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. JB

    No one is censoring you. Your premise is based on a religious belief and that does not belong in the Science classroom. You state "Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system in their schools," but evolution is not e 'belief system'. Evolutionary Science is based on evidence that has been found in a variety of ways including archaeological digs (which I hate to break it to you is the real HISTORICAL SCIENCE) not to mention witnessed in nature in the present day. The debate between evolution and creation does not belong in the Science classroom at all. Science teachers already talk about some of the flaws in Evolutionary Science, and they should talk about the things we are not yet 100% sure of. We should not fill in the holes in the evidence though with 'God.' Remember, your God is not the same God everyone else believes in. You want God in the Science classroom so you can gain more followers to your loony fundamental abomination of the Christian faith. Real Christians are embarrassed by you, you hurt religion with your idiocy more than you are helping it.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
  2. sybaris

    Creations SHOULD be censored.

    It's no different than if your child came home and said that their teacher taught them that 2+2=Fish.

    February 5, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
    • sybaris

      "Creationists"

      February 5, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
  3. bubba

    if Jesus. Moses, or any Bible prophet, had been born a hundred or so years ago, would their claims be seen the same as Joseph Smith's claims are seen? Joseph Smith's claims of ancient cities in North America, etc are ridiculed by historians and Christians. So, how would Jesus or any Old Testament prophet be seen if they were born *now* or recently?

    February 5, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
  4. Ah

    ..I think the debate was wonderful. It allows us ALL to see what it must be like in middle eastern muslim countries, thanks to Ham. They just never seem to advance.

    February 5, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
  5. The Dead Critic

    The WORST person to debate on the subject. NOBODY who is a Christian believes the world is 6,000 years old. NOT unless you never went to school. As a Christian myself, I believe the universe is as old as the human mind can conceive, and that's very little. I feel sorry for my fellow Christians who are hung up on the age of the Earth vs. doing what is important and teaching about Jesus Christ, and how he inspired the world to care for everyone. Evolution starts at the time ANYTHING is created. Whether it's the automobile or a snail, it makes no difference. SOMETHING created it because you can't create something out of nothing. Unless you're God of course. LOL

    February 5, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
    • Ah

      thankfully most christians no longer think the world is 6,000 years old. It shows that christians are slowly walking away from religions beliefs. In fact they are evolving, finally.

      February 5, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
      • fedorasupreme

        *tips fedora*

        February 5, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • Almighty3201

      You know for hundreds of years they used to teach the earth was flat, obviously we know now it isn't, so just because you were indoctrinated to believe the earth is billions of years old does not make it so. Unfortunately in school they only teach you one way to think, which in essence means not to think at all!!!

      February 5, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
      • Ah

        actually, you are wrong. School teaches students how to think for themselves, use logic and to research.

        Sad they teach you that 2+ 2 = 4.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • Almighty3201

          Most public schools don't even teahckids to write in cursive anymore don't try to educate me on how free your mind is! Go drop LSD somewhere else. Science (which means knowledge.... that's it it simply means knowledge) only teaches ONE way and that's evolution and it is an epic fail at best!

          February 5, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        That the earth was flat was an ancient view based upon their observations and was corrected. That the earth is only 6000 years old is solely based upon the number of generations recorded in the bible multiplied by an average gap between generations and based upon scientific knowledge afforded by geology, dating techniques, cosmology, etc. that has been corrected.
        Why do you accept the imaginings of ancient nomadic tribes over modern knowledge?

        February 5, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
      • Curtis

        When I started reading your comment I wasn't sure if you were on the side of Creation or Evolution. Then I realized you're arguing against science by saying, 'we once thought'. Therefore you claim all Science is wrong.
        I've seen very little logic that is worse than that in my life. Science is evolving and we have theories that are more than just best guesses. We come across them based off of evidence. What I don't get it how Evolutionist may admit to being wrong in certain areas, and claim we need better evidence. Creationists just say, hey its that way because its written in the bible.
        Also creationists live in such a meek world when you pick and choose what you take from the bible. Its baffling, things such as the rule of thumb. It almost seems if you yourself are evolving away from barbaric ideas that come from such a primitive society that believed in magic and witchcraft, aka Religion.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
        • Almighty3201

          Not true not all creationists are in tight little box / don't assume you know the minds of people you cannot or will not relate too! My mind is more open to the obscure and esoteric concepts than you ever could even fathom! I could throw out some crazy stuff.... that you wouldnt accept and its more on the fringe than your evolution!

