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. Kate Johnson

    I am a Christian, but I honestly can't stand Hamm. He's divisive arrogant narcissist. I've seen no humility, or grace, or really anything that even remotely resembles Jesus in him at all. Just self satisfied smugness and egocentric self importance. He basically says that anyone who doesn't see Genesis the way he sees it, isn't really saved. A truly repugnant individual, that does more interfere with the work of God by his divisive work than any atheist out there ever could. People like him drive people who give any credence to science out of the church. I am most certainly not a young earth person, because I don't think God is deceptive, which would have to be the case in order for Hamm's position to be accurate. There's simply too much evidence to the contrary. You have to twist yourself into a pretzel intellectually and remove your brain entirely to even try to go there. It just doesn't pass the laugh test. I think it's far more likely that with our tiny little brains and extremely limited lifespan that we are the ones who are not really capable of understanding the ins and out so how God created the world, nor is it really important that we do, and honestly, anyone like Hamm that says they KNOW is a liar, and we all know where that comes from and it isn't God. Personally, I think that if you believe God created the world, how he did that is non-essential doctrine. “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” This is exactly what you don't see in people like Hamm, which is why he has no credibility with me being such a poor witness overall. Yes, my non-believing friends, I know you think I don't have a brain because I believe, so you don't really have to tell me. : )

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

      Good post, as an agnostic I live my life attempting to have an open mind and appreciation of all the good things faith and belief add to the world, but as no one can truly "Know" exactly what the meaning of our existence is I cannot accept that any single belief system is any more valid than any other, but it is sad when the supposed faithful fly in the face of the positives that their belief should focus on and set themselves up like idols to be worshiped rather than as messengers trying to better the lives of those around them.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
    • John33

      Kate, God told us in His Word how He made the world. You don’t have to go to the latest secular science of the day to find out what God did. Furthermore, yes it is a major doctrine. The Bible says that God created the world by His Word – Jesus. That is tremendously important since it ascribes Jesus as the Creator. You are taking the credit away from Jesus when you say that nobody can possibly know how God made the world. I question your criticism of Ken Ham.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
      • truthprevails1

        Ken Ham is a fraud. Much like you, he uses circular reasoning to defend his god and then always finds a little loop hole to make it seem right. The problem is that you can't use the bible to defend the christian god without providing evidence that said god exists and so far christian's are batting zero on this.

        February 7, 2014 at 8:11 am |
        • John_33

          That's not true. There is a mountain of evidence that cries out that God exists and loves us. It is only because wicked people refuse to accept that evidence that it is not recognized for what it is. Jesus was right when He said that wicked people would refuse to obey the truth because they love their sins more than their Creator, and that is just what we see today. Each and every one of us is given a conscience and yet we continually disobey it. People murder, steal, lust, and fight all the time to get what they want because they want to live for themselves rather than doing what is right. Our own consciences tell us that we are not doing right. That's a pretty good witness.

          February 7, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          John_33: No there isn't evidence, if there was there would be no need for this conversation. None of what you listed points to a god.
          Christians murder and do all sorts of horrible things also, so don't play the holier than thou card here.
          I'm not sinful because in the real world sin is only biblical and given that I don't accept your god, I certainly do not accept anything that falls under it.
          You may need that book and that god to be moral but some of us do quite well without and if you can't see that, it is you who has the issue...not us. I find it horribly sad that you would wish such torture on your fellow human for the simple reason of disagreeing with you and your belief-that in itself is not moral and it drives people away from your belief system...so in a sense, keep it up-you only hurt your ilk.

          February 7, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
  2. brian

    Science flies people to the moon Religion flies people into buildings.

    February 5, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
    • MA

      LOL...u funny!! NOT

      February 5, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
    • Porkins

      sad but true

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

      Interesting. The inventor of the liquid fuel rocket (Robert Goddard) and Wernher von Braun (chief architect of the Apollo Saturn V rocket) where both Christians. The two first humans to walk on the moon were Christians and most of the men that walked on the moon were Christians. So when in the course of human events, did atheists design something that went to the moon?

      February 5, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
  3. Chris

    Seriously CNN use one format for discussions.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
  4. ldsmom02

    God is the ultimate scientist. To say that he has nothing to do with what is going on is absurd. Yes, God can be in climate change, and Yes, He also lets us dig our own graves, too, but He is also capable of changing that at the last minute if He so chooses. And before you chastise God it would be wise to at least learn who He is before judging Him. You might find your opinion of Him is very very wrong.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
    • linda

      Nowadays, too many so-called Christians either don’t know or trust God’s Word. In their eyes, God’s laws seem outdated. His judgment is not to be feared. The devil can’t be real. Hell is not eternal.

