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. PeggyC

    "Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system..." Um, creationism is a belief system, evolution is not. Evolution has hard evidence from many different disciplines to support it. Creationism does not. Why should any belief system be presented in the science classroom. Answer: it should not. But since evolution is not a belief system, it and only it should.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
    • seankc777

      Really??? Show me any concrete proof of evolution.. Microbial mutation is not evolution.. if the evolutionary process has been going on for as long as you 'believe' then there is no chance that evidence will not be present.. show me the evidence and I will too be a believer in evolution.. thus far, evolution is as much a faith as creation...

      February 3, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
      • Tkojar

        Don't be lazy, go read any book on evolution like the Greatest Show on Earth.
        Remember one thing:
        2) The greatest evidence for a hypothesis is when it can make predictions. Not that it "looks" feasible or it feels good etc. It just gives us predictions. That is why creationism is not science, it cannot make predictions.

        February 3, 2014 at 7:52 pm |
      • G to the T

        " Microbial mutation is not evolution" – What type of evidence would confirm evolution in your mind?

        February 3, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
      • redzoa

        Positive empirical physical evidence supporting evolution: The progressive order of the fossil record; corroboration of this progressive relationship via phylogenetic analyses of both extant and extinct species; the presence of transitional forms bearing features which bridge the allegedly specially-created "kinds"; direct observation of speciation events; the ability of purely natural processes to yield novel functionality (Lenski's E. coli, Pod Mrcaru lizards, etc); etc, etc . . .

        Evidence for ID/creationism? The bible and negative arguments of incredulity targeting evolution.

        February 3, 2014 at 9:24 pm |
    • Greg

      About 10 minutes of honest critique would prove that molecules to man evolution is a belief system. Read any SCIENCE book on how the universe and life began and the chapters will be loaded with phrases like "may have", "could have", "scientists think", "might have", "perhaps". Go read one.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
      • truthprevails1

        No you are wrong. Evolution is a scientific fact not a belief system and unless you cite sources for the lies you just told, it is safe to say you're a liar.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:10 pm |
  2. Miss_EH

    Ken Ham is the sort of religious zealot who should be left in peace to wander around the town square wearing a hand-painted sandwich board and shouting at the squirrels. Shame on CNN for offering him a platform which lends him an entirely undeserved air of legitimacy. There is no "debate" on evolution in the scientific community. Anyone who says there is a "debate" is simply trying to insert a wedge to force their own personal religious views into the science classroom.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
    • Greg

      About 10 minutes of honest critique would prove that molecules to man evolution is a belief system. Read any SCIENCE book on how the universe and life began and the chapters will be loaded with phrases like "may have", "could have", "scientists think", "might have", "perhaps". Go read one.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:09 pm |
      • truthprevails1

        Ignorance is bliss-isn't it?
        Your lack of comprehension of science doesn't make it less real. The fact remains Evolution can be taught in schools, your incest (creation) story can't be.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
      • G to the T

        You went from the origin of the universe to the origin of life to evolution. 3 different things.

        Please don't conflate Cosmology, abiogenisis and evolution. It only confuses the discussion.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
        • Greg

          Sorry – your discussion of origins can't happen without all of it happening. Either way, take the origins of the universe out of it and you're still left with "may have", "might have" as proof.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
        • G to the T

          Greg – Of course it can. A god of somekind could have been involved in the big bang and all of cosmology, abiogensis and evolution could still be true. One being of divine origin does not automatically disqulify the others from having natural explanations. They are completely different subjects. If you want to argue the answer to each is "god did it", that's fine, but don't conflate them as if they are the same.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:07 pm |
      • Miss_EH

        I have read one – many, in fact – which is why I'm able to understand that Ham, and those like him, are either ignorant, dumb, mentally ill, or some toxic combination of the three, and can be totally ignored with 100% confidence. There is no reputable university on the planet that teaches anything other than evolution, because there is no evidence for anything else. Again, people are welcome to their religious views, but that isn't simply isn't science.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
        • Greg

          Pretty sure I'm none of the three categories you mentioned or a combination. However, I do know that you are wonderfully made. You are not here by chance. You are not a product of evolution. The God who created life loves you deeply.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:45 pm |
        • G to the T

          "I do know that you are wonderfully made." We are poorly "designed" from an engineering standpoint in many respects.