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

        "Unfortunately in school they only teach you one way to think, which in essence means not to think at all"

        Sorry, but that's completely wrong. In school, students are taught "critical thinking" as opposed to memorization. It's the foundation of Western education and what teaches us how to ask questions, how to analyze and how to draw our own conclusions. When natural science is taught, for instance, you are not simply told that "fossils exist", you are presented with the facts of where they are found, how they are found, how they are created, and how they are tested and dated as well as how attributes of them are inferred. Sorry to say, but if anything, it is the biblical version of creationism that asks students "not to think critically".

        February 5, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
      • KS

        No, in school, in SCIENCE class they teach... wait for it... SCIENCE. "Creationism" isn't science, no matter how much people who believe in it want it to be. There is zero reason to "teach" such a thing as a "theory" in science class because there is no science behind it. If in a RELIGION class someone wants to speak to what some people seem to believe, in spite of science, hey, have at it.

        But it's not science.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
      • cedar rapids

        'You know for hundreds of years they used to teach the earth was flat, obviously we know now it isn't, '

        except they didnt. We have known the earth was not flat since the ancient greeks proved it not to be. It was only the uneducated that continued to believe it to be so.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
    • Almighty3201

      Not all Christians beliefs are boxed in so tight that we don't step outside the realm. For e.g. take the Sons of God from Gensis 6..... those of us who know this is referring to the "fallen ones" also understand how they tied into the pyramids, and the Greek gods and other such myths. 300 flood legends across and throughout human history must have some significance, just like all the mythological gods. My bible talks about all of this, and I believe it. And the "super heroes" Sons of God will be back real soon!

      February 5, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
    • Liss

      This is PRECISELY why religion has no place being taught as an alternative to science. It varies WILDLY from "expert" to "expert." (and of course, everyone has equal claim to the "expert" label, unless they are an anthropologist with a wide background in varying religions)
      Theories are debatable, opinions are not.
      Science is debatable, religion is not.
      As such, this whole debate is silly.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
      • Almighty3201

        And yet here you are doing just that.... what hypocrasy....... but I do kind of agree with you.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
  6. Theodore Hyczko

    Jesus Christ says All things are possible with God I believe him. Miracles do happen
    Good Job Ken Ham for standing up for the Bible and Jesus Christ
    Jesus Christ said when he returns it will be like the days of Noah

    …37"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be

    throughout his ministry Jesus Christ did the impossible like feeding 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish but had 12 baskets left over

    It comes down to it do you believe in the power of God? God turn Lot's wife into Salt He can make fossils

    February 5, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
    • sybaris

      Faith is not truth, if it were there would be only one god, one religion.

      February 5, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      ' God turn Lot's wife into Salt He can make fossils'

      so god deliberately deceives and then punishes those that dont believe in him?

      February 5, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
      • Porkins

        No, you got it wrong, Satan (just Stan to his friends) created fossils to confuse the righteous; however, the pickle to his is why did an omnipotent and loving god create Stan and all his friends just to lead us all astray, after all, for all his omnipotence I figure he could have kept a pretty good eye on his first garden and kept rabble like Stan out and away from that troublesome tree for for at least a couple of generations couldn't he?

        February 5, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
  7. Porkins

    I think the ultimate problem with any "creation based science" discussion in a public school classroom comes down to creationism being based on faith, and the fact that teaching based on faith will always lead to the issue of who's faith is represented. Will the they present based upon Genesis, the world egg of Hindu faith, the Aesir creating the world from the corpse of the defeated ice giant Ymir? Ultimately any attempt to teach "creationism alternatives to evolution" have to fail as no single faith can prove itself superior to any other as belief except by saying "well I'm right obviously because my book tells me I am." Science is based in theories supported by independent observation and experimentation. Scientist come from all walks of life, faiths, and cultures, but they only agree on science when their observable data matches that of other scientists. They stand on the backs of those individuals that came before them, building on a verifiable foundation of theories, discarding those found outdated as they go, and ultimately, the truly great thing about learning about science in public schools is that you can see the scientific method in action and confirm many of these theories and laws for yourself through your very own experimentation. This simply cannot be replicated by faith based beliefs, and while faith cannot be excluded from the life of students, it simply doesn't belong in a classroom built upon the scientific theory.