      That’s frightening and deadly. Jesus not only warns us repeatedly about hell, but He gave His life on the cross so that we might be free of sin and escape eternal death and damnation, if we trust Him as our Lord and Savior.

      God hates sin just as absolutely as He loves us. Yet today we have Christians who wink at sin and tell unrepentant sinners that everything will be OK. The only way they can justify this is by assuming that God’s Word has somehow changed, like the seasons turn or the centuries pass.

      Times have certainly changed, but God’s Word has not. The Prophet Isaiah tells us, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever”
      (Isaiah 40:8).

      God’s Word still means what it says. We all need to be prepared to stand in judgment before a holy God. The only way to prepare for that is to repent of your sins and trust Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
      • Porkins

        Good old God, creator of evil (he created Lucifer after all) and planner of all damnation (can't operate outside of God's plan can we?). We have a great god that condemns almost everyone that has ever been born since the majority of the population on the planet has existed in places like China, India, the America's, where he didn't bother sending the appropriate prophet to ensure these billions of souls have a chance for salvation until more modern times when good followers of "His" word could get around to preaching to people about the correct salvation that their new flocks have to realize doesn't apply to any of their ancestors.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
      • ME II

        @linda,
        Haven't you heard there is a New New Testament, we are in the amnesty dispensation now.
        /sarcasm

        February 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
  5. Geo Bruno

    As if we live like the below

    All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." -Acts 4:31-35

    February 5, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
  6. Geo Bruno

    Which pro god folks posting here support gods law regarding putting adulterers to death.

    Any?

    February 5, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
    • Educate yourself

      Old Law has been fulfilled. Read.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
      • Geo Bruno

        But not the 10 suggestions?

        February 5, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
      • Geo Bruno

        Nope its still on the books

        ASK jc

        Matthew 5:17 he said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

        February 5, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
  7. Geo Bruno

    Well us here at the one true religion, the northern deformed 6th day visogoths of Christ the geologist only worry about taking care of the least of us and nothing else

    February 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
  8. woodie

    the problem with science is everything is a theory. literally. but you could say the same about religion. wait. let's not burst anyone's bubble.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
    • stewal

      Not everything in science is a theory. There are laws, which are fundamental concepts that can be expressed as equations. E=mc squared for example is a law.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
      • Paul

        And primordial soup to people evolution is not law. It's a belief.

        February 5, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
  9. Geo Bruno

    Jeepers lots of folks claiming to believe in god.

    But not what his kid said about taking care of the least of us and what happens to rich folks

    February 5, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
  10. Geo Bruno

    Well I just heard from all the other gods and they are un amused that the Christian one is getting all the press.

    But since he is a jealous one, there ya go

    February 5, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
  11. mc

    Ham's final thought – "Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority — our infallible creator and his word, the Bible — over the words of fallible humans" shows that his use of logic is inconsistent. If he must reject evolution because it is presented to him by "the words of fallible humans", then he must also reject the contents of the Bible, since they too were written by fallible humans. "God" did not grab a pen and write any version of the Bible. Men did. Bronze age men with no concept of science or even the large numbers required to explain the age of the universe they lived in.

    Continuing his train of logic... does he also reject medicine, since has been devised and practiced by fallible humans? Does he not believe anything which is not covered in the Bible? Economics? Mathematics? Psychology? Physics? All of these were discovered/invented/enhanced by "fallible humans" and not God.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
  12. Steve W

    I have a science degree, Biology. I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible is not litteral (myopinion), it is written by various people based upon revelations made to them, so much is as Jesus taught using parables. Thr message is there, often the details do not matter. IIs God's power deminished because He did not make everything at once. God created matter, energy and the rules that allowed or caused it to become what it is, has been and will be over time. This does not deminish the Creator as I see it. The conflict between science and religon is not as great as it is made out to be.