          Blindspots, breathing through the same hole we swallow down, etc. Don't get me wrong, I am constantly amazed at the intracacies of the human body, but "wonderly made" it is not.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
        • Miss_EH

          Greg, you obviously have religious views and you're welcome to them. But your personal religious views aren't science. Evolution is not a matter for debate in the scientific community.

          February 3, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
        • Greg

          There is a reason there is little to no debate in the scientific community. Anyone who dares question it is sent out of town on a rail. If you want to keep your teaching job then don't question the scientific community.

          February 3, 2014 at 10:08 pm |
        • Miss_EH

          On the contrary, Greg, science is all about disproving things. If anyone comes up with anything at all to either radically improve upon or disprove the theory of evolution, they are entirely welcome to publish their findings. And they'd promptly scoop up a Nobel Prize for such an enormous contribution to the advancement of biology. But no one has been able to do so, because they're unable to provide any credible evidence that refutes evolution, it's as simple as that. We do not teach religion, yours or anyone's, in science classes, and the United States is not a theocracy. We teach evolution because all of the available evidence supports it.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:35 pm |
        • Greg

          Many of the evidences used to support evolution have been discredited. Yet, they still remain in textbooks and are still taught as evidence for evolution. I understand the pursuit of knowledge leads to better understanding, but, evolution is taught as fact. Most of the people on this site believe it to be fact. Evolution is a belief about the past from a naturalistic worldview.

          Creationists (and many who are excellent scientists) have the same evidence and reach different interpretations. It isn't a question of evidence. It is a question of interpretation. Evidence doesn't talk. People talk for it.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • redzoa

          " It isn't a question of evidence. It is a question of interpretation."

          Not all interpretations are equal, particularly those which fail to remotely account for the entire body of evidence. Because evolution is supported by virtually every scientific discipline, i.e. physics, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, etc, creationists must find errors in all and inherently insist that they be so fundamentally flawed as to be effectively useless. Yet, we see validation in application for all of these scientific disciplines, evolution in medicine, agriculture, conservation biology and even engineering; geology in finding deposits/reserves; etc. On the contrary the only application of ID/creationism is apologetics.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:58 pm |
        • Miss_EH

          "Evolution is a belief about the past from a naturalistic worldview." No it isn't Greg, and the fact that you would write this shows you hold a serious misunderstanding about science in general and the theory of evolution in particular. Your "[c]reationists (and many who are excellent scientists)" are welcome to publish anything they like in respected, peer-reviewed science journals if they wish to be taken seriously. Their inability to do so speaks volumes. If they ever came up with any solid evidence to debunk evolution I'd be the first to congratulate them. But until then let's be clear – they are simply promoting religious dogma in the guise of science, and misleading the gullible and the credulous. In bronze-age Greece these same people would be equally as convinced that Poseidon was responsible for storms at sea, and would have the same amount of evidence – none. It's beyond tiresome. Produce evidence or go home.

          February 4, 2014 at 12:40 am |
        • Greg

          It isn't about evidence. We have the same science and the same evidence. There aren't buckets containing evidence for evolution or evidence for creation. Just one big bucket of evidence being looked at by people with different worldviews and assumptions about the past.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:04 am |
        • redzoa

          "It isn't about evidence."

          Yes, Greg. You've already conceded that your position is not based on evidence; rather it's based on your infallible interpretation of "God's Word."

          February 4, 2014 at 1:09 am |
        • Greg

          I'm also stating that your position is not based on evidence, but rather, interpretation.

          I'm not infallible. Far from it. Thankfully, I have a creator who forgives me and sent his son to pay my sin debt.

          It's late and I'm going to bed.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:21 am |
        • redzoa

          "I'm also stating that your position is not based on evidence, but rather, interpretation."

          The difference being, my interpretation is consistent with the entire body of available physical evidence; yours requires cherry-picked examples that you (erroneously) believe contradict evolution, but further requires the fundamental understanding of every relevant scientific discipline to be fatally-flawed (despite the self-evident validation in too many applications to list).

