a guy like Ken Ham to take liberties with the bible. Why not? I can not know a mans heart, but he has a vested interest in proving the "Ken Ham" model of creation i.e. men riding dinosaurs? I feel that he is being intellectually dishonest when he tries to make science fit neatly within his narrow construct of literal interpretation of the bible. He was twisting and contorting the supposed "scientific evidence" in the bible to fit his model. It quite frankly, made him look disingenuous and extremely misinformed about the thing he is supposedly most knowledgeable about. As you pointed out in you analysis, the bible was not written as a science book. It is Gods relationship with man.

      That is aside from many people flat out just don't believe the bible is the word of GOD. Many believe that the bible is mans attempt to connect with God. This explains why an all knowing and seeing God was not able to have an accurate record of how all we see came to be. If I am to believe that God inspired the bible, then I should also be able to know that the person that created it would know how it was formed without ambiguous non-sense which allows Ken Ham to take liberties with the writings of God.

      Bill Nye is Bill Nye. I do not agree with Bill Nye on everything and he couldn't answer everything. But I think it is safe to say the he has an open mind and is willing to follow scientific evidence where ever it leads. Can't say the same of Ken Ham who believes everything we need to know is in the bible. Which is incompatible with science or his new "Historical Science." What a crook!

      February 5, 2014 at 7:59 am |
    • cedar rapids

      '1:21) The actual fossil record as well as the whole of the real geological record shows that to be exactly the case with absolutely no variation or or contrary evidences at all...'

      Actually the fossil records shows the opposite. It shows layers of species that only appear in certain levels, not above or below.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:13 am |
      • Jim

        Look up the "Cambrian Explosion" – the nearly instantaneous appearance of thousands of mammal species can't be supported by Darwinian theory. Also, what we KNOW about population growth (science) when applied to the scientific dates for the origin of man presents a huge problem for science ... there are simply not enough people alive today to mathematically support the evolutionary theory, no matter which date is chosen. The numbers are hundreds of thousands of billions off (even making adjustments for wars, famines and plagues).

        February 5, 2014 at 10:14 am |
        • No Evidence

          Here are the facts, which are based on solid geological evidence, evidence which creationists have not, and can not, refute: During the Cambrian, no plants, with the exception of algae, existed. Land plants did not come into existence until 200 million years later. Swimming fishes did not appear until 100 million years after the close of the Cambrian. Reptiles and birds did not exist until 130 million years after the end of the Cambrian. Mammals did not appear until 440 million years after the close of the Cambrian.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:21 am |
      • Larry

        You obviously missed my point entirely.

        The fossil record shows each and every 'kind' as distinct and sudden. I never disputed that each specific 'layer' of the fossil record was distinct and separate and in fact that very truth lends support to my very points and supports the Bible's words and assertions regarding specific 'kinds'...

        Evolutionists attempt to say that various kinds over long periods mutated into something entirely different where as the Bible claims that each 'kind' is distinct and the fossil record supports that very truth. The 'attempts' to link one kind to another by creationists is flawed because each 'kind' is missing the so-called ;inks. The reference that Bill Nye made about a single amphibious creature (distinct creature at that) does not prove anything except that it was of a particular 'kind' that is extinct today so far as we know. The tadpole and flying fish are more recent examples of specific kinds that are not a link yet have features that are shared by various distinct and different kinds.

        People are working of flying cars today...When they succeed would you say that what they 'create' was proof of some evolution of the car evolving into a plane? Having similar traits or features in not a proof. The genetic and biological truths also support the Bible's explanations wholly.

        Anyway, your comment regarding the fossil record is something that I absolutely agree with and I never disputed anything regarding the various 'layers'. Each layer is distinct and shows specific period and/or epocs with distinct life in most cases to varying degrees. That is a separate point from my and the Bible's claim that each species or kind throughout the fossil record appears suddenly and no 'links' have ever been found as each 'purported' link (few in number) are also distinct. Thus science continues to search for the ever-elusive missing link(s)...

        But I do appreciate your reply cedar rapids, thanks for that.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • Geo Bruno

          Carbon 14 dating?

