February 4th, 2014
10:05 PM ET

Creation debate recap: Science, religion and terrible jokes

By Daniel Burke, Belief Blog Co-editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(CNN) - Did you miss the debate between creationist Ken Ham and Bill "The Science Guy" Nye?

Don't worry, we've got you covered.

The debate was moderated by CNN's Tom Foreman, and, if there's one thing both sides can agree on, it's that he did a swell job.

Here's almost everything else you need to know, from Genesis to um, Revelation.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Evolution • Science • Uncategorized

soundoff (1,469 Responses)
  1. AgentX

    The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils" Stephen J Gould

    Tony: I inferred so well it is a fact and anyone that thinks otherwise is uneducated.

    February 5, 2014 at 4:25 am |
    • Tony

      Using out of date quotes from 1977 randomly plucked from google doesn't demonstrate you know something special, it merely smacks of desperation.

      I think it fair to say the science has well and truly moved beyond that point in the last 37 years. Don't you?

      February 5, 2014 at 4:53 am |
      • AgentX

        Today science is imperfect. Back in 1977 statements like Gould's were few and far between. They talked like you. They fooled themselves into believing they were not speculating but that is what they were doing. Most scientists adopted evolution based the confident assertion that Piltdown man was a real missing link. Yet it was not.

        February 5, 2014 at 5:18 am |
        • Tony

          And since 1977 those voices have got fewer as the evidence gets more and more overwhelming. Do you actually have any up to date information? Or are you determined to keep spouting out of date ideas in the hope that no one notices?

          February 5, 2014 at 8:03 am |
        • Tony

          Dude, you really have no clue, do you? It was scientists using evolutionary theory and fossil evidence that proved Piltdown was a hoax.

          February 5, 2014 at 10:14 am |
  2. AgentX

    "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." Charles Darwin

    Dr. John Sanford-genetics professor at Cornell U. for over 25 years wrote:
    "the reality of Genetic Entropy is positively fatal to Darwinism"

    February 5, 2014 at 4:24 am |
    • Tony

      yet the great bulk of genetic work actually proves evolution as genetic information can be traced back through the evolution of species.

      Again, we'll believe the words of one man over the consistent work of thousands, shall we?

      February 5, 2014 at 4:29 am |
      • AgentX

        No. They interpret the genetic information to mean that evolution occurred. We observe variation on the species level, not macro evolution at the Genus level. You need to learn the difference between speculation and fact.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:47 am |
        • Tony

          Again, wrong. Robust genetic links are demonstrated well beyond the genus level. You need to read more up to date information

          February 5, 2014 at 4:56 am |
        • AgentX

          genetic links? How does one view genetic links from 70 million years ago?

          February 5, 2014 at 5:09 am |
        • Tony

          One doesn't need to, because one has a large and ever increasing database of taxonomic forms from the fossil record where detailed analysis of 3-D bone structures clearly traces divergent evolutionary paths from a common ancestor into different genus lines. Dude, seriously, I know you haven't read anything new in 25 years, but you should at least try and stay current with the information.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:00 am |
        • LeRoy_Was_Here

          The Encyclopedia Britannica: Evolution, or the common descent of all living organisms, is a fact as well-established as the facts that the Earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the Sun.

          The Britannica is correct, and you could not be more wrong.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:20 am |
  3. AgentX

    "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen J Gould (Harvard Professor of paleontology)

    February 5, 2014 at 4:21 am |
    • Tony

      A again, using quotes decades out of date. I know it's a tad incongruous asking this of a Christian, but do you have any NEW ideas?

      February 5, 2014 at 8:57 am |
    • stevef00

      "The world is flat and you are quite likely to fall off once you reach the end" Queen Isabella, 1492. Things change, dude, but only as we get smarter and don't allow dogma to disallow scientific fact.

      February 5, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
  4. jdoe

    This debate, like all debates that preceded it and all debates that will follow it, will go nowhere. One side uses empirical evidence for support. And the other sides uses the words from a book to support the claims made in that same book.

