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. Reality #2

    Now for the nitty-gritty of the Human:

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

    "Our spe-cies is an African one: Africa is where we first ev-olved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fos-sils of recognizably modern Ho-mo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago ( not 6000 years ago as noted by the OT). Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated.

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

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

    February 4, 2014 at 7:29 am |
  2. Science Works

    Does Ham read the Paper ?

    Bloomberg News
    Neanderthal Genes Found in Modern Human DNA, Studies Find
    By Elizabeth Lopatto January 30, 2014


    February 4, 2014 at 6:52 am |
    • Almighty3201

      Yes, and of course "EVERYTHING" we read and see on tv and the internet is absolutely true! Dr. Bottlestopper said...... so it must be true cuz he is a doctor. All scientists doctors educators etc base their knowledge and understanding on the foundation, premise, and bias that evolution is fact. They have not even considered the other option. There are many excellent scientists who are young earth creationists whose material never gets published or recognized, because Evolution is a religion! Look up the definition of the word religion in the dictionary, it's a supernatural belief..... So if you believe in evolution you believe on FAITH, cuz no man has ever seen a monkey turn into a man, or a tomato into a peach. It's just as esoteric and faith based as an all omnicient all powerful deity. So one can believe In the beginning nothing... or In the beginning God... Hmmmmmmm the choice is simple. Man's science is so way off which is why their theories continually change and adapt to fit a mold of predetermined garbage. Simply put it's a huge fallacy a lie that will one day be scorned at and laughed at by all.... some actually will cry and will no better when they are separated from our Creator.

      February 4, 2014 at 8:45 am |
      • Science Works

        You should read the story ?

        Story: Illumina's New Low-Cost Genome Machine Will Change Health Care Forever

        February 4, 2014 at 10:39 am |
  3. Colin

    What is the only thing capable of making 40% of the country utterly stupid enough to think the entire Universe began less than 10,000 years ago with one man, one woman and a talking snake:

    (a) a horrid mental disease

    (b) a failed education system

    (c) a successful Al Qaeda plot to undermine the future of the country; or

    (d) Christianity?

    February 4, 2014 at 5:46 am |
    • ahh yes

      colin, my boy, profound thanks. u got me convinced my man. no gods. relief city. dig it lil bro

      February 4, 2014 at 7:02 am |
      • Scott

        Are you high?

        February 4, 2014 at 7:15 am |
  4. saggyroy

    "Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone." – Arbitrarily?!? Ken Ham just doesn't get it. I like how he says he loves science.

    February 4, 2014 at 5:41 am |
    • Scott

      First of all Science is fact and not belief. I can believe that a rock is a toad, but all the belief in the world won't make it come alive and jump.

      The Fundamentalists that made this up spent their time counting the begots in the English King James version of the Bible. Since their are hundreds of English versions of the Bible, all of which use different translations and wordage, it is not an exact text. And that is just in English!

      There is no original Bible. Different Christian sects believe different things and different books of the Bible have been added and removed over time and depending on the religious sect. Couple that with the book being totally dependent on the Talmud (Old Testiment) with its variances based on early verbal histories, inaccuracies in the historical record, like slaves not being used to build the temples and pyramids in Egypt, etc... and you have no accurate historical record in the Old Testiment.

      The New Testiment has the same issues being contradictory and no one wrote anything down for 50 years after the death of Jesus.

      So to base a scientific understanding on the Bible just does not stand up. Bill Nye has the easier road because he is dealing in repeatibly proveable fact and the basis of working genetics, botany, biology, earth science, physiology, anatomy, chemisty, modern medicine, anthropology and geology.

      Creationist theory is based on tribal stories and belief. It supports no practical applications, cannot be proved because their is no evidence to support it. It is based on the begots in the Bible, the Noah's Ark story (which is in many cultures but is impossible and impractical with seperate continents (Kind of hard to put a TRex on the Ark) and two by two is genetically implausible.

      Creationist theory is based on magic. God can do anything. Well if God exists he or she set up the rules the Universe runs by. Not some made up story.

      February 4, 2014 at 7:28 am |
  5. Colin

    Oh my creationist friends, proof of evolution is all around you. Now, before you declare me “stupid,” “evil” or part of a worldwide conspiracy to deny the truth of your “six days and a talking snake” theory of life on Earth, please take five minutes to read this.

    The classic definition of a species is that two members of the same species can breed and produce fertile offspring, but cannot mate with members of a different species. A human of any race can mate with a human of any other race, but none of us can mate with a chimpanzee, for example. So, all humans are in the same species, but we are all a different species to chimpanzees. Easy stuff.

