What I learned moderating the creation/evolution debate
Creationist Ken Ham makes a point in Tuesday's debate with Bill Nye, the "science guy."
February 5th, 2014
08:49 AM ET

What I learned moderating the creation/evolution debate

By Tom Foreman, CNN

CNN's Tom Foreman moderated the "creation debate" Tuesday night in Petersburg, Kentucky, between Bill "the Science Guy" Nye and creationist Ken Ham.

(CNN) - It says something when a person shows up at the Creation Museum wearing a top that says, "This is my atheist T-shirt."

At least that's what I think it said. I saw it in a blur as she passed in the parking lot; a thirtysomething with a young boy in tow, striding through the bitter winds of Kentucky to visit a place that proclaims those who deny the existence of God are dead wrong.

I thought about chasing her down to ask her what had compelled her to come, but it would have been a foolish question.

She was here to see a fight. And I was here to play the referee, to moderate a debate on a question that has raged for well over a century: Was humankind created by God in a rush of divine power, or did we evolve over time with only nature to take the credit?

Or as the organizers put it: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?"

About 900 people snapped up tickets to this event just a few minutes after they went on sale, and I was told they expected at least "hundreds of thousands ... maybe a million or more" to watch as it streamed online.

It was not just the topic drawing the throngs. For this crowd, the debaters really mattered.

On the left (literally for the audience, and figuratively in every other way) was the champion for the evolutionary side.

Bill Nye, "the Science Guy," made fundamentalist Christian heads snap recently when he declared it was flat-out wrong for children to be taught creationism.

I met him in a room behind the stage as the audience milled around, waiting for the event to begin. Having just spoken to an adoring crowd of science fans at a university the night before, he feared he was in hostile territory.

MORE ON CNN: 'Creation debate' recap: Science, religion and terrible jokes

"I think my agent is the only one on my side," he said, only half-joking. "I think the other 899 people in here don't really see it my way."

It was hard to tell. Aside from the woman with the T-shirt, there were others wearing pro-Nye gear, but no good way to count them.

Still, it looked like his supporters were probably in the minority, and I mentioned to him that some scientists were grousing online he was validating the creationist argument by even showing up. "So why are you here?" I asked.

"I'm here for the U.S. economy," he said. "See, what keeps the United States in the game for the world economy is our ability to innovate, to have new ideas, and those inventions come from science."

"And you see creationism as sort of poisoning the well for science?"

"Yes. I mean, I'm all for (creationism) in philosophy class, history of religion class, human psychology class," but bring it into science class, and Nye gets upset.

And that is what disturbs Nye's debate opponent. Ken Ham is a rock star in the creationist community who is quick to point out his own educational credentials and those of other scientists who support creationist views.

He is one of the founders of the Creation Museum, where dinosaurs are depicted as living alongside humans and the Great Flood of Noah is an indisputable fact.

He believes it is fundamentally unfair of folks like Nye to push creationism further into the educational shadows and to deny what Ham sees as its scientific components. (Ham concedes, though, that the great number of scientists and citizens agree with Nye: evolution is real.)

I first met Ham back when the museum was being built, and he greeted me Tuesday night in his affable, Australian manner just outside the room where Nye was waiting.

"I must admit I'm a little nervous," Ham told me looking out at the audience. "I want to passionately present my case and defend what I believe, but we never imagined it would become this big. It's amazing. Just shocked all of us."

It was impressive to see how much interest the event generated. A riser with a phalanx of production cameras sat in the middle of the room, 70 or so journalists were clustered to one side of the stage, and security officers seemed to be all over the place.

I was told that metal detectors were being used to screen the audience, and I saw what I presume were explosive-sniffing dogs quietly working the hallways.

Both sides in this debate know the subject matter can spur extreme feelings, and they did all they could to make sure extreme actions didn't follow.

Just the same, one organizer pointed out a corner some 30 feet behind my spot on the stage. A door there opens to the parking lot, he said, "just in case, for any reason, you need to get out fast."

The advice was appreciated but unnecessary. The crowd proved to be polite, attentive and admirably restrained through the entire 2½-hour debate.