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

      I agree.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
  13. Porkins

    Ultimately anyone who doesn't believe in evolution need only look at their humble house pets and plates of food. Dogs, cats, ferrets, and domesticated rats are all bred to achieve specific traits. These traits include variations in size, coats, loyalty, submissiveness, heightened sense of smells, unique coloration's as compared to their wild ancestors. While selective breeding is not the exact same as natural evolution, it is proof that creatures of the world were not created in an immutable state to match the specific plans of a creative spirit. The cows we eat are bred for specific qualities, the corn used in so much of our diet was adapted from an ancestor so different from the corn of today as to be unrecognizable, and was initially bred by folks who's idea's of creation did not include a large wooden boat and a herd of sheep. We see or use the tenants of evolution every day of our lives, but short of the strength of character faith can sometimes provide, we cannot say the proof of a specific, undisputed, supreme creator and his particular prophet of choice is as readily apparent.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
  14. JohnRJohnson

    Creationists should be censored. They're trying to implant religious dogmatism into science. This country has enough problems with its educational ranking in the sciences compared to the rest of the world without allowing a bunch of charlatans who think in magical terms about the Universe. The people who point to the Holy Bible as a resource for science are either insane or delusional. These are the same people who think it's OK to trash the planet because God gave it to us and not the animal kingdom (of which we are actually a part). So, who cares if we chop down the rain forests, pollute the air and water, and wipe out other species. It's OUR planet, right? Makes me sick.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
    • Melody

      Your stereotyping is quite laughable. And our prejudice is even worse. It's too bad that you most likely will never be able to have a rational, intelligent conversation with anyone that doesn't agree with you, because you can't see through your own ego.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
    • Average_American

      I find your post intriguing. Putting aside for a moment the fact that no Christians say it’s ok for us to trash the planet because God gave it to us. If they do, that’s by no means what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches us to be good stewards of the temporal gifts given to us by God. That would be the opposite of your claim.

      Nevertheless, I find it interesting that after you got past your name calling you decided to attack Christianity based on moral ground; specifically that it is bad or wrong to exploit the planet for personal gain. I would like to suggest that there is no ability to make moral judgments from a secular humanist standpoint. What is bad? Who is to say what is bad? Where did bad come from? If we are simply a conglomeration of cells, electrical impulses, and chemical reactions, who is anyone to say what is bad or good for that matter. If bad and good are objective truths, than truth claims may be logically made. If they are subjective, it all boils down to preference.

      I’m a Christian and have no desire to win an argument for the sake of just winning an argument. I would like to simply reply to ideas with which I don’t agree and put forth a retort. Nothing more than the free exchange of ideas. The Internet and political environment lend themselves to such polarization. Let’s see if we can work together to move toward inclusion of more ideas in discussions that matter rather than allow ourselves to drift toward exclusionary practices toward thoughts and ideas.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
    • Geo Bruno

      CREATIONISTS SHOULD TEACH THEIR RELIGOUS DOGMA IN RELIGOUS SCHOOLS NOT PUBLIC ONES

      OR DO YOU DISAGREE

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

        Science has dogma too. You seem afraid of a diversity of ideas.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
      • Mart

        Since public schools are funded by local governments, which Christians pay into as well as those of other or no religion, their children should not be forced to learn only the religion of naturalism. Make no mistake, religion is being taught in schools today, but it is not a faith that is willing to admit that it is a religion. Based on your logic, each faith should be able to direct their tax dollars to a specific school that instructs in accordance with their beliefs, or maybe just have the current system address issues in a critical and fair manner?

        February 5, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
  15. SpaceGhost

    When Mr. Ham couldn't actually address gaps or contradictions in his "science" he fell back on a bullet-proof, but circular argument: "Well I know it's true because I believe in the word of God." Science is not the search for answers that prove a fixed idea is true. Actually that's the opposite of science. That's called faith. Which is wonderful thing. But it's not science. By the way, one of the many points Mr. Ham was never able to address was how there's not a single trace of a kangaroo, or wallaby, etc., anywhere between where the mythical Ark landed and Australia. Over the course of 4,000 years and thousands of miles, would a reasonable thinking person wonder how that's possible?

    February 5, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
    • JohnRJohnson

      The "word of God" is the basis for all creationist science. It makes Noah's Ark possible, as well as the creation of the Earth in 6 days. It makes it possible for people to live to more than 900 years of age, and for bushes to catch fire without being consumed. All of it is based upon religious tradition and not one shred of empirical evidence. The people who are trying to conflate science with their religious beliefs are simply insecure about those beliefs. They can't accept them simply on faith, so they try to alter basic scientific principles to conform to their beliefs. Rationalism reconciled with mysticism. It's impossible.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
  16. Tom Bukowski

    Bill, you're wasting your time and energy.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
  17. Liss

    "NOTHING can come from NOTHING.....Except God. God can come from nothing, because he's, you know... he's God and stuff."
    Seems like a legit explanation of why SCIENCE contradicts itself. Hehe.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
    • Geo Bruno

      Which god?