    Indeed, it is often easy to tell that two organisms are of different species just by looking at them. Compare, for example, a dog to a horse. Where it gets a little complex, however, is where you have two organisms that look very different, but are of the same species, or two different species that look very similar. Dogs are a great example of both. Compare a lighter-coated German Shepherd to the wolf. They look very similar, but are of a different species (or sub-species, depending on the definition one uses). Likewise, a Great Dane looks very different to a Corgi, but they are of the same species Canis lupi.s familiaris, the domestic dog.

    Why are Great Danes and Corgis considered to be the same species (along with German Shepherds) but wolves and German Shepherds not? For the same reason as humans. Great Danes, German Shepherds and Corgis can and will mate and produce fertile offspring, but none of them will mate with a wolf, absent human intervention. However, and this is where evolution kicks in, all breeds of dog alive today descended from wolves. In fact, it is likely that they all descended, ultimately, from a small pack of wolves that were domesticated in the Middle East some 10,000 years ago. Some research suggests Manchuria as the location, but I digress.

    What happened was that humans noticed that certain, less aggressive wolves were handy to have around. They ate pests and garbage and alerted the camp when predators lurked nearby. So, humans began to intentionally feed and try to tame them. The tamer, less aggressive wolves were less afraid of human interaction and less likely to harm their human hosts. They, therefore, received more attention, food and protection, which gave them a breeding advantage, and they passed on this favorable trait, call it “tameness,” to their offspring.

    These tamer offspring were constantly chosen (probably unknowingly) for care and support and the wilder, more aggressive members of the litter discarded, perhaps for biting or avoiding humans. After hundreds or thousands of years of inadvertent selection for “tameness” the camp wolves started to become dependent on their human hosts and to even look different to their still wild ancestors. They lost the extreme aggressiveness that helped them in the wild, became less streamlined and tooled for the kill and contained less adrenaline, a principal hormone that causes aggression. In other words, over many generations, they became, in a sense, fat, dumb and happy. Doggie dough-boys. Girlie-men compared to their wild cousins, still red of fang and claw.

    These first domestic dogs were so popular with humans that their “use” spread and humans all over the globe – Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maoris and other Polynesians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans – all began to use dogs. Then something astounding happened. Humans actually noticed that, if there was a specific trait you liked about your, say male dog, you could breed it with a female with the same trait and the offspring would inherit that trait. If, for example, a hunter-gatherer only ever allowed the fastest male dogs to breed with the fastest female dogs, the litter they produced would be slightly faster than if either parent had randomly mated with a partner dog. The humans could repeat this process, generation after generation, allowing only the fastest members of the litters to breed. After many years of such selective breeding, the resultant dogs would differ so much in body shape, leg length and, perhaps, lung capacity to their ancestor as to be considered a separate breed.

    No one set of offspring would differ greatly from its parents, but it will differ a little more from its grandparents, and even a little more from its great-grandparents etc., until we go all the way back to the original wolf, which will be quite different in appearance.

    Bang – dog breeding was born. Humans selected for speed, resulting in the Greyhound, smelling and tracking ability (Bloodhounds) ability to herd sheep (Collies and Australian Shepherds) appearance (Dalmatians and Pomeranians) size (Chihuahuas and Great Danes) and a host of other traits.

    As with most human activities, as our knowledge of evolution and genetics increased, dog breeding improved and exploded in the 1900s. There are now 600 or so breeds of dog, all of which descendent from the original wolf. Many breeds of dog alive today evolved over the past few decades and did not even exist as late as 1900. But, every last domestic dog, from the Teacup Chihuahua in Paris Hilton’s purse to the Great Danes of European car advertisements, are the end result of selective breeding down different paths from the original wolf.

    Most breeds of dog do not (and likely cannot) breed with wolves for a variety of reasons, including allopatric and/or human induced separation and mating rituals. Not only that, but put almost any domestic dog in the wild and it would not survive a month. A wolf is much more likely to eat a Shih Tzu than bonk it. They are separate species. In the struggle for life, the domestic dog species originated through means of selection as a favored race from the original wolf.

    If this last sentence sounds slightly familiar to you, that is because it is. It is essentially the full ti.tle of Charles Darwin’s seminal work: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Now, in the example I gave you, humans were acting as the selective agent, selecting which dogs would breed and which wouldn't. Now take humans out of the equation and parachute in a purely natural factor, such as a predator. Imagine if, instead of dogs, we are dealing with zebras on an African savanna. In this case, in lieu of humans, the predators – hyenas, lions and wild dogs – will be the agent (blindly, unintentionally) doing the selective breeding. They will tend to kill and eat the weaker, slower zebras, allowing the faster, or better camouflaged individuals to preferentially survive, breed and pass on their advantageous traits to their children.