          The further difference is that my interpretation is subject to change in light of new evidence, i.e. I concede I could be wrong. You, on the other hand, concede that there is no evidence that could alter your interpretation, which is itself not an interpretation, but an unreasonable attempt to conform to an a priori religiously-based conclusion.

          Invocation of "interpretation" and "worldview" may make you feel like your offering a reasonable defense, but it's just BS, and remarkably, given your various concessions, we both actually know this to be true. Nighty-night . . .

          February 4, 2014 at 1:48 am |
        • redzoa

          "I'm not infallible."

          My heavens, of course not. Just your interpretation of scripture, the "true" meaning of the Genesis narrative, and, you know, the mind of God, etc.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:51 am |
      • Bones McCoy

        😆 at "molecules to man evolution". Yeah this guy clearly knows biology. 😆 Try actually learning about what you are trying to debate. You sound like you haven't gotten past 7th grade science yet.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:30 am |
        • Greg

          Your reply doesn't seem relevant unless you're skipping straight to the name calling portion of the debate.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:42 am |
  3. Daleks

    For anyone interested: Wikipedia has a very good - and long - list of creation myths from all over the world. Christian cultists like to pretend that their myth is the only one, but there are many, and many pre-date the Old Testament.

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

    February 3, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
  4. Phil

    Another boring debate!

    February 3, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
  5. Bevan Morgan

    America is friggin ridiculous.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
    • Steven Johnson

      I'm not sure what your point is. Ken Ham is Australian.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Why do you think he left?
        The 2011 Australian census shows that 22% of the population are irreligious and virtually none of the nations Christians are fundamentalists.
        Only in America, with its unique array of vociferous and politically influential biblical literalists, could Ken Ham hope to be listened to, let alone open a "Creation Museum".

        February 3, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        There are fundies in Australia, but only in America (Kentucky) could Ken Ham build the creationism "museum".

        February 3, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
  6. bostontola

    Francis Collins is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He is also a devout Evangelical Christian. He currently serves as Director of the National Insti.tutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland.

    In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos.

    Here is an educated Evangelical. He strongly refutes Creationism and ID if you read his book and later interviews. He goes into rich detail to prove evolution is a fact. And I'm supposed to believe Mr. Ham over Dr. Collins? Hogwash.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I know Francis Collins. He is a solid scientist. Met him on several occasions when he was head of the human genome project. He fully understands and agrees with modern ideas about evolution. Significantly, he acknowledged once that there were never fewer than 10,000 individuals in the population that became human.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      It is a perfectly reasonable approach for believers to interpret evolution as being the underlying mechanics for God's 'plan' for his 'creation'.

      Young earth creationism is nonsense.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
    • Vic

      Unfortunately, the fact is that there are fundamental missing pieces is hidden behind prestigious establishments.

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

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

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

      Charles Darwin
      ]

      February 3, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
      • Vic

        "Unfortunately, the fact that there are fundamental missing pieces is hidden behind prestigious establishments."

        February 3, 2014 at 7:36 pm |
      • bostontola

        Vic,
        I have studied the evidence of evolution in detail. It is deep and wide, corroborated in many disciplines (genetics, archaeology, chemistry, geology, etc). Dr. Collins has impeccable credentials, a number of successful research projects, as well as a medical career. Do you really think you are better to judge than him?

        February 3, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
        • Vic

          You need to discern that scientists of such caliber have the ability to hypothesize and/or theorize at sophisticated levels; however, that does not mean they can prove their hypotheses and/or theories.

          Simply put:

          There is NO "empirical evidence" of any 'evolution above the level of species.'

          February 3, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
        • bostontola

          Vic,
          Science doesn't prove things. There is no proof of evolution, there is tons of obsevational and experimental evidence. Your arrogance that makes you think you are more qualified to assess the evidence than dr. Collins is astonishing.

          February 3, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • Vic

          Did you know that the General Theory of Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics are NOT empirically proven.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
        • Vic

          ?!