    February 5, 2014 at 4:10 am |
  5. adrifter

    I don't really know why Bill Nye got involved in this debate. In a debate, you hope to be able to convince your listeners with a solid and logical argument. That is not possible with people who believe in religion, especially creationists who accept a literal reading of the Bible despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Talking to them is unfortunately a waste of time.

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

      I think you are the one that is illogical. Creationists are not ignoring facts. We are disagreeing with the extent of your speculation about the facts. You can not show proof that a cat and dog have a common ancestor yet some hope a few simple molecules organized against impossible odds and formed a level of complexity to reproduce. That is the real fairy tale.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:14 am |
      • Tony

        The fossil record does show common ancestry converging back to a proto mammal species. Stop denying the facts just because they inconveniently don't fit your belief structure. try reading something other than the bible sometime, you might learn something useful.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:18 am |
      • adrifter

        Dear AgentX.... Thank you for helping me make my point.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:18 am |
        • AgentX

          You can convince yourself of anything.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:22 am |
        • adrifter

          You obviously have.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:31 am |
        • AgentX

          adrifter, Yes. I have convince myself there is a difference between speculation and fact. I recommend you do the same.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:51 am |
    • Nick

      adrifter – perhaps as many as a million people watched this debate live and saw Nye wipe the floor with Ham, using science to wet his mop. It was recorded and will be re-shown on CSPAN in 2 weeks where perhaps millions more will see it. Over the next few years, if just a few children being raised in fundamentalist homes see it, and realize how science trumps faith claims in the areas discussed, then it will be worth it. Nye wasn't just talking to 900 people in an auditorium.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:40 am |
      • Steve Wilkinson

        And what will be REALLY unfortunate, if that be the case, is that millions (from either side) won't realize that Ham is hardly representative of mainstream Christianity, nor even nearly the best from the young-earth-creationist camp.

        February 5, 2014 at 5:04 am |
    • David in NC

      You are correct that we may never enlighten the true believers. The target audience are the people who have been raised in this creationist miasma and are seriously questioning the validity of what has been preached to them. Many people have reported that the arguments based on evidence and reason slowly penetrated. It can be a long process. If we give up this fight, we essentially cede the public square to the fundies.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:41 am |
  6. Nate

    In case you missed it, you can go to http://www.GenesisScience.org/debate to pre-order the unedited DVD of the Ham/Nye debate and save 20% by using the promo code DEBATE20

    February 5, 2014 at 4:08 am |
    • JB

      Purchasing this DVD supports the work of the museum and idiocy of the Creation Museum. No thanks. For those that have not seen it, watch it on YouTube before it goes away and then let it go before you give them what they were looking for, money.

      February 5, 2014 at 5:37 am |
  7. AgentX

    Australian Biologist Michael Denton, author of Evolution: A theory in Crisis, says "science has so thoroughly discredited Darwinian evolution that it should be discarded."

    February 5, 2014 at 4:03 am |
    • Tony

      So, we'll take the words of one man over the collected, consistent, proven, demonstrated and peer reviewed works of tens of thousands that say Darwinian evolution is a fact then shall we?

      February 5, 2014 at 4:06 am |
      • Andrew

        One word used in your statement which remains incorrect... "Proven". The theory of evolution has never been proven.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:13 am |
        • Tony

          It has actually. Multiple times. Over and Over it has been proven to work, ad nauseum.

          But more importantly, it has never once been disproven, and many have tried and dedicated their life to shooting it down to no avail.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:20 am |
        • Josh

          there is more evidence and proof of evolution then there is gravity

          February 5, 2014 at 4:25 am |
        • LeRoy_Was_Here

          The Encyclopedia Britannica: Evolution, or the common descent of all living organisms, is a fact as well-established as the facts that the Earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the Sun.