So were the debaters. Although they were firmly on opposite sides of the fence, Ham and Nye presented their arguments calmly and respectfully. Neither tried to shout the other down.

I spent my time listening to what they had to say, watching the clock to make sure they got equal time and trying to ensure people in each camp felt their man was treated fairly. Both debaters shook hands at the end to rousing applause. It was not a fight after all.

MORE ON CNN: Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism

Considering the depth of feelings people have about this issue, I asked both men before we began if they expected to change anyone's opinion.

Ham said, "I will present (my information) trying to change people's minds, but knowing as a Christian it is God who changes people's minds, not me."

Nye said, "Here is my hope: I will remind Kentucky voters that this is a serious issue and that it is inappropriate to include creationism as an alternative to ... the body of knowledge and the process called science."

MORE ON CNN: Bill Nye: Why I'm debating creationist Ken Ham

By the time the debate was done, a fierce winter storm had settled in. I waded through the Creation Museum parking lot ankle deep in snow, with sleet pelting down. And I think it was a worthwhile evening - a debate humankind was created to have, or to which we evolved.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Culture & Science • Evolution • Science

soundoff (3,342 Responses)
  1. Fill

    I felt the moderation was done well. I do find it a little odd that the moderator who wrote this article labelled Nye as:

    "On the left (literally for the audience, and figuratively in every other way) was the champion for the evolutionary side."

    Nye is quite conservative, or do you have to be religious to be a conservative? Or do you need to be an anal scientist to be liberal? That confused me.

    February 5, 2014 at 11:22 pm |
    • Adam

      I think he's saying "left" from the perspective of the people in the room which are far far right. Even if Nye is conservative, compared to those loons he's a liberal hippy and rebel for embracing anti social behavior like believing science.

      February 6, 2014 at 1:57 am |
  2. Life in the trailer park

    Nye should never have done it. It's like Dawkins refusing to debate Craig. It gives "legitimacy" to positions that have no legitimacy. There is absolutely nothing legitmate about literal Biblicalism, and Creationism. It's infantile nonsense for the uneducated.

    February 5, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
    • Adam

      We all know that it's a sales gimmick.

      February 6, 2014 at 1:55 am |
    • Don't kill kindness

      As the world economy declines there will be more and more of us in trailer parks. It hasn't happened to me yet but it doesn't mean it won't. It hasn't happened to you yet but it doesn't mean it won't and if for some reason it does you'd still be a person.

      February 6, 2014 at 2:04 am |
  3. Tony

    and Tom, you still didn't tell us what you learned. Get off the fence and be a journalist – or is fear of offending Christian sensibilities and the backlash that would ensue keeping you mute?

    February 5, 2014 at 10:45 pm |
  4. LithiumFlower

    Creationism does not belong in science courses. Centuries worth of research have yielded a body of evidence leading to an excellent working models of how biology, physics, and geology work. These models do have predictive capacity, as Nye pointed out in the debate.

    On the other hand, young earth creationism has never demonstrated any predictive capacity. In fact, many scientists in ages past set out to prove the literal biblical accounts of creation and cosmology. But being open to evidence and logic, they realized over the years that the more more we learn, the less likely that account seems. At this point the 6000 year age for the earth cited and the Ham model, and the notion that every species of animal on every continent descended from a few thousand pairs of animals that left Noah's ark 4000 years ago is completely ludicrous.

    While true science follows the evidence where it leads, and expands our knowledge and technological capacity, creation science is not geared at interpreting the evidence at all. Instead it is aimed at finding room for one arbitrary narrative, within the data. In short, it its not about finding answers, it is geared at defending preconceived notions at all cost, at the expense of logic and scientific reasoning.

    If you teach Christian Young Earth Creationism in school, as science, you may as well teach every other major religion's chronology. Because most of them will pass them pitiful level of scientific scrutiny that a literal interpretation of Genesis will.