          February 3, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
        • Barcs

          Right about quantum mechanics, wrong about relativity.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
  7. PeggyC

    "Instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with evolution." What problems? There are no problems that are answered by a creationist view. Evolution is a fact. It happened and is happening. The only thing that is still being discussed is how it happened. The theory that best explains the evidence is the theory of evolution by natural selection, a very strong theory with lots of evidence to support it. As new evidence arises, it can be refined and tweeked. But the creation hypothesis has already been refuted by the evidence, so ithas no place in a science classroom.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
  8. Brent

    It's amazing how a letter can sound so coherent yet be filled with lies, half truths and childish fantasies. As a non believer I understand that we must focus on a corse for humanity and achieve it through ethical treatment of others. Your side always uses lies and intimidation. Evolution is a fact supported by an endless amount of evidence. You have a belief that is constantly searching for facts that will never be. If we travel your road there will be no difference between America and any other theocracy.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
  9. JW

    Should Christianity be all about emotion and less about reason?

    Rom 12:1 "...a sacred service with your power of reason."

    1 John 5:20 "But we know that the Son of God has come,+ and he has given us insight* so that we may gain the knowledge of the one who is true."

    John 17:3 "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God.."

    Scriptures talk about, Knowledge, Insight, Power of reason....

    February 3, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
      • JW

        another good example.

        February 3, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
  10. Matt

    Ummmm...evolution CAN, and HAS been tested many many many times! Perhaps he has never heard of genetics...

    February 3, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
    • Barcs

      Yeah, you know, genetics, biology... Just minor aspects of science. 😆

      February 3, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
    • Vic

      That is false.

      Thus far, there is NO "empirical evidence" for 'Evolution of Species,' aka 'Macro-Evolution,' nor is it testable!

      February 3, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Where do you draw the line for "macro-evolution", Vic? Just curious. I'm studying amazing changes that have occurred in a particular virus under selection pressure over the scale of a few years.

        February 3, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
        • Vic

          I believe "adaptation" within the same species is all there is to it. Speciation—evolution of species—is but a hypothesis that has been upgraded to a theory, unfortunately.

          February 3, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          So, if a population of some eukaryote adapts over a longish period of time through accumulation of various changes in the genome it more-or-less shares, and one such change is fusion of two chromosomes, you're ok with that, Vic?

          February 3, 2014 at 7:29 pm |
        • Vic

          I am not a biologist.

          Simply put:

          There is NO "empirical evidence" of any 'evolution above the level of species.'

          February 3, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          There's certainly evidence that we were quite different from what we are now, Vic.

          February 3, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • Barcs

          I wouldn't be surprised if Vic IS Ken Ham. Evolution can ONLY take place within the species. Separate 2 populations of the same species into 2 different environments and over time they will change from the originals. If they change enough, they will speciate and will no longer be able to reproduce with one another. Speciation does not have to be significant change, however, if it happens, then happens again, then happens again times a thousand then the final species will indeed be much different from the original and could eventually classify in a different genus if it were to keep happening. The change itself never happens outside of the species level, however when it happens enough the changes add up over time and you will see change on that level of classification.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
      • Barcs

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

        Vic, you're on a role today with the lies. Nice job.

        February 3, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
      • bostontola

        Docu.mented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed by William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.

        Diane Dodd used a laboratory experiment to show how reproductive isolation can evolve in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after several generations by placing them in different media, starch- and maltose-based media. Dodd's experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods. Research in 2005 has shown that this rapid evolution of reproductive isolation may in fact be a relic of infection by Wolbachia bacteria.

        February 3, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
        • MadeFromDirt

          Yes and the flies are still flies.

          February 3, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
        • bostontola

          Dirt,
          Do you think there is only 1 species of fly?

          February 3, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Yes and the flies are still flies." "Flies" is not a species. Can I guess? You're going to mention something about "kinds" now right?

          February 3, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • MadeFromDirt

          Good idea G to the T, let's talk about kinds. Where is the docmented and observable instance of one kind of animal turning into another? Just because animals adapt to their environment and have some similarities to others does not mean that one turned into the other. As we learn more about DNA we are finding that natural adaptation involves a removal of genetic information from the original DNA structure, not an addition of genetic information that would allow one animal to become a more complex animal, not even gradually. So the evolutionary theory chain is filled with a huge range of missing links at every point where one kind of animal becomes another, links that will never be found, but are unreasonably presumed by evolutionists to exist, contrary to their own observations.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • Barcs

          Could you please explain what level of classification a "kind" is? It's comical seeing people who know nothing about science regurgitating this anti evolution nonsense from a dishonest website, probably funded by Ham himself.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:58 pm |
  11. russ

    Ken Ham is the absolute worst creationist troll on earth. Zye is wasting his time.