    February 5, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
    • Maria Delaluz

      We ALL have our preconceived notions – including scientists. Who's faith shall we perpetuate in the public school classrooms? The atheist's religion? Matters not to me. What bothers me is all these so called Christians sending their kids to public schools......and spouting their conservative mantra "No socialism"....all the while sending their kids to socialist pagan schools.

      February 5, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
      • Porkins

        True, it is somewhat hypercritical to shout out against government interference in our lives while using public schools, state funded infrastructure, and calling for help from the state funded police and fire departments when emergencies hit; however, that is fodder for a wholly separate debate, albeit one with many of the same fundamental issues as keeping religion from or introducing religion into the classroom.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
  8. CoryTE

    And this was just about as even as this year's Super Bowl. Creationism got crushed by the sheer weight of eons.

    February 5, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
    • r goodfellow

      right on!

      February 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
  9. A1Bo

    I don't think God wants to dumb down his followers. Christianity went through evolution and still is. Even Ham said himself that he doesn't take everything in the bible literally. I'm okay with Ham making money off gullible people, but is a shame if those states would push it in schools.

    February 5, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
    • Jahtez

      They would be violating the 1st Amendment if they tried.

      February 5, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
      • bob

        that is why creationist use the sly fly ply "ID" to skirt around separation of church and state

        February 5, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • cedar rapids

          yep. ID is just creationism in a groucho marx disguise.

          February 5, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
  10. Bryan

    How is this still a debate?

    February 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
    • OldSchool

      It isn't anywhere other than in our country with declining education metrics...

      February 5, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
  11. Mack Hopkins

    Let's look at this logically you would have to interpret it from the language it was transcribed in which is Hebrew. The Hebrew word used here for "snake" or "serpent" is Nachash. The word Nachash means "to shine(like brass)" or "to whisper." Hebrew is actually an ancient Chaldean language which is derived from Ancient Sumerian/Babylonian in Iraq and Iran. The Chaldean cuneiform word is Naw-Kash which means "shiny like brass." I surmise that this "serpent" was a brass deity that didn't speak but inspired the woman to rebel in some way and consume the fruit. None of what is written in the Bible is literal. They are stories meant to give some insight into particular people living in a particular region and how they lived and worshipped the Gods they did. People would like to believe to they are worshipping a monotheistic religion but they are wrong. For example: God said let us make man in our own image and after our own likeness. This denotes a plural. And if you say he was speaking to the angels think again. The Hebrew word for God is Eloh, and the phrasing is Esma Eloh wa Elohim. Which means God spoke to the Gods. So it's saying A GOD, spoke to the other GODS. Maybe it was the head God talking to the lesser Gods like Zeus on Mount Olympus. None the less you are all worshipping many Gods if you believe in the Gods of the Bible.

    February 5, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
  12. Lou

    according to Ham all creatures should hold women, snakes and apples accountable.....

    February 5, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
  13. Demigod Vadik, CA

    Creationists censored....

    ....well DUUUHHHH!!!!

    ...we don't teach mythology as fact...we can teach it as mythology, but you cant teach something with absolutely 0 scientific proof as an another valid point of view...

    February 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • bubba

      Creationists are censored, just like believers in astrology, alchemy, numerology, phrenology.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
      • magicpanties

        but Santa is real !!!

        (I saw him at the mall)

        February 5, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
    • Bob

      The problem is that most of what you call "science" is also called a "theory" but you people want to treat these as fact, and they are not.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
      • bubba

        I hate to tell you this, but you are really showing your ignorance. You are using the colloquial definition of the word theory, that is, hypothesis, which is NOT the scientific use of the word theory. For example, the Theory of Relativity, is it a guess? No. There are NO experiments that contradict the Theory of Relativity (Special). Think of theorem when considering the word theory as used in science.

        February 5, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
      • aaron

        A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Theories are based on facts. The theory of evolution is based on the FACT of evolution. Your ignorance is showing bob.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
      • Derp

        Gravity as we know it is also "only a theory."

        Do you doubt its validity?

        February 5, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
  14. Chris

    How can mere humans, even those who call themselves "scientists", know all there is to know about God? If they did, they might believe in God. That would be against their creed.

    February 5, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
    • magicpanties

      How can mere humans, even those who call themselves "Christians", know all there is to know about Science? If they did, they might believe in Science. That would be against their creed.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • sandralogan0430

      we can know there is no god. because we don't live in the bronze age anymore...

      February 5, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
    • Matt

      I love christians and believers in god. They call themselves "mere" humans and don't strive to find answers outside of a book written by "mere" humans. Kind of contradictory isn't it? The human race needs to empower themselves and stop looking to a deity for answers that will never be answered for you.