    So there you have it, my Bible-cuddling friends. Evolution in motion. Undeniable; living in every suburb, licking our faces, fetching our sticks and messing on our sidewalks. Macro-evolution. A well recorded, understood, DNA mapped and uncontroversial case of the evolution of one species – Canis lupus lupus, the Eurasian wolf, into another, Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog.

    There are many, many others examples of evolution all around us by the way. Even the most cursory of research into any branch of horticulture or animal husbandry quickly reveals that the size, variety, health, longevity and resistance to disease of most of our domesticated plants and animals were the thing of dreams as recently as 100 years ago. Indeed, biotech companies like Monsanto would quickly fall behind the market if they did not spend millions each year on Darwinian selective breeding programs. Why do you think horse breeders spend thousands of dollars to have a fast male racehorse mate with their mare?

    Wheat is another great example, as are gra.pes. The species of wheat that we in the West use for bread only developed in the last few thousand years as a result of two instances of sympatric speciation (different to selective breeding, but an agent of evolution none the less). Likewise, the various Shiraz, Char.donnay and Pinot Noir gra.pes we enjoy today, in the form of wine, were all developed and perfected in the last 100 years or so.

    So, Adam or Eve, the next time you kneel down in your church and take your weekly dose of the body and blood of your dead Greco-Roman Jewish hippie, you might like to reflect on the fact that you are actually eating proof of evolution and washing it down with proof of evolution.

    “Body of Darwin?”


    February 4, 2014 at 5:26 am |
    • WASP

      i would say a great piece you wrote; there are some errors in your terminology, however not enough of an error to take away from the infromation you are attempting to pass on.

      the one key point i can see religious people using is the whole " humans created dogs, so something created humans" arguement; however they fail in that department due to the fact if something had to create us, then what created their creator. they go for the whole, "but he (notice the trained masculine use there) was always here."

      i find it odd, that three male "spirits" could even fathom what a female would be. XD

      February 4, 2014 at 7:19 am |
    • charlie darvin


      u r kiddin dodo? huh?

      how did all this get here? hint, it cannot be any ah yer gawds. period. positive

      February 4, 2014 at 7:25 am |
      • Scott

        Probably the entire Universe is geared tward life. If you want to be really patient and the right chemical mix exists, either heat, lightening or a chemical reaction caused life to begin. The Universe is not in a hurry. Once something had a basis as a bacteria the race is on. Cosmic mutation would take hold and diversity would begin. What 5 Billion years amongst friends. No need for some bearded guy. Just the mixing and remixing of cosmic dust, astoroid collisions, exploding suns and gravity. And from the latest science, life is probably not that rare. Where there is liquid water and a few key elements there is probably life.

        February 4, 2014 at 7:37 am |
        • yo ma

          how did all this show up? poof! here it is. gawds ain't done it 4 sure. we noed that thar.. how did a single atom arrive on the scene? 1 qwark? 1 higgs boson? 1 string?


          February 4, 2014 at 9:40 am |
    • charlie darvin


      u r kiddin dodo? huh?

      how did all this get here? hint, it cannot be any ah yer gawds. period. positive

      February 4, 2014 at 7:32 am |
    • johno54

      Colin, the tenets upon which you have based your blog has only come into existence since the past 3-4 thousand years. Biblical description might seem far fetched to you but when taken with a bit of salt and objective thinking, it does make sense.
      First of all the time factor will be skewed as we did not have the utility of time and its empirical use before the Romans and then in the late medieval period when we could tell time to the hour and even minutes of the day. Next the description of much of what is in the bible was written by the most highly intellectual of the time but such intellect would have its limitations as the understanding of science as we know it today was rather limited. The trifecta would then be we have had person who placed themselves in power and other situations of influence who have stridently sabotage the dissemination of knowledge throughout the millenniums.
      I would temper my thoughts if I were you and try to be more objective. A circle my be an infinite expression of much of life but for everything there must be a start and a finish. Space is now teaching us that a circle can be so large that at times it seem s like a straight line.