    February 3, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
  12. Friends and Family

    I know more than thirty Christians. I know four creationists.

    February 3, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      I bet those four shout louder than all the others.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
  13. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    "The story so far: in the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe that it was created by some sort of god, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle Six firmly believe that the entire Universe was, in fact, sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call ‘The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief’, are small, blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel. However, the Great Green Arkleseizure theory was not widely accepted outside Viltvodle Six."

    - Douglas Adams

    February 3, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
  14. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    Rainbow serpent did it!

    Here is a recount of the Aboriginal dreamtime creation myth involving the Rainbow Serpent:

    In the Dreamtime all earth lay sleeping. Nothing moved. Nothing grew. One day the Rainbow Serpent awoke from her slumber and came out from under the ground.

    She travelled far and wide and eventually grew tired and curled up and slept. She left marks of her sleeping body and her winding tracks. Then she returned to the place where she had first appeared, and called to the frogs, “Come out!”

    The frogs came out slow because their bellies were heavy with water, which they had stored in their sleep. The Rainbow serpent tickled their stomachs and when the frogs laughed, water ran all over the earth to fill the tracks of the Rainbow serpents’ wanderings. This is how lakes and rivers were formed.

    With water, grass and trees sprang up. Also all animals awoke and followed the rainbow serpent across the land. They were happy on earth and each lived and gathered food with his own tribe. Some animals live in rocks, others on the plains and others in trees and in the air.

    The Rainbow Serpent made laws that they all were to obey, but some became quarrelsome and made trouble. The Rainbow Serpent said,” Those who keep my laws will be rewarded; I shall give them human form. Those who break my laws will be punished and turned to stone, never to walk the earth again.

    The lawbreakers became stone and turned to mountains and hills, but those who kept the laws were turned into human form. The Rainbow Serpent gave each of them their own totem of the animal, bird or reptile from whence they came. The tribes knew themselves by their totems. Kangaroo, emu, carpet snake, and many, many more. So no one would starve, the Rainbow Serpent ruled that no man should eat of his totem, but only of other totems. This way there was food for everyone.

    The tribes lived together on the land given to them by the Rainbow Serpent or Mother of Life and knew the land would always be theirs, and no one should ever take it from them.

    http://www.expedition360.com/australia_lessons_literacy/2001/09/dreamtime_stories_the_rainbow.html

    February 3, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      "and knew the land would always be theirs, and no one should ever take it from them." It's so sad origin stories often say things like that.

      February 3, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
    • fred

      Amazing how self evident it is that the Bible is a Holy Book and this is nothing more than nonsense.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Figured out how those grasses and trees grew before the sun was made yet Fred?

        February 3, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
        • fred

          If you refer to Genesis you see that "In the beginning God created the heaven an the earth". In the next verse "Now, the earth was formless and empty darkness was over the surface of the deep". What exactly happened? There are two takes but, that is another topic. Let there be light and there was light...God called the light day and the darkness he called night. Nine verses later we have your grass and trees.............
          So, what is your problem with that? It is clear that the grass and trees had light

          February 3, 2014 at 7:45 pm |
        • fred

          GOPer,
          If you are referring to the 4th day (remember light was on the second day) these were lights that served as signs to mark seasons and time (Sun, moon and stars)

          February 3, 2014 at 7:52 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Were all the stars created at the same time, fred?

          February 3, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Where did the light of the first day go, if the only light we see today is starlight?

          February 3, 2014 at 8:22 pm |
        • fred

          Tom Tom, the other one
          Genesis does not answer that question, only that the purpose of the stars was to guide man. This they did and still do in many ways.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          We've done this before but, what the heck ...