    February 5, 2014 at 10:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      The predictive power of young earth creationism is clear: Wherever you find it there are people desperately ignorant of facts and the way people should reason from them.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
      • LithiumFlower

        Here we are, 2014. And many people still think that instead of following specific natural laws, the weather and planet just follow the whims of some God, from moment to moment. And droughts apparently punish us for accepting non-believers and non-conformists.

        All this time and some of us are operating at the same level of logic as the people who gave human sacrifices to beg the gods for good weather in ages past. It's very sad.

        February 5, 2014 at 10:34 pm |
        • Apennythought

          Oh, that's ridiculous . The reason there are natural laws for the weather and planets to follow is because God built order into creation and designed the laws which it follows. No Designer = no design = no orderly natural laws.

          And God forbade human sacrifice; you are confused in equating Christians and Jews with pagans who believed gods were as wicked as humans only more powerful.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
        • LithiumFlower

          I do not believe you are following what I am saying. I did not even imply all Christians, or even all creationists for that matter, think that. But we have had multiple high profile fundamentalists claim that natural disasters are because of "turning away from God" or some such nonsense.

          And yes, I am equating the logic of claiming that god will punish us with natural disasters if we do not change our ways, to past cultures offering their gods human sacrifices to spare them from the same sorts of disasters. I equate them because it is exactly the same concept of deifying natural weather processes.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:27 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Pure speculation. Even if you could prove that some being made laws to govern nature, you have no evidence to connect it to any god at all ever thought of by any human. How entirely stupid.

          Einstein believed in a god that WAS the universe but did not concern itself with humanity, judging humans, or granting any afterlife. Why? Because that's the only sensible conclusion from the evidence.

          God is invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant. Period. You wish you could prove that statement wrong, but you can't.

          I'm comfortable saying "I don't know" exactly why we are here and why there is something rather than nothing, but if you need to believe that some big invisible sky wizard chanted magic spells for six days to make a universe so fragile that one twist of one woman's wrist threw the whole thing into nuclear meltdown, then use that good ole faith that any god believer of any god does. It's the perfect thing for you.....and them......and them.....and them...

          February 5, 2014 at 11:26 pm |
        • sam stone

          "And God forbade human sacrifice"

          Yet he had his son whacked for the "sins" of the world?

          February 6, 2014 at 2:40 am |
      • Paul

        "Wherever you find it there are people desperately ignorant of facts and the way people should reason from them."

        What exactly do you mean by that? Are you saying that the only proper way to reason from facts is from an atheistic perspective?

        February 5, 2014 at 11:49 pm |
        • Adam

          No. The only way to properly reconcile with facts is too stop taking the story of genesis literally. You can't prove it, it goes against science, and god or whoever wrote it, might not have even intended that. Fundamentalism is a very dangerous mentality. We're over in the middle east trying to tell Muslims they shouldn't take the Quaran literally while we harbor the same minded people in our own country, yet say nothing. They SHOULD be ridiculed. They should be discouraged from literal translations of the bible. Science is a major staple of our society. Don't deny it, embrace it. Evolution only conflicts with fundamentalist views which should have been left in the dark ages.

          February 6, 2014 at 1:53 am |
    • The Running Twit

      If they teach this in school, pretty soon it will be 2+2=5.

      Hello Winston Smith!

      February 5, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
  5. Tony

    Of course, the profound irony in all this is that if the creationists get their way and Creationism and not evolution gets taught in schools, we will see the evolutionary effect on American society and America's ability to function and compete in the 21st century and beyond in a world outside it's borders that keeps teaching science without religious interference.

    That would be almost worth seeing as they try and explain why the good ole US of A becomes a backwater lost in the wake of other scientifically advanced economies charging ahead.

    February 5, 2014 at 10:11 pm |
    • Saraswati

      That's already happening.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:25 pm |
  6. 1/2 the battle

    Topher, is that me?

    February 5, 2014 at 10:08 pm |
  7. scottca

    Creationists belong on the street corner blabbering about their insane superst-itions, with the rest of the mentally ill lunatics.

    February 5, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
  8. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    I'm wondering if the belief blog can conjur up two more non-Pope articles to push the pontiff out of the most recent 10 topics.