          The Britannica is correct. So maybe you should run off and join the Flat Earth Society.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:23 am |
      • AgentX

        No. You are ignorant. What was the need for punctuated equilibrium? Because Darwin was wrong. The mutations are averaged out of large populations. That is the very core of Darwinism.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:30 am |
  8. Peteyroo

    Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum

    February 5, 2014 at 3:52 am |
  9. Peteyroo

    If prayer is so wonderful, why do little kids die of cancer and other dread diseases? Is no one praying for them? What sins could these toddlers have committed in their short lives that would warrant such a death sentence? Does a vengeful God hate little kids? Get real! Prayer does not work. It is a waste of time.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:49 am |
    • Scott

      Hate to say it but all clinical studies on prayer and illness show that prayer does not work. Here again science debunking myth. This why the number of church members is dropping fast. Guess you loose another one, like evolution over creationism.

      February 5, 2014 at 5:01 am |
      • Scott

        sorry somehow this got posted in the wrong place.

        February 5, 2014 at 5:03 am |
  10. Scott

    Wrong and proof you have not studied. Your statement is uniformed, illogical and not based on the facts. Refusing to look at the evidence is not proof that the evidence does not exist. Denial does not make you right, just ignorant.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:48 am |
  11. Danlien

    I believe that there is a GOD, but it is not a he and there is no conceivable way us humans could ever explain it. Sort of like one of us standing over an ant hill. Those ants see us and know we are present, but in their simple little minds they don't know what to make of us. We also are the ants, and there is no possible way we could ever conceive what is standing over us. The Bible and virtually any other religious texts and theologies were written in times when humans couldn't explain some of the naturally occurring phenomenon that would happen around us (earthquakes, lightning, dreams, etc.) because we didn't have up-to-date technology and prior scientific knowledge. So in lieu of science, theology was used. Then you have the natural cycles of society and human behavior (war,politics,greed,ambition,etc.) in the mix which turned these ancient ideas into the tools of power grabs and world dominance. For example, the Jewish tradition of Kosher foods was the ancient version of the C.D.C because foods like pork contained pathogens that were killing vast numbers of humans. So that is that, I can go on and on.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:48 am |
    • stevef00

      The huge, obvious difference is.....we didn't create the ants. But, if we had, would we crouch down and make them obey us or die for all eternity? Would we selectively pick one or two out of the pack each day and fry them with a magnifying glass? Would we bring them to the edge of death waiting for them to beg/pray for relief? A very odd thing for the human brain to actually believe......

      February 5, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
  12. adrifter

    How do you prove Santa Claus doesn't exist? You know logically it is an absurdity, but there is no way to disprove it. The same with God. An absurdity, but no way to conclusively disprove it. So you have to try to convince these unfortunate people who believe such nonsense. Unfortunately, they believe that faith in something they can't see or prove is praiseworthy and admirable. What can you say to such people that will make any different?

    February 5, 2014 at 3:46 am |
    • Tony

      Well, unfortunately, you can't do much to change them. They prefer the nice warm safe glow from having their heads in the sand.

      What you can do, however, is restrict their access to your kids.

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

      Evolution has nothing to do with the issue of if God exists or not. It describes the working process of how all plants and animals (including man) have developed and changed in the history of the earth. The debate if God exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by Evolution.

      However, Evolution does debunk the mythology that some, not all theologans have put out to their religious follows on how old the earth is, the infalibility of the Bible and ideas that are patently untrue. By the way, I think none of this detracts from the philosopy and teachings of Jesus. Also a historical figure with no proof he existed other than stories placed in the Bible 50 to 150 years after his death (New Testiment)). So the Question is are you more concerned with religiously irrelivant issues like if there really was a Noah or the stories messager or the teachings to be learned from the message? i think that is the relative question.