          The sequences are:

          Genesis Chapter 1
          ---------
          – Beginning: Heavens and earth, darkness and waters
          – 'Day' 1: Light! night and day
          – 'Day' 2: Waters in the sky (atmosphere)
          – 'Day' 3: Dry land, plants
          – 'Day' 4: Sun, moon and stars
          – 'Day' 5: Sea creatures, birds
          – 'Day' 6: Land animals, Humans (male and female)
          – 'Day' 7: Miller time

          Genesis Chapter 2
          ---------
          – Man
          – Plants
          – Animals and birds
          – Woman

          Science
          ---------
          – Big bang (13.8BYA)
          – Star ignition (sun 4.57BYA)
          – Planetary accretion
          – Earth (4.54BYA)
          – Moon (4.53BYA)
          – Bombardment
          – Surface Water, toxic atmosphere
          – Simple vegetation
          – Oxygenated atmosphere
          – Aquatic life
          – Land animals
          – Birds
          – Mammals

          February 3, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
        • fred

          GOPer
          "Where did the light of the first day go"
          =>If we are taking Genesis as literal then I do not think anyone knows where the initial light went if we assume a big bang cosmology. Perhaps it still remains outside the boundary of our known universe or is in another form of matter. The Spiritual truth of Genesis was the authors intent, not one of scientific detail.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "The Spiritual truth of Genesis was the authors intent, not one of scientific detail."

          So not Biblical literalism then? Fine by me. In that case, interpreting evolution as being the underlying mechanics of God's 'plan' for 'creation' is wholly consistent with an interpretation of spiritual intent.

          Evolution exists as God intended.

          It's not my point of view but I see this as a thoroughly reasonable position for a believer to take.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
        • fred

          GOPer
          Genesis 2 is the story of a personal relationship between God and man. God made a garden for man and put man in the garden. The relationship between God and man is like a husband and wife where two become one. Genesis 1 is the overview of God in the creation process.
          Science does not dispute Genesis the order of creation is the same.
          The spiritual truths are the main truths from the Bible as that is its theme. Some things are literal some are not. The Divine nature of the Bible is that it is the living word of God and applies today just as it did 10,000 years ago.

          I need to run but will post back later tonight.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
      • G to the T

        Sorry fred, my irony meter exploded. Can you repeat that?

        February 3, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
        • fred

          One look a the rainbow serpent creation story in contrast with Genesis makes it obvious that one is the real McCoy.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
        • G to the T

          That's an opinion certainly. I think making a man from mud and then a mate from his rib pretty is mythical as well. Familiarity often overrides what would seem "strange" to others.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:35 pm |
        • fred

          G to the T
          If Adam and Eve are representative of mankind or the first Hebrew ancestor then it remains within known science. It was not mud it was "formed out of the earth". The intent of Genesis 2 was showing a personal touch i.e. formed by the hand of God and dust to dust has significant spiritual truths associated with it.
          I think science would agree we are composed of base elements known to earth and contained in the earth from which we were formed. Science does not dispute this on a scientific basis and cannot offer an opinion as to the hand of God.

          Even the rib fits into the evolutionist start point of a male or female origin with the counter part coming out of the first and being a part of that first male or female. Again science simply confirms genesis

          February 3, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          fred – Unless you are saying Eve was cloned from Adam I don't see how the rib story is confirmed by science. Interestingly, the default phenotype for humans is female. Defective androgen receptors result in a person developing mostly, and convincingly, as female. If you look at non-human vertebrates, there are several species that consist entirely of females. I'd say females came first if anyone did.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:57 pm |
        • fred

          Tom tom the other one
          I need to run but last I heard it could be male or female and there remains a lot of debate on the topic. If it turns out female we already have the apologetics for that.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:11 pm |
  15. Davee

    Can someone please state evolution as a single fact that is both accurate and definitive in all aspects?

    February 3, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
    • Saraswati

      A theory explains facts which are just simple observations. Your question makes no sense.

      February 3, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
      • Vic

        That's one of the most pseudologic I've ever heard. Unproven theories lack facts while proven theories become facts!

        February 3, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
        • Barcs

          Scientific ignorance is honestly no excuse anymore. Pick up a book and READ. Do you understand what a scientific theory is? Do you understand what a hypothesis is? Do you understand what a conclusion is? If you did you wouldn't be stating such ridiculous assertions. It's funny how the people that deny science are always the ones who know the least about it. Shocker.

          February 3, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
        • Sane Person

          Wrong, Vic. Theories never becoming anything else. You are clearly ignorant of the scientific process, and of what a theory is.