    It's been a nice change.

    February 5, 2014 at 9:14 pm |
    • Treelady

      Probably not. The UN released a scathing report on the Vatican today; it will probably warrant an entry, if CNN doesn't ignore it.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
      • Science Works

        check out the Angry Bird story for UN report.

        February 5, 2014 at 9:22 pm |

      (BB Catholics frantically emailing their bishops to urge the Pope to say something about the Nye-Ham debate.)

      February 5, 2014 at 9:20 pm |
      • W.Falls

        I've got 20 bucks riding on that outcome, actually.

        February 5, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
      • Treelady

        Don't give 'em ideas...

        February 5, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      We haven't heard from Prof. Prothero in a while either.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:36 pm |
  9. Mary

    Why did the Big Bang happen?

    February 5, 2014 at 8:47 pm |
    • Philip Eugene Douglas, CS, CO

      To enable you to to come onto BB billions of years later to ask moronic questions.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
      • i probably should know this

        but what is CS, CO?

        February 5, 2014 at 9:15 pm |
        • Philip Eugene Douglas, CS, CO

          Colorado Springs, Colorado.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:20 pm |
        •  i probably should know this

          Oh. Is that where they had terrible fires recently? It must be a lovely natural setting there. I am reading that there are a lot of Evangelicals there. I hope you're using Purel regularly after coming from places like the grocery store.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:32 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Colorado Springs, the 'evangelical Vatican'

          February 5, 2014 at 9:40 pm |
        • King of Darkness

          Is that near South Park?

          February 6, 2014 at 3:22 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      The philosopy classroom is down the hall.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:12 pm |
    • scottca

      Steven Hawking has already presented a working explanation for that.
      The big bang happened because at the immense levels of energy present at the moments immediately following the big bang time functions like all other timespace dimension, wherein it is possible for forward and backward travel, thus the mathematics that govern the evolution of the universe, can also initiate their beginning. Though paradoxical to our brains, nothing in the math violates a single rule of physics. Please read more about this from Steven Hawking, or view his ted talk that briefly outlined this.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
      • Paul

        Mary asked "why" not "how".

        "...nothing in the math violates a single rule of physics. "

        Where did the laws of physics come from?

        February 6, 2014 at 12:32 am |
        • Christian Crusader


          February 6, 2014 at 1:35 am |
  10. Brett

    I love the Lord. I love the Word of God. I love the peace He has given me since I received Christ as Savior. I see so many people stumbling around without direction and I just thank God for His awesome blessings. God Bless

    February 5, 2014 at 8:43 pm |
    • Bob

      Brett, you must be insane, to love your "word of god" when it gives you horrid instructions like these, from both foul testaments of the evil Christian book of racism, bigotry, and vengeance:

      Numbers 31:17-18
      17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
      18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

      Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

      Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

      Leviticus 25
      44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
      45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
      46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

      Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

      Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

      And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
      • The Running Twit

        They always start by saying the bible is the true word of god.

        Then they say a big part of the book is the word of god, the rest is poetry and allegory to illustrate the word of god.

        Then they say some part is the word of god, and the rest is historical texts.

        They will finally say, well it is a bunch of tribal folk book on how to control people. And they will no longer need religion to organize their lives.

        Wait and you shall see.

        February 5, 2014 at 9:56 pm |
        • Jim

          He just copies and pastes the same things over & over. Even atheists call him a troll.

          February 5, 2014 at 10:04 pm |
        • 1/2 the battle

          Jim, is that me?

          February 5, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
    • tallulah13

      I love reality. I love honest knowledge. I love the peace that I feel now that I can openly admit that I don't believe in any gods because there is no evidence that any god exists. I see so many people deliberately blinding themselves to reality, and I am grateful to the scientists and historians who have brought the world out of religious darkness and allowed us to freely explore the hows and the whys of this universe. I hope that some day all people can shake off the blinders of faith and join the rest of us in the future.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
    • sam stone

      i am glad you found peace. why do you feel you need a savior?