      February 4, 2014 at 7:40 am |
      • WASP

        @john: humans have been tracking time for atleast 30,000 years. cave paintings done by neathrals were found in europe depicting hunts, lunar phases, etc etc etc. least we forget monlithic structures that took ages to build; i.e. stonehenge were used for tracking time and celetrial events.

        so 6000 years, not even possible. if that was true we would still have ancestors of noah alive today seeing him and his lived extremely long time. i love math, so much fun and immpossible to debate.

        February 4, 2014 at 7:55 am |
      • Frances

        Thank you John, I would add that the process being described in such detail is natural selection, the side of Darwin's assertions that has proven itself to be true. The trend over the last 20 – 30 years has been to teach natural selection as evolution which is centered on mutation and has not been proven. Confusion is a great tool to keep Truth from being found. I hope Mr. Nye and Mr. Ham will be able to clear away some of this murk tonight.

        February 4, 2014 at 9:50 am |
    • Jessie M

      Hi Colin, if different species cannot mate and reproduce, how does one explain where the "branches" from the evolutionary tree split? If that's the case, no new species could have ever evolved.

      February 4, 2014 at 8:50 am |
  6. Confronting Ignorance

    This response here is gold. Pure gold:


    February 4, 2014 at 3:56 am |
  7. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    This argument always seems to come down to what should be taught to our kids – you know, the ones who will grow up to be our first responders, nurses, engineers, lawyers, IT specialists, doctors, soldiers, etc. Far better than presenting them with neatly packaged science that's mostly out of date, or your poorly realized religious ideas about what it means to be human, you should do them a favour. Teach them to reason, think critically, understand logic and historical criticism, know how science actually works. You should be pleased when they call bullshit on your most cherished ideas and can show you that's just what it is.

    February 4, 2014 at 2:58 am |
    • Scott

      I am surprised that the Creationist don't go back to the Dark Ages where the scientific works of the Greeks, Romans and Muslims were burned as UnChristian, people were considered holy that never bathed, pages of the Bible were used to bind wounds to keep out the evil eithers and all crazy people (except asthetics) had their demons cast out. Of course then anyone who did not agree with the particular church group Catholic or Protestant, or if they were Jewish, Muslim, or other religious minority, could be tortured and killed in the name of God. Aristotle was killed becuase he discovered the world was round, and would denounce truth!

      These same creationists are decendents of the clerics that debated how many angels that could stand on the head of a pin. Same as counting begots in the Bible or being "Born Again" because some Scottish teenager has a vision in the 19th Century. Anything can become an act of faith, but in Science it has to be repeatable, verified, challenged and reverified to be fact!

      Charles Darwin did that. Ken Ham gives us nothing in proofs. Gives us nothing in evidence. Dino on the Flintstones is fantasy not reality. Science must be proveable, workable and build on the information that comes before it. If it contradicts religion then the religion is based on false information. Or the interpretation is false, you chose.

      February 4, 2014 at 7:48 am |
  8. Marc

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

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

    Seriously ... the Caholic Church has publicly accepted Evolution and eschewed Creationism for over 80 years .... time to give the delusions and welcome in the Theroy of Reality ...

    February 4, 2014 at 2:05 am |
  9. wondering

    this is strange to me. I believe in God. And have read through the evidence in evolutionary biology. To me there is no "either/or". Obviously a divine creative force has a hand in life. And in my view that occurs through evolution. None of us were there when any of the different versions of the bible were written. Christianity itself is not the oldest religion on the planet either. Does that mean God did not exist before Christians? I don't think so. None of us were around thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of years ago. Why debate this?

    February 4, 2014 at 1:37 am |
    • Piccolo

      I just wish more theists were as rational as you are. There's no reason evolution should conflict with your faith, it is certainly compatible and actually should make god seem that much greater. Taking 3 billion years to tweak his design on the genetic level (blueprints) into the emergence of humans via evolution is DEDICATION and something that is worthy of worship. It's really just the home schooled fundamentalists that argue against evolution, mainly because they lack the basic understand of the scientific method and biology in general. There's no reason to fear evolution or associate it with atheism.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:46 am |
      • Barcs

        Right on. New scientific discoveries should be considered new methods of how god does his work to believers. It shouldn't go against god. It may not agree with literal translations of ancient stories, but answer this. What's more important in Christianity; faith in god or faith in a storybook? I think we all know the answer to that.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:49 am |
      • blankenmom

        Wow! Um – thanks for lumping all us backwoods homeschoolers together? We homeschool and we're Christian (probably what you'd consider a "fundamentalist" actually).... and we talk about evolution frequently. Actually, one of my boys' favorite subjects is Science (and History). We neither deny nor confirm it, as we weren't there when God started it, nor did He share how exactly He did it. The *theory* of mass evolution jumping from species to another is just that, a theory and one we study, discuss and enjoy talking about. The greatness of Science is to see where it leads, not to lead it where you want it to go. We also take notes on how we can see actual evolution today, particularly through dog breeding. People and animals getting smaller/bigger, healthier/sicker, and physical changes due to mass migration and intermarrying/breeding (for animals). Our faith is in God, not Science however, so the discoveries are for how He did it, no matter where that leads. I wouldn't put all Atheist's or Evolutionists into one group, please don't lump all homeschoolers into one group.