      Evolution is fact, how you interpret your religious beliefs is your business. Of course your beliefs have nothing to do with scientific fact, and belief cannot change truth.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:56 am |
      • Tony

        But you don't need god to explain how everything works. and those that do need god seem to think that I also need god, whether I want it or not. that's the crux of the "debate". leave Christianity in the church for those that want it. Leave the rest to those that are quite happy to get by without it.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:00 am |
    • Steve Wilkinson

      There's also no-one seriously defending the idea that Santa Clause does exist (at least the folk-lore Santa with the sleigh and reign-deer). That's not the case with 2+-millenia of the world's best scholars. i.e.: making such a comparison shows your ignorance of the subject-matter

      February 5, 2014 at 5:08 am |
      • stevef00

        Steve....I question your number of 2+ m of the worlds best scholars. The typical religious nut is named Otis and lives in a trailer park somewhere in Alabama with his wife Doreen and their 9 kids. In truth, 97% of the worlds best scholars do not believe in god. There is a handful that do, and some of those 97% (not many, but some) acknowledge that there could be some sort of presence, although they have no idea what it is, but the vast majority of the true scholars don't even believe in god. And.....I could count on one hand the number of scholars that believe the earth is only 4000 years removed from a flood that covered the earth. That is just craziness.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • Steve Wilkinson

          You seem to be living a pretty historically ignorant and sheltered life there. That the MAJORITY of the world's best scholars over the last couple thousand years have been Christian is simply a matter of historical fact. You can argue that this is simply a matter of being products of their environment, I suppose.

          And no, even currently, the number of top-thinkers who are atheistic isn't even close to 97%. You *might* find a simple majority if you were to narrow things to some very limited segments of certain disciplines.

          I do agree with you that the majority of scholars, Bibilcal or otherwise, believe the earth to be old... as do I.

          February 6, 2014 at 4:59 am |
  13. Peteyroo

    I would like to know how Noah got two Komodo Dragons onto the arc. How did he get to Indonesia? More important, how did he get back with two very large lizards? Did he go by magic carpet? Did he strap them to camels for the long trek? Did he use one of the arc's lifeboats? How did he and his small family get into every corner of the earth to get every animal in time to board the arc before the rains came? Or did he just whistle and all the animals showed up?

    February 5, 2014 at 3:44 am |
    • Tony

      best comeback I ever heard was a creationist once said that Noah only took two of every "proto" species on the ark, the rest we see today evolved from them since the flood....... LMAO!

      February 5, 2014 at 3:51 am |
    • Danlien

      I actually believe that the account of Noah did happen, just not word for word what the Bible says (obviously). I believe that the guy did do what the story said, but it was probably from a hurricane or storm surge or something like that. It was all in a very local area that those ancient people thought at the time was the whole world, when in reality it was a very small region that would seem insignificant to us nowadays. When they grabbed every animal in the world, it was probably every insect and animal they could find in the forest around where they were living or something like that. Ancient texts are by default very exaggerated for very understandable reasons, being that ancient people didn't know what we know now. That's the problem with hard core Theologians, they take religious text word-for-word, when most speech used in the texts is metaphorical and theoretical.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:56 am |
      • Tony

        The Christians, like everything else they say is theirs, actually stole Noah from pre-existing myths and rebranded him to add legitimacy to their fledgling faith. this we know because pre-Christian myths with amazing similarities to Christian scripture have survived in historic writings for all to see, if they aren't busy putting their fingers in their ears and closing their eyes that is.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:04 am |
        • airfourse

          I noticed you post a lot of Bulls@#t, Tony. I get you don't beleive in the Bible, but you apparently like to believe a whole lot of crap being fed to you. There are many posts you posted that are straight S#$t. Check your sources bro. Hell you probably believe a Brontosaurus actually existed. lol Which BTW, the Brontosaurus was all made up by one of your highly touted scientists and taught to you in 4th grade by your highly favorable science teacher. Advice...Get your head out of you rass and wake the F up before you post stuff that isn't true.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:04 am |
        • Tony

          Again the irony of being lectured by a Christian, this time on believing any old BS I've apparently been fed........ Too funny, oh cracks me up. Do you do it deliberately??