      February 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
      • AgentX

        Here are some of the Christians you are talking about:

        "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were
        inspired. I study the Bible daily."– Isaac Newton (17&18 century)

        "The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God." - Michael
        Faraday (The greatest scientist of the 19th century)

        "God our Lord is God indeed." - James Clerk Maxwell (Maxwell equations)

        “God existed before there were human beings on Earth" - Max Planck (Founder of Quantum Physics in the 20th century)

        February 5, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
    • Phil

      A straw man argument. You are strongly suggesting that scientists claim to know all there is to know about God when they have never made such a claim. It isn't, and never has been part of their argument against creationism, and you must know this, so in your desperation, when you avoid countering what these scientists are actually saying, you are telegraphing your profoundly weak defense of your beliefs.

      February 5, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
    • sybaris

      which god?

      February 5, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
  15. magicpanties

    We no longer teach that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.
    No reason to continue teaching the christian creation myth either.

    February 5, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
  16. Lou

    Apples are the root of evil...

    February 5, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
    • Drake

      No, selfish desire and envy of power and control are the roots of envy. You have to look at the deeper picture, the apple was just the means by which those roots were surfaced.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
      • Lou

        fishes don't have teeth to eat apples, why did they get the "death" sentence?

        February 5, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • Lou

          selfish desire and envy of power and control are the roots of envy....sounds like a religious zealot to me.

          February 5, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
      • visitor

        Yeah, those with power and control rarely relinquish it willingly. That would take a much better person that a god or a control-freaky husband.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
    • Drake

      Listen, that's a bold statement from someone who doesn't even know me. I'm just letting you know the truth. If you or I were in Adam and Eve's shoes, it wouldn't have gone any differently. And if you think about it, yes you could argue for Adam and Eve in that it was pure curiosity, that's no excuse. And to be honest, 9 times out of 10, when given a decision to make, if one option is good and then we find out about a "bad" option, we'll take that "bad" option without hesitation. The reason being is we want control of our own lives and our own decisions. That in itself isn't a bad thing, but when you receive orders from the God of the Universe, and then make that decision "because you wanted to/felt like it," then it's called sin. That's what happened, and I'm just trying to inform a misguided fellow.

      February 5, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
  17. Dr A

    I thought that last night's debate was excellent – good to listen to both sides putting forth their "best shots". As a psychologist though, what I observe is a "dialogue of the deaf" – religious people are defined by their fundamental need to "believe"; non-religious people are most often defined by their need to analyze everything in terms of known facts and rational thought. The two sides can debate each other but they can never "understand" each other because their fundamental frameworks of thought are polar opposites.

    February 5, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
    • bubba

      Interesting POV.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
    • magicpanties

      That's true; one side is deluded, the other is not.
      Bill Nye is not deluded.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
    • JK

      Ken Ham would probably disagree with your assessment, given that his argument was that his faith/beliefs are validated and affirmed by known facts and rational thought. His underlying point is that naturalism/evolutionism is a faith structure just as much as creationism is. He tried to establish/expose a common framework of evaluation that actually exists when you honestly consider each 'side's' position.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
      • visitor

        Exactly. And since science is not a faith structure but a method, Hamm was building a straw man argument. Thanks for clarifying that.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • JK

          No, Ham was exposing a straw man argument. Empirical, observable scientific method is provable, verifiable. Scientific opinion on past history is not. It is a theoretical explanation people choose to believe, because until a "wayback machine" is invented, they have no other choice.

          February 5, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
      • bubba

        Science uses the scientific method as its framework: hypothesis, predictions, testing, review of results, repeat if necessary or discard. Creationism predicts nothing. Discarded. No need for a *common* framework. Hamm doesn't like the rules of science, so he wants to change them. Simple,.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
  18. Larson

    The Sermon and the Scientist

    Not sure what Hamm was trying to do last night but the impression he left was the same old whine: “Poor persecuted Christians are prevented by mainstream science from presenting Bible-based versions of earth history in public schools.” His constant reversion to sermonizing about his faith-based approach to science was a pathetic defense. Perhaps these tired bromides were desperate prayers to his inner God to help him answer Nye’s challenge to present an iota of evidence that creationism can predict and confirm any examples of change the way science can. He never attempted to do this. I guess he just didn’t have time.