          February 3, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
        • Vic

          Oh, I guess I did not articulate it well enough, my apologies. Here it is again:

          That's one of the most pseudologic I've ever heard. Unproven theories lack facts while proven theories ARE facts!

          February 3, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Vic, there is no such thing as an 'unproven theory'. There are unproven hypotheses. You are confusing the two again.

          February 3, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
        • Barcs

          Repeating an ignorant, uninformed statement does not give it validity, sorry Vic. Spread your lies elsewhere.

          February 4, 2014 at 12:01 am |
      • fred

        How about an * next to the usage of the word fact? Todays scientific fact* my not be tomorrows scientific fact*.
        *scientific fact is based on current consensus and is subject to change.

        February 3, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
        • Barcs

          Theories slightly evolve as hypotheses are introduced and either falsified or confirmed. You will never see an entire theory just disappear. Could we get some evidence of a scientific theory ever being completely proven wrong?

          So, how do viruses evolve? Why is it, that we keep having to update our medicine as viruses become resistant to our current treatments?

          February 4, 2014 at 12:05 am |
    • mike

      Change happens over time.

      February 3, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

      February 3, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
    • theunforgivn81

      Allele frequencies among populations change over time. These changes are driven by several modes of random variation and are guided by several selective processes.

      February 3, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Solutions to problems can emerge through change under constrained randomness.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
    • Daleks

      Simply put: evolution is the observation that species tend to mutate. If a species mutates in a way that adapts favorably to the environment, the species has a better chance of survival. If the mutation is not beneficial, the species is more likely to die out. And most mutations are not beneficial, so most mutations lead to extinction. That's about it.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
    • Barcs

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

      February 3, 2014 at 7:07 pm |
    • V

      Davee,

      How about if you write your name down using only one letter of the alphabet so that *everyone* *everywhere* will know what it is?

      February 3, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
  16. MadeFromDirt

    God has revealed enough of His truths via Scripture and creation to make man fully aware of our condition and purpose, but God also has hidden certain truths from us, until a time that will serve His glory. God gave man a curious mind to use, to learn, and to discover the wonders of this creation. Science is nothing more than the study of how God designed and works His will on physical matter. When science and Scripture conflict, there are only three possible scenarios: either the science is wrong; or the interpretation of Scripture is wrong; or both science and interpretation of Scripture are wrong.

    Instead of choosing sides and treating science and Scripture as mutually exclusive, we should study both for answers that harmonize the two, as God intended. Separating science from Scripture and vice-versa always leads to bad theories.

    February 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
    • sam stone

      god likes to glorify himself?

      February 3, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
      • MadeFromDirt

        Yes sam, absolutely God created all this and all of us for His ultimate and eternal glory. We can get with His program or not, but either way God will use it to further His perfect glory. Everyone already knows this; it's the reason why Satan rebellled, and it's the reason atheists hate God (or deny His existence instead). Who else could it be for? Do you know someone deserving?

        February 4, 2014 at 3:20 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Why is it so easy to subtract God from all of those things: knowledge of our condition and purpose, knowledge of how the Universe works, coherent explanations of our origins?

      February 3, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
      • Vic

        That's not true. Your perception of "knowledge" is limited to empirical, yet there is "spiritual knowledge" as well as "reason by logical deduction knowledge."

        February 3, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Classically, knowledge is justified true belief. Assuming that something is a fact, but can only be known spiritually, what works as justification for belief in it?

          February 3, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
        • sam stone

          spiritual knowledge?

          more like spiritual opinion

          February 3, 2014 at 7:26 pm |
        • G to the T

          "spiritual knowledge" Just because you can put two words next to each other, doesn't give them validity. How would you confirm "spiritual knowledge"? It's completely subjective and without controls. The pluraity of what is "spiritual" alone should give one pause before stating such a thing.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
      • Barcs

        Because science operates based on objective evidence. Thus far there is no evidence for god, so it is not factor into scientific theories and formulas.

        February 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm |
        • Vic

          Thus far, there is NO "empirical evidence" for 'Evolution of Species,' aka 'Macro-Evolution!'

          February 3, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
        • Barcs

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

          Care to lie more?

          February 3, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
    • axepilot

      Yes, let's consult the qu'ran and harmonize it with the bible and science.