          February 5, 2014 at 8:46 am |
        • inebriaent

          Tony you are really bringing a great argument. Awesome job.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:06 am |
        • Tony

          I'd like to thank airfourse for highlighting, far more effectively than I could ever have hoped to achieve, the deep level of ignorance that exists on the other side of the "debate". And these are the people that want to educate our kids..........

          February 5, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
  14. Peteyroo

    You cannot believe or not believe in evolution anymore than you can believe or not believe in gravity. They both exist regardless of anyone's "belief."

    February 5, 2014 at 3:37 am |
    • AgentX

      The extent of variation is a matter of belief even on the evolutionist side. We can see variation. The problem is when some people guess what that means but do not communicate it as a belief but instead say it is a fact. It is a guess to think that a cat and a dog have a common ancestor.

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

        um, and what about the fossil record? Shall we just sweep that aside as a mere inconvenience then? can't have nasty facts getting in the way of a good belief system, can we?

        February 5, 2014 at 3:54 am |
        • AgentX

          Um, the fossil record does not even come close to showing a common ancestor to cats and dogs.

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

          um, well, yes it does, actually. hence the whole Class-order-family-genus-species thingy in classification. Don't believe me? try reading. works wonders for ignorance levels.

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

          Tony, Educating you is not possible. You believe in facts that do not exist. At that point, it is hopeless.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:19 am |
        • Tony

          Ditto with trying to educate those that believe in a god that doesn't exist. We'll call it a draw to be generous then shall we?

          February 5, 2014 at 4:22 am |
        • Tony

          and I love the irony of being lectured to by a Christian on basing an argument on something that doesn't exist. Was it intentional?

          February 5, 2014 at 4:24 am |
        • AgentX

          Tony, Prove that God does not exist.

          February 5, 2014 at 6:29 am |
        • truthprevails1

          AgentX: Tony is right. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtml

          February 5, 2014 at 6:32 am |
        • Tony

          Agent X. The onus isn't on me to prove a fictional character doesn't exist. The onus is on those that want to use god as justification to railroad my rights a liberties based on their belief to prove they do exist and are therefore relevant. Failure to provide said proof should negate any and all attempts to use god to justify your agenda to curtail the rights of others. Go ahead, prove they exist. Until then, keep out of the lives of others.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:50 am |
  15. Rob

    this whole thing is simple:

    a) there's a mystical omniscient. omnipotent and omnipresent "god" that set all this in to motion
    b) there is not

    Occam's Razor states (paraphrased) the simple answer for phenomena X is likely the most factual.

    Christianity requires tons of hoop-jumping and magical things to occur for the end results to match what is our current status. Scientific study and the Scientific Method do not require that.

    Again, I challenge a Christian to state that their version of the creation of the Universe is any more valid than any other religion. You can't, because it's just words from shepherds that define your ideology and cosmology. Facts prove you to be incorrect.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:35 am |
    • Steve Wilkinson

      Well, first off, Occam's (who was a Christian, BTW) razor isn't some kind of law by which to operate. Second, you need a bit of work on your paraphrase there, as you left out the part about 'adequately covering the data.'

      re: hoop-jumping and science – Oh, I don't know.... a universe out of a hat with no magician, or life from non-life with no mechanism should at least leave you scratching your head a bit.

      And, believe it or not, you can actually compare one religion to another on a great number of factors to see which best matches what we've been able to discover about reality and the universe. You just have to turn off some of the atheist-slogan sites and engage the brain a bit.

      February 5, 2014 at 6:00 am |
  16. phillykevin

    Science vs Fairy tales ....Science wins .....

    February 5, 2014 at 3:03 am |
    • AgentX

      As a bible believing Christian I agree with your statement that Science verses fairytale, science wins. You need to stop thinking of Christians as being anti-science. Atheists have actually contributed less to science than Christians over the last 500 years.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:54 am |
      • Tony

        Well, 500 years ago the Inquisition was still killing scientists as heretics, so I don't know where you got that position from?

        February 5, 2014 at 4:11 am |
        • 500 years ago?