          February 5, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
        • Larry

          Carbon dating is in many of not most cases considered to be reliable and I do not dispute that. However that has nothing to do with anything I stated.

          My point is that every species appears suddenly and whole in the fossil record and the supposed links that are required for the stage(s) of evolution simply do not exist in the fossil record anywhere and at any level or extent.

          Of course the earth is billions of years old and the Bible teaches just that when considered exactly as it is written and intended in context...

          Those who claim that the earth is some 6,000 years old or even thousands of years old are ignorant of what the Bible says and sadly misrepresent it to themselves and those who listen to them.

          However, those who claim that evolution is 'absolutely' supported by science in any manner whatsoever are equally delusional and misrepresenting the facts as shown by science. Both sides of this argument are flawed by misrepresentations and lies compounded by ignorance and agendas...'as represented' in this debate and two individuals.

          February 5, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • cedar rapids

          ' I never disputed that each specific 'layer' of the fossil record was distinct and separate and in fact that very truth lends support to my very points and supports the Bible's words and assertions regarding specific 'kinds'.'

          How does it? If everything was created at the exact same time how does distinct layers support that claim?

          February 5, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • Larry

          Nowhere does the Bible state that all living things were created at the same time. In fact it states exactly the opposite. The creative days each had unique and specific things which were created according to the Bible's account. The scientific and geological records actually do not dispute or contradict that at all and in many ways lend support to that truth.

          So many things that are covered about creation and the first recorded eons of time covering man's early history were not covered in this debate that the debate itself was almost comical for the lack of accurate knowledge of what the Bible states and teaches on behalf of both Mr. Nye and Mr. Ham...

          The Bible does not dispute that the many life forms were created millions of years ago and perhaps much more...In fact it implies exactly that fact! It is those who in ignorance try to place the 'creative days' as literal 24 hour time periods who pollute and confuse the truth of what the Bible states. l

          The Bible literally refers to a 'judgement day' as being a thousand years in length just as it states that a day is 'as a thousand years to God', that showing that time to humans is so limited but not so with our Creator. (Of course that does not mean that a day is actually and limited to a literal thousand years to God...) Jesus speaks od the 'judgement day' which is of course seen in context as being of a specific though unstated period of time. Also regarding prophecy there are various Bible statements about ' in that day' referring to a generation(s) or time period that is unknown to the reader yet wholly correct in application.

          My point is that the length of a day in the Bible is to be determined or understood in consideration of both the context and literal word etymology... Mr. Ham and Mr. Nye both failed to appreciate that truth in their opposing arguments and views as expressed. Thus their whole argument(s) on that matter are entirely redundant to the actual Bible's position and teachings.

          The Bible and science do harmonize 100% where they are examined together and in exactly zero instances does nor can science refute or disprove the Bible to date...

          This is not my biased or prejudiced view but rather it is an accurate representation of the reality and facts about the Bible and it's 'real world' relevance to the Bible. The educated and honest scientist and scholar will agree with that regardless of their religious belief or lack of the same.

          February 5, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
  16. Reasonable

    There is NO debate among any competent scientist that evolution is fact. There is of course plenty of room to discovery the details of HOW evolution works. Also, evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe itself, only of how life has changed and adapted on earth. "creationism" is theology, NOT SCIENCE. EVER.

    The only "controversy" is in the minds of those that reject science and/or are unwilling to learn. (And their continuing attempts to inject their theology into science education)

    February 5, 2014 at 3:15 am |
    • cdaniels317

      So you are saying that the Dr. Damadian and the other scientists that Ken Ham discussed are not competent?

      February 5, 2014 at 7:29 am |
      • Lolly


        February 5, 2014 at 10:03 am |
  17. EphremX

    One of the attributes of God in christianity is that he is all-knowing.Then he already knows the decisons we are going to make.Therefore, your comment is not only wrong but it is against the nature of 'your' god.

    February 5, 2014 at 2:56 am |
    • Fill

      That's self-serving and circular nonsense. I hope that was a joke post.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:02 am |
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.