        February 4, 2014 at 2:13 am |
        • truthprevails1

          No, you fail to comprehend what a theory in the scientific world is. To deny evolution means you are failing your children. We can use evidence that directly links evolution as being true, there is no evidence supporting that a god of any form is involved.
          "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."
          Now tell us again how evolution is simply a theory or admit you're ignorant of science and are failing to properly teach/raise your children (anyone who would raise children in the christian faith where it condones slavery, rape, child abuse, oppression of women/LGBT, condones murder...uses the threat of hell for not believing-is abusing their children and should not be allowed the right to parent.)

          February 4, 2014 at 5:36 am |
      • truthprevails1

        It is well noted that homeschooled children fall behind those who attend public school. Homeschooling shouldn't be allowed due to some parents being against science and in support of the god myth. Eventually though these children leave the abusive parents who have brainwashed them and will go out in the real world, realize they've been brainwashed and lied to and in turn they'll be like many other and leave the crazy abusive religion behind.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:48 am |
        • Saraswati

          No. Actually homeschooled kids do better on average then public or parochial school kids in all fields including sciences and outperform in college. I'm an atheist and have no home schooled family members, but the data is easy to get. Of course, only a small number of people can do this and it isn't an ideal model, but it is rarely any more harmful than attending public school.

          February 4, 2014 at 7:16 am |
        • truthprevails1

          There appears to be different takes on this factor.

          February 4, 2014 at 9:19 am |
    • igaftr

      " Obviously a divine creative force has a hand in life"

      False...there are an infinite number of other possibilities. You were doing fine until you jumped off the logic train.

      February 4, 2014 at 8:02 am |
  10. ted taylor

    Evolution is not a belief system. any more than gravity is. I suggest the author test the latter by jumping off a roof and "believing" that he won't fall.

    February 4, 2014 at 1:28 am |
    • Christian Crusader

      But gravity is just a theory! There is no proof at all, not one single piece. Just like evolution and all the other unproven scientific theories. Atomic theory is just a guess.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:39 am |
      • sam stone

        gravity is demonstratable

        February 4, 2014 at 2:02 am |
      • ted taylor

        yes it is a guess, and a pretty darn good one at that... every single test that has been thrown at it has only made that guess better and better, from the discovery of DNA where you can actually watch and control evolutionary processes to the many re visits to Easter Island to flu shots and vaccines in general, evolution has passed every one with flying colors... what does creationism have? A whole bunch of fourth hand hearsay fairytales that we are supposed to just blindly accept as fact because someone a thousand years ago said so? insane is the only way to describe it... the fruits of scientific knowledge bring you technology you use every day, without it we'd still be living in the stone age... believe whatever fairy tale you wish, just dont brainwash innocent children with this nonsense, to me it amounts to child abuse.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:27 am |
      • ted taylor

        if you really think gravity is just a guess then jump off a tall building and I promise you will see the proof soon enough.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:29 am |
  11. Dobroslav

    just even mentioning Bible puts this guy next to guys like Romney,absolute jerk

    February 4, 2014 at 1:20 am |
  12. Barcs

    Hey Vic. Do us a favor, and leave the science to the scientists. You sound like a 3rd grader arguing against calculus after just learning basic math. You aren't debunking anything. Scientific illiteracy is still a problem in this and age. It boggles the mind how somebody could be so intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant. There's nothing wrong with having faith, but don't use it to justify attacking a field of scientific research. You guys are only a tiny minority of Christians but you are making them all look bad. Please do as Jesus would do and stop attacking everything you disagree with. Spread your faith via empathy and promoting positivity, not by attacking nonbelievers.