    Bill Nye on the other hand, had plenty of time, millions of years of time, which is what Hamm & Co. can never get past. Nye heroically stood up to this ghost of science past with rock-solid examples of real science at work. His best take-away, however, was the urgent call to support real science in American classrooms to prevent this country from losing its role as the world’s leader in research and technological achievements. Thus endeth this round.

    Real Science 1
    Crap Science 0

    February 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
    • Drake

      No, Ham was trying to point out that science cannot be used to fully explain everything. Science tries to be, in itself a "god" to people by having authority to dictate the earth's course, but it simply cannot do that. God needs to be reveered, and Ham was simply trying to appeal to the vast majority who undercut Him and His authority.

      Universe – "One Word" – try putting it any other way. Who's word? God's word.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
      • fsmgroupie

        which god? Thor?

        February 5, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
      • CoryTE

        Science can sure be used to explain a lot more than religion can, and continues to explain more and more through research, whereas anything in the bible...is just myth.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
      • bubba

        Science uses a method to investigate nature. The method can be used for anything, not just nature. Mathematical theories or hypotheses are used to explain or predict nature. Science is a *thing*. It does not *care* to explain everything.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
      • Liss

        Religion needs to be kept out of schools, or at least confined to a optional "religion" class. Opening those gates is a terrible, horrible, awful idea. How any sane person can even insinuate that it should be taught alongside SCIENCE is completely and utterly beyond me.
        It's so senseless it makes me angry.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
      • visitor

        "Science tries to be, in itself a "god" to people by having authority to dictate the earth's course,"

        No, science is not a dude.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
  19. nick

    The major cause of all wars has been in one sense or another, religion and the notion that one can "prove" or ":disprove" anything to one another when both minds are closed, like two children arguing "my dad can beat your dad. Give it a rest ) :

    February 5, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
    • JK

      Yes, because truth doesn't matter anyways.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
    • B. Goddard

      So much delusion after 3 or 4 generations of atheist/no-God indoctrination in the schools. First, atheist-materialist leaders, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc killed, what, 50 million civilians, or is it 100 million? They were more evolutionist–dominant race–Darwinists than religionists. But, as Ham said, and Nye denied empirical science is testable & repeatable–the rest is 'historical science' which is not provable and therefore subject to interpretation and yes, debate. Perhaps the 'evolution–as-fact' crowd should investigate Ham's list of 100 items that disprove a billions of years old earth. I've seen some and they are actual science fact that say the earth is young. One example that I remember is the lack of dust on the moon–which was supposed to be a number of feet deep for a moon which was alleged to have an age corresponding to the earth's "b.o.y. "(billions of years). Not the best example, but check out the list itself, and you might wake up to real critical thinking.

      February 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
      • sybaris

        So a Christian President authorizing the use of nuclear weapons on two cities filled with innocent civilians is okay with you. Got it

        February 5, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
      • sybaris

        "lack of dust on the moon–which was supposed to be a number of feet deep for a moon which was alleged to have an age corresponding to the earth's"

        You do understand that the moon and the earth are inherently different

        February 5, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
      • cedar rapids

        ' One example that I remember is the lack of dust on the moon–which was supposed to be a number of feet deep for a moon which was alleged to have an age corresponding to the earth's "b.o.y. "(billions of years). Not the best example,'

        you are right, it isnt the best example because that idea was debunked a long time ago and a large number of creationist sites no longer use the moon dust claim for a young earth.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
  20. Robert Stephens

    The one thing that all of these people cannot seem to understand is that the human mind cannot comprehend infinity. And when you speak about God and the Beginning of the Universe, etc. you are contending with infinity. These things we cannot know.The Bible is made up of little stories or parables that the people of that age told each other to try to understand things they didn't understand. These stories weren't meant to be taken literally, whatever you mean by that phrase, the importance of each story was principle, not any actual character or place. So, science as truth can be related to religion as truth

    February 5, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
    • snowboarder

      @bob, if the bible is a collection of made up stories where is the truth of religion?

      February 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
    • Drake

      To say that people don't have the capability to comprehend infinity, or eternity, which would be a better way of putting it, and therefore "make up" names and places and stories in their feeble attempt at describing it is really only one dimensional. You're basically saying that what we have in the Bible as stories are not actual accounts of history, but ficticious stories. What you are doing is limiting this process soley to man, whereas I believe in a God who is big enough to specifically give those accounts to man. I don't understand how it works by any means, but I imagine that God is powerful enough to do that if He so chose.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:30 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.