      February 6, 2014 at 2:50 am |
  11. Devil's Advocate

    Adam was actually the world's first ho.mose.xual. Eve was a metaphor for his inner woman.

    February 5, 2014 at 8:31 pm |
    • Philip Eugene Douglas, CS, CO

      THAT'S why Adam had nipples...

      February 5, 2014 at 9:04 pm |
      • Happy Atheist

        He sat around all day twirling his fingers around them wistfully saying to himself "I wish I had someone else to do this for me..."

        February 5, 2014 at 9:36 pm |
  12. Solopsist

    Bill Nye is basing every argument he has on the assumption that reality exists. Given that it does, he would be correct but there is always the possibility that it doesn't.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
    • REDIT

      Interesting point. Why is there something instead of nothing?

      February 5, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
      • To be

        the objects of our thoughts

        February 5, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Solipsism is thinking too small.
      What of pantheistic solipsism?
      Every thought or fantasy anyone has ever had is its own reality.
      In such a multiverse, Ken Ham 's vision exists somewhere....

      February 5, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
      • Mephistopheles

        The squishy kitty that walked through walls

        February 5, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Thou art God.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
      • Saraswati

        It is only thinking too small if it's wrong, no?

        In some sense many. spiritual pantheisms are solipsistic – from the perspective of god.

        February 5, 2014 at 9:54 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        If thoughts or fantasies could be fully realized maybe they could be a sort of reality. But they are always incomplete aren't they? The important details seem to be there, but everything in the background is minimalistic.

        February 5, 2014 at 9:58 pm |
        • Saraswati

          Have you tried lucid dreaming?

          February 5, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Yes. For example, there are often books in my dreams. Well enough. I learned to steer the dreams so that I could do things like read those books. The words don't scan well, often seem to scramble or evaporate. I can't create the words and read them at the same time. Someone can probably make something of that regarding the perspective of gods.

          February 5, 2014 at 10:12 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          For anything you can't explain, The Creator is the answer – but not all gods are equal in Creation.

          February 5, 2014 at 10:19 pm |
  13. kdrhodes

    Interesting Nye talked about teaching of evolution as vital to our technology and standing in the world. Hows come we have been teaching evolution for many-many years and we are falling behind now? These fallacious arguments used by such people are clearly false. They are doing more damage to our nation than creation ever has. They have a belief system...not science in their corner.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:52 pm |
    • Jahtez

      Falling behind in what?

      February 5, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
    • The Running Twit

      The sad thing about it, is while you are teaching "creationism", you are taking time from another subject.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
    • sybaris

      "These fallacious arguments used by such people are clearly false."

      Now THAT is funny. Do you know Yogi Berra

      Regardless, your post is fallcious

      February 5, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
    • Barcs

      We aren't falling behind now. Certain christian fundies are just more stubborn than ever.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:09 pm |
    • Creationism is Wrong and is a huge Farce period.

      kdrhodes next time you think you have a point to make, try providing some supprt for it, stupid.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      The educational crisis in the United States goes much further than meddling by ID and creationism peddlars and revisionism by the Texas School Board.

      We are falling behind in math, reading AND science. The really scary one is math.

      PISA 2012 US rankings:
      Maths ....... 36th
      Reading ... 24th
      Science .... 28th

      Countries like Vietnam are consistently better than the US.


      February 5, 2014 at 9:24 pm |
      • The Running Twit

        Even the leprechauns in Ireland score higher than the US. As well as here in Canada. Hey!

        February 5, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
      • Factoid

        We sure did better when prayer was allowed in school.

        February 5, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
        • Saraswati

          The US ranked higher when other countries were too poor to educate the masses. That no done almost everywhere, reality shakes out.

          On the other hand, success and innovation are not soley linked to test scores and not all counties are testing the same way. There are a number of reasons the reality may not be quite as bad as it looks. But for Athena's sake, people, at least get on board with the metric system! Talk about making things unecessarily difficult for kids.