      The Christian one and not any of the others?

      February 5, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
      • Liss

        Well OBVIOUSLY I was talking about Ra.

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

      Even a 9th grade kid knows that something can come out of nothing and something can vanish into nothing. Energy and mass are inter convertible.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
      • logic

        even a kindergartener knows that energy is not nothing.

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

        It is too bad there are no teachers teaching the 9th graders that order does not form out of disorder without design.
        When do random events ever create order other than trivial cases like crystals and snow flakes? Mass and energy existing does not say how they became organized.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
    • Yellow#5

      Turtles all the way down!

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

      God did not come from nothing. God has always existed. But if you say the Universe has always existed, then you need to explain why it is not yet in equilibrium. How can something continually go from order to disorder and each process go from high potential to lower potential? You can pretend I have never heard the theories that gravity brings it all together again and it cycles, but i am waiting to hear your random speculation about what reorders the universe each cycle. Wait until you research the random guesses about how life started on earth. Wow are those imaginative. I actually laughed at them.

      Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming."

      February 5, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
  18. AgentX

    The other day I dropped my laptop and it caused a small mutation in a program. The program then started designing a robot by chance that would allow it to reproduce. Luckily, before the battery ran out a collision between the laptop and a machine capable of building robots occurred. The machine fed power to the laptop and by chance the laptop transmitted the randomly created design to the machine that built a superior more organized machine in turn. A long time later, I went back and found the machine had evolved into an android and I was able to talk to it. It is now self aware and able to contemplate it's origin. People that don't believe me are unscientific, ignorant and stupid.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
    • Liss

      You are missing the whole "natural selection" element... the whole thing that drives evolution, so your analogy, instead of being funny, is a sad testament to your lack of understanding about a basic ongoing scientific theory.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
      • AgentX

        No having a college degree and being tested in evolutionary theory shows that I understand evolution. Here let me teach you about the natural selection. This was just one case. There were other laptops that fell and they did not happen to start designing robots to allow them to reproduce. Their battery ran out because they did not happen to collide with a machine capable of building robots. And some other laptop did create designs to reproduce but they were faulty designs and unable to reproduce. The robot building machine also required a certain protocol for the communication so other laptops failed to communicate so they were not able to reproduce and pass on there information to their offspring. Hope that clears it up.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • Miguel

          what are you talking about? You're comparing nature (which selects naturally, over time) to something that has never adapted or selected without human intervention. Stupid argument and a big fat red herring

          February 5, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • Liss

          Your degree, was it a BA in Psychology? Maybe Communications?
          All kidding aside, your example is filled with illogical holes. I get that you are trying to be cute and all, but in no world, scientific or christian, will a dropped laptop every spontaneously start building machines. If you were actually awake in Biology 101 you would have noticed that species don't ever "Spontaneously" evolve, but instead evolve through tiny mutations or genetic variations through many years. You.... you knew that, right?

          February 5, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • AgentX

          Miguel, How does one select from nothing to start the process? Please be specific.

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

          Liss, It is interesting that you say I am illogical. I am a Computer Scientist. So now you are more logical than a computer scientist. hahahahah.

          If you were awake during Biology 101, you have noticed that mutations are averaged out of large populations and the changes had to be abrupt before small isolated populations grew large enough to average any variation out of the genetic pool of information. You are the one that missed the point. Beneficial mutations are improbable. Variation is mostly the result of selecting out of what is already there. The minimum level of complexity is a very very logical argument. How did it start? By impossible series of events?

          February 5, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • Econ301

          I hope you realize that what you call Logic in Computer Science isn't Logic in the Philosophical sense.

          Jargon, just saying.

          The problem with your logic is that you are making a lot of false equliviances. Dropping a computer isn't the same as cellular reproduction. Additionally the kinetic energy alone from a small fall from your desks is unlikely to break any chemical bonds.

          You seem to be knowledgeable in math, and computer logic, but you seem to be lacking in knowledge about chemistry and biology.