          500 years ago. Think about that for a minute. You are holding modern day people accountable not only for someone else's actions but the actions of someone who died 500 years ago.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:27 am |
        • AgentX

          500 years ago? So I guess one of the those heretics could have been piltdown man.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:06 am |
        • Tony

          Agent X – keep talking dude. So far you haven't managed to debunk a single CURRENT scientific argument, just keep desperately throwing out old information and debunked ideas in the hope people think you know what you're talking about.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:50 am |
        • Tony

          No, merely the Christians have been fighting a rear guard action against science since the Middle Ages. What else is intelligent design but creationism by stealth? Fun dies can't stand the fact that science is demystifying their most precious tenets, so fight tooth and nail against it. Agent X and their vain attempts to discredit evolution is a classic example of how Christianity has been the biggest handbrake on science over the history of human endeavor in the past two millennia. But truth will eventually out

          February 5, 2014 at 10:06 am |
      • sam stone

        AgentX: How do you make the logical leap from a "creator" to a "god", much less the god of the bible

        it's as if creationists are saying the world is impossibly complex, and darwin cannot be right, therefore jesus died for your sins"

        it seems to be a huge non-sequitor

        February 5, 2014 at 5:43 am |
    • Steve Wilkinson

      Scientism vs reality and God.... reality and God win. 😉

      February 5, 2014 at 6:01 am |
  17. Justin Hamaker

    Ken Ham comes of as being very reasonable with the arguments he presents. The problem is those argument don't hold up under scrutiny. Plus he seems to not understand the finer points of science.

    One example is when Ham made the point essentially mocking physical geology and historical geology. While the two are distinct aspects of geology, they are not different disciplines. Physical geology is about studying the physical processes actually happening on the planet – erosion, sedimentation, glaciation, volcanism, metamorphosis, and so forth. Applying what is learned from studying the active processes, geologists can then analyze what has already happened to determined the how,, why, and when.

    Ham manage to throw in many red herrings which sounded logical, but easily dismissed with the simplest of logic. For example, he claimed that scientists who were young earth creationists were legitimized by their scientific discoveries or inventions. Regardless of what Ham implied, inventing the MRI does not make you an authority on the topic of evolution. It simply means you understand the biology, physics, chemistry, and other disciplines necessary to create such a machine. A doctor doesn't have to know how to build an MRI to read the images produced by one. An imaging technician doesn't have to know how to read an MRI to know how to use the machine to create the images.

    In my opinion, Nye made a mistake by even engaging in this debate. First of all, even having the debate suggests the topic is even debatable. Secondly, this debate gave Ham a platform to expose the uneducated to his reasonable sounding garbage.

    February 5, 2014 at 2:58 am |
  18. jeff

    They both exist simultaneously , Ive known that since i was a child.

    February 5, 2014 at 2:42 am |
    • Scott

      The fact that some people may believe in a flat earth, creationist theory or that the world was created on the back of a turtle do not make them true. Creationist theory has been debunked, and evolution is fact. I believed in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, the tooth fairy and a bunch of things that eduction, logic and maturity proved were untrue. The difference is I evolved.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:46 am |
  19. Mel Stricker

    This is easy. On one side we have scientific evidence and reproducible evidence of evolution and on the other side we only have belief. I am not sure there is anything else to say.

    February 5, 2014 at 2:34 am |
    • Jamesuk

      Evolution is just that, a belief about the past... Today there is no observable evidence for darwinian evolution, nor has it ever been witnessed taking place.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:11 am |
      • Tony

        Um..... completely and utterly wrong actually. evolution has been directly observed in physiological and genetic change of multiple generations of very short-lived species.

        try doing some reading before commenting on something you know nothing about. just because your creation buddies spout untruths doesn't mean you should parrot them unthinking.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:29 am |
      • adrifter

        How can you make a statement that is so patently false? You are either completely misinformed or deliberately trying to mislead people. There are uncountable examples of evolution in action. Evolution is observable in nature. Darwin saw evolution and it has survived for generations.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:54 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
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.