          February 5, 2014 at 10:23 pm |
        • Bones McCoy

          Agreed about the metric system. America just wants to set itself apart from everyone else to make them feel special. Ego > children's education apparently. Part of it has to do with a lot of southern / midwestern states being 20 years behind the rest of the US, but religion and home schooling. Based on our budget we should have one of the best educations in the world, but the problem is high schools are weak and colleges are purely for profit.

          February 6, 2014 at 12:36 am |
        • Saraswati

          Bones, I agree with most of what you say, but wanted to point out that most colleges are non-profit insti.tutions. A few like Pheonix and the small trade schools are for profit, but the proportion is still relatively low.

          February 6, 2014 at 8:47 am |
      • Immortal Technique

        Absolutely amazing how one of the most technological (and self proclaimed freest) countries in the world is ranked so low in education. It really boils down to spending more than half our research and budget on military, while barely funding the education system. Those numbers really tell the story.

        February 6, 2014 at 12:32 am |
    • tallulah13

      We are falling behind because radical conservative politicians and fundamental christians have done everything in their power to cut funding to education. They have done their best to make the public perceive intelligence as a negative rather than the driving force of civilization that it is. Ignorance is the best friend radically conservative politics and religion ever had, because no one with an open mind will willingly be fooled by the lies of such blatant profiteers

      February 5, 2014 at 11:27 pm |
      • Saraswati

        Most of the countries who out-perform us spend less per capita on education.

        February 6, 2014 at 8:48 am |
  14. VidiSensiVici

    It took God seven days to create the world. His definition of "day" could be years in our definition, or it could be the same, nevertheless, we are here. We look for science to explain things, but there are so many missing answers, and we are still learning. The order in the universe, the way how things function, imply that a God exists. Love is a powerful theory to reflect the existence of a God. Jesus was here on earth to tell us about kingdom of God. The Big Bang Theory is interesting, and if it is so natural, then why didn't it occur again on earth? Are we too blind to see? Or, we could not be more blind if we refuse to see. To know God is to love God, and perhaps, we need learn to love and to feel love first to see the magic of unconditioned love unfold in our lifetime. Maybe we would discover God when we least expect it.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      "The order in the universe, the way how things function, imply that a God exists." Can you explain how God's existence is implied?

      February 5, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
      • kdrhodes

        You have a true dilemma there. Either there is a creator or everything came into existence from nothing and by chance. The implication seems obvious...

        February 5, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
        • Observer


          Even if intelligent design turned out to be true, that does not in any way PROVE God exists. The universe could have been created by an infinite number of possibilities including God or Zeus or the Three Stooges or a committee of zombies, etc.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:00 pm |
        • sybaris

          So you believe a god created everything out of.................. nothing


          February 5, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
        • Philip Eugene Douglas, CS, CO

          So....you got nuttin, krhodes?

          February 5, 2014 at 9:05 pm |
        • tallulah13

          So who created your god?

          February 5, 2014 at 11:28 pm |
      • RB

        Some see the universe, earth, & life as evidence for God.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
        • sybaris

          and have yet to provide any evidence to back their claim

          February 5, 2014 at 8:08 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          It comes down to whether you believe the environment, meaning the incredibly complex and unfathomably vast universe, is adapted to us, the predilection objects of creation... Or whether we are adapted to our environment.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Predilect, not predilection.
          For the love of anything sacred, why is there no way to edit comments?!?

          February 5, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Good evening, Robert. Ham brought up the problem of rules and order (where do they come from? ). I thought he would get into how that implies a mind that underlies the Universe. Do you agree that it does? If so, how does it?

          February 5, 2014 at 8:29 pm |
        • tallulah13

          Humans have always looked at the unknown and called it god. That's why there have been literally thousands of gods throughout human history. The christian god is just one of many.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:31 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Here's a simple case. Let's use a B theory of time: Our toy Universe is a sphere and time is along lines of longitude, space along lines of latitude. The beginning of time and is at the South pole. There time and space can't be distinguished. There is no cause for this Universe, just an origin.

        February 5, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          sorry – the beginning of time and space is at...