          You also keep doing this thing of appealing to authority. "Newton believed in God and he's smart so clearly God exists." But Newton wasn't right about everything and Science is greater then the contributions of one man.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • AgentX

          Econ301, I took several years of biology too. Cells are created according to genetic instructions. We call this information. When a mutation occurs it must happen to the information or the reproduction of the offspring will not be affected and carry the trait to yet future generations to potential help survival. Genetic information is even more complex and organized than any information on a laptop computer. If it is absurd that it would happen to a laptop then it is even more absurd to happen to something even more organized. I hope that helps.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
        • redzoa

          "You are the one that missed the point. Beneficial mutations are improbable. Variation is mostly the result of selecting out of what is already there."

          Beneficial mutations are improbable within a given genetic replication event. However, as a population grows over time and the number of genetic replication events increases, the improbable becomes not just more probable, but effectively certain (akin to the odds of picking the winning powerball #s). This is particularly true for organisms with exponential growth curves. Your next sentence is backward. Selection decreases variation; the variation was produced by mutation. Selection filters for functionality. The "creativeness" of this process produces functionality far beyond what we can "intelligently design" from scratch. The evidence for this can be found in SELEX and RNA aptamers, combinatorial chemistry, and various other materials and engineering science applications. Other examples would include Lenski's E. coli, the Pod Mrcaru lizards, etc.

          We also know that simple molecules can produce self organizing, complex and specific structures, from micelles to crystals and well beyond into a host of organic polymers. We may never know how exactly the first bio-replicators arose, but there are plenty of promising leads. What we can confidently say is that once a population of pretty much anything yields variation, selection can act upon it. What we can also confidently say is that regardless of life originally arose, the available evidence indicates that this life evolved and continues to evolve.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
        • AgentX

          redzoa, What we actually know is that life varies. The extent of the actual understanding is usually greatly exaggerated and speculation is stated as fact. It very disturbing.

          February 6, 2014 at 1:57 am |
        • redzoa

          @AgentX – "The extent of the actual understanding is usually greatly exaggerated and speculation is stated as fact."

          This statement could only come from someone who has a superficial understanding of the relevant science, as was demonstrated earlier in your variation/selection miscomprehension.

          February 7, 2014 at 12:54 am |
    • Joe

      AgentX,

      You represent the tip of an intellectual emergency in the world today.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
      • AgentX

        “God existed before there were human beings on Earth, He holds the entire world, believers and non-believers, in His omnipotent hand for eternity." - Max Planck (Founder of Quantum Mechanics)

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

        "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

        February 5, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • Liss

          Scientists are often religious, but what is your point again?

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

          Liss, I disagree that most scientists are religious. Most scientists are atheists; but most great scientists are not atheists. Those that love the truth tend to find the truth. If you do not believe in God what difference does the real truth mean to you?

          2 Thessalonians 2:10 "and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

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

          Alright buddy, when you started quoting the bible instead of using your own words things got too weird for me. I do suggest you read up a little more on evolution and natural selection, because you don't seem to fully grasp it. Even if you don't agree with what you learn it will help you use your own words in future discussions. All the best, Liss.

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

          Liss, How does your feelings about the bible show that I do not understand evolution? I require specific objective details showing how I do not understand.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
  19. kylejmcintyre

    This whole debate is a sham. Believe it or not, there are more than two viewpoints regarding these subjects. There are people such as myself who believe in God and even the Bible, but also accept the theories put forth by "mainstream" science. It all boils down to the question of Biblical literalism. I actually don't think religion and science need to be at odds with each other. Beautiful things such as irrational numbers like phi and pi actually reinforce my concept of Diety. CNN wants to pit atheists against fundamentalists, perhaps because that's their view of the world, but there are a slew of theories "in the middle". Unfortunately, that type of stuff doesn't get people's blood boiling like extreme right vs left or young earth creationism vs. science without the possibility of deity. So you probably won't ever see those views represented.

    For a starting point, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

    February 5, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
    • Miguel

      well said.

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

      I feel the only REAL reason for debates like this are to determine if THEISM should be mentioned or taught in schools, or at least during times designated for science curricula. I feel like it is beautiful to intertwine personal beliefs with scientific theory, but it might be immoral to mold personal religious beliefs during school time.

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

    "Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority — our infallible creator and his word, the Bible — over the words of fallible humans." Those 'fallible humans' wrote the Bible regardless of what inspired them to do so. The result, therefore, is fallible and that is what you are putting all of your faith in.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:03 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.