      February 3, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
    • Vic

      That is a very good post—the Original Post.

      God Bless.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
      • Science Works

        Hey vic was it not the same group at the Dover Trail ?

        February 3, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
      • Science Works

        *trial*

        February 3, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
    • Barcs

      A sure way to weed out a creationist is the abysmal use capital letters in the middle of a sentence.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:07 am |
  17. Grognak

    These debates are usually a waste of time. Creationists arguments are usually "Science doesn't have all the answers" – well, neither does the bible. Sure, it can tell you how the universe was created and where man came from, but what about other questions, like whether the Collatz conjecture is true?

    I do have answers to all your questions. Collatz conjecture? True. P = NP. Oswald was acted alone. The universe didn't exist until last Thursday, but everyone and everything was created to appear as if it did. See? Answers!

    If all you are looking for is answers, turn to religion, or better yet, turn to me. If you want correct answers, turn to science, but prepare to be disappointed – asking questions is significantly easier than answering them.

    February 3, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
  18. D,A.Dodson

    I was taught in school that evolution was a theory , has that changed now? If so then what has evolved is evolution itsel thus proveing that the religion of evolution is the only thing that has evolved!!!

    February 3, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
    • Old Geezer

      In science, the word "theory" is a synonym for the word "explanation." Evolution is a theory. So is Newton's mechanics and Maxwell's fields and waves. So is The Germ Theory of Contagion. If you didn't learn that in your science classes, your teachers were incompetent.

      February 3, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
      • Woody

        The existence of a god or gods is also a theory, or more correctly, a hypothesis.

        February 3, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
        • Grognak

          The existence of a diety or dieties is not a valid hypothesis because it is not testable.

          February 3, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
        • G to the T

          You would have to define "god" before you could begin to have a theory that included it. And then, you would need it be falsifiable... which could be tricky...

          February 3, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
        • Woody

          A hypothesis is merely an idea, an assumption or a guess. It's not testable because it has no evidence to support it. It's simply someone's possible explanation of a phenomenon.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
        • G to the T

          I would agree with that. It's just that I see no way to move it from that to the level of "theory".

          February 3, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
  19. The Debate Transcript Released.

    Rd1:

    Uh... evolution did it.

    Uh, no, God did it.

    Uh... no, evolution did it.

    Uh, no, God did it.

    Uh... no, evolution did it.

    Uh, no, God did it.

    Uh... no, evolution did it.

    Uh, no, God did it.

    Uh... no, evolution did it.

    Uh, no, God did it.

    Uh... no, evolution did it.

    Uh, no, God did it.

    Uh... no, evolution did it.

    Uh, no, God did it.

    Uh... no, evolution did it.

    Uh, no, God did it.

    Uh... no, evolution did it.

    Uh, no, God did it.

    Uh... no, evolution did it.

    Uh, no, God did it.

    Uh... no, evolution did it.

    Uh, no, God did it.

    Uh... no, evolution did it.

    Uh, no, God did it.

    Rd 2:

    Uh... God did it.

    Uh, no, evolution did it.

    Uh... no, God did it.

    Uh, no, evolution did it.

    Uh... no, God did it.

    Uh, no, evolution did it.

    Uh... no, God did it.

    Uh, no, evolution did it.

    Uh... no, God did it.

    Uh, no, evolution did it.

    Uh... no, God did it.

    Uh, no, evolution did it.

    Uh... no, God did it.

    Uh, no, evolution did it.

    Uh... no, God did it.

    Uh, no, evolution did it.

    Uh... no, God did it.

    Uh, no, evolution did it.

    Uh... no, God did it.

    Uh, no, evolution did it.

    THE END 🙂

    February 3, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      There's evidence for the Big Bang and evolution; we only have the various religious texts to explain how various ancient tribes imagined their origins.

      February 3, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
    • Barcs

      Why not both? Denying evolution is so 1910. It's perfectly compatible with a god. There is no debate, only stubborn people that deny science.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
      • bostontola

        True, but not with a literal interpretation of the Christian God.

        February 3, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
    • Daleks

      Excuse me, I'm here for an argument.

      Oof!

      Oh sorry, this is being hit over the head with a cricket bat. Arguments are down the hall.

      Oh, OK, thank you.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:09 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.