          February 5, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
      • VidiSensiVici

        Tom, Tom, the Other One, Imagine that you are a God, and you are creating things because of love, assuming that you understand love, could feel love and could give or love unconditionally. Would it be more interesting for you to create things that have meanings, substances, details, colorful, etc.... so that you could enjoy seeing your creation as well? And if you could build things that interact with you then it is even better, don't you think so? Have you ever wondered of why we have days and nights, sunsets and sunrises? Wouldn't it be more simple just to have days only and no nights years after years? Being a God, you could be anywhere, would you rather be on earth or on Mars? If you choose earth, then why would you pick earth? Isn't it more fun being on earth as compared to Mars? Now look at earth in details, look at things in details, look at the sunsets, etc... and as you look at things, do you feel anything? Try to take a deep breath, move or circle your shoulders, sitting up straight, throwing your hands up in the sky a few times, breathe deeply and feel the tingling sensation traveling through your shoulders, neck, and feel the energy traveling from head to toes on his own. You really have to get to this stage to appreciate things more because you are activating your energy to flow. If you could do so, then you might see things a bit more interesting. So, what do you think? Would you like to create things or just leave things happen by chance? Imagine you could create some human beings because you enjoy to see them functioning. I am sure that you would like to see them coming to you on their freewill than coming to you because of fear or force. So, if they cannot see you but love you regardless, then how would you feel?

        February 6, 2014 at 4:36 am |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          I can imagine a world Created by a loving God.

          February 6, 2014 at 8:06 am |
    • The Running Twit

      "imply that god exists"

      we want proof, not some assumption based on a traditional folk book.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
      • REDIT

        science has nothing to do with proof. Law, logic and mathematics does. Mathematical proofs are not relevant, logic proofs ultimately state what is and what is not (ie p=p and p=/= not p), and law is far from conclusive. You should do a study on inductive and deductive reasoning to understand that science is far from about proof.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:45 pm |
    • truthprevails1

      I call troll...no-one can be so ignorant to make such a statement as " The Big Bang Theory is interesting, and if it is so natural, then why didn't it occur again on earth?".

      February 5, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
      • The Running Twit

        remember the Philadelphia experiment?

        February 5, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          Sorry, I don't. I will look that up.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
        • The Running Twit

          Never mind. It was about radar stealth technology.

          However, some theory suggests that the big bang is the clash between two parallel planes of energy, and that matter and anti-matter emerged from the energy released . Afterwards, most of the matter and anti-matter merged but there was more matter left than anti-matter. The matter and energy expanded in the cosmos.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:48 pm |
        • Wilma

          And then it turned into dinosaurs.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
  15. bostontola

    Mobius Strip.

    Al: I think science is amazing and provides us with explanations of how the universe operates.

    Chris: I like science too, I think it explains how God intended it to operate after he started it.

    Al: What started God?

    Emily: People without science.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
    • RB

      God is eternal, the beginning & the end at the same time.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
      • sybaris


        which god?

        February 5, 2014 at 8:10 pm |
      • Happy Atheist

        If energy can neither be created or destroyed, and what we thought of as empty space isn't really empty for there are both matter and dark matter, then if anything can be considered "eternal" it would be the universe itself, fluxing between those two states of being. If theists believe the only thing that can be eternal is God, then the universe is God, and even atheists believe in the universe, they just call it by its scientific name "the universe". Now as to whether the universe itself has a consciousnesses is of course the next debate and where I think theists and atheists part ways. Theists claim to know the thoughts of the universe and what it wants for us, atheists believe we get to choose our own paths. Now from a purely scientific standpoint even atheists have to admit that we follow some of the direction the universe gives us in that we procreate and care for loved ones and eat and compete for resources. Theists have merely added their ancient wisdom of lessons learned from early humanity and thus have laid claim to being the fathers of morality when in actuality it was civilization that birthed morality and religion.

        February 5, 2014 at 8:43 pm |
      • sam stone

        pure speculation, RB

        i noticed RB arrived after Robert Brown turned tail and ran

        I wonder if they are one and the same

        February 6, 2014 at 2:53 am |
    • kdrhodes

      That is a clear misrepresentation of