    The evidence is right there. Learn it, understand it, reconcile your beliefs. No need to live with your head buried in the sand. Deny ignorance. Knowledge is power. Be honest.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:28 am |
  13. JW

    2 Tim 2:23-26 "23 Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights. 24 For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed. Perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him to do his will.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:13 am |
    • sam stone

      good idea. do not engage in debate where you might actually learn something. remain a slave. gotcha

      February 4, 2014 at 2:04 am |
    • igaftr

      " Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates,"

      In other words, trust your brainwashing and don't let anyone try to talk sense to you

      February 4, 2014 at 8:09 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        You just nailed a central tenet of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

        February 4, 2014 at 8:32 am |
  14. Colin

    It is a great paradox that the USA is one of the most advanced countries on the planet, but has the highest proportion of creationists. At some point it became politically incorrect to tell people their religion is complete BS.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:06 am |
    • Fill

      Honestly, I don't think they care until it matters. "Here, check this box if you agree what the accepted demographic in your area... *check*"

      February 4, 2014 at 12:12 am |
  15. Sugadaddy

    How many people here spend all day eating sugars and fats without even going for a walk at least??
    Science says that sugars and saturated fats are bad for you, why not pay attention and apply??

    Just came from the gym... Feel like brand new!

    February 4, 2014 at 12:04 am |
    • King of Darkness

      Dude, that's just a theory!

      February 4, 2014 at 12:32 am |
  16. Viventis

    Why do humans have a coccyx?

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

      You mean... Males??!

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

        Better read up on anatomy, Sugadaddy.

        February 4, 2014 at 12:05 am |
    • Bones McCoy

      To test our faith!! Just like all the fake fossils and evidence that was put on earth to trick scientists and people that know how to use their brains!

      February 4, 2014 at 1:37 am |
  17. Jim

    Debates are rarely about the participants unless it is a legal event. A public debate provides the opportunity for those viewing it to hear both sides. Debates that are of interest to the general public should be encouraged in a free system. High priest Richard Dawkins and his agreeing acolytes have made the grave announcement that the debate should not take place. That means he stands to loose no matter who wins. That is actually a very good thing. Richard Dawkins is an atheist and has no business attempting to force innocent people to accept his hope in evolution.

    February 3, 2014 at 11:50 pm |
    • Doris

      That means he stands to loose no matter who wins. "

      Who's "he" – God? And what is he going to let loose?

      February 4, 2014 at 12:02 am |
      • Jim

        Hi Doris: He is Richard Dawkins

        February 4, 2014 at 12:17 am |
    • tallulah13

      Oh, Jim. It's like you're afraid of the truth or something. Evolution exists. It is observable in labs, it's supported by the fossil and the genetic record. On the other hand, there isn't a single shred of evidence that ANY god or gods exist. Not a single shred.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:46 am |
    • ted taylor

      Evolution is not a "hope" held by atheists, it is the second most successful theory mankind has come up with and has never, not a single time, failed a test. If one day it does, scientists are more than happy to throw out or modify a theory that does not fit observable data. Science is always trying to prove things wrong with facts, religion expects you to believe things in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. Silly to debate evolution, it has been proven to be true over and over and over for a hundred years, whereas creationism has not one shred of evidence to support its hypothesis.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:39 am |
      • R

        Never failed a test ever? Seriously? You, my friend, are very wrong about that. I suggest you do some actual research on that and not just parrot what the "cool" people say. I hope you watch this debate, you just might learn something. Like how the fossil record actually doesn't support evolution, and how many things in macro evolution have been proven wrong and admitted by evolutionists themselves yet the "facts" are printed in textbooks (Lucy anyone?). I don't understand why evolutionists are so afraid to listen to critique. And also, the difference between micro and macro evolution (hint: only one of them is observable, but they are often lumped together so numnuts like you proudly retort that evolution is Real ScienceTM).

        February 4, 2014 at 2:06 am |
        • Ray

          So, R, that's all you got. "no, you're wrong and I'm right. nananeebooboo"? How childish. If you have proof that shows evolution wrong, then lets have it. Don't worry, I probably won't be checking back here tonight so you have plenty of time to do some web searches and try to find something. (because we all know you don't know of any yet and that you're just repeating what you've heard your creationist friends say) Might I suggest opening a science book sometime? (and for the record, the bible isn't a science book...in fact, the bible is just a bunch of plagiarized stories, contradictions and outright impossibilities that I debunk on a daily basis)

          February 4, 2014 at 5:09 am |
        • Ray

          And your boy is going to get crushed by Bill Nye...can't wait to watch the butthurt. This is going to be even more embarrassing to creationists than the Dover trials were. LMFAO

          February 4, 2014 at 5:11 am |
    • sam stone

      who is he "forcing", jim?

      February 4, 2014 at 2:07 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
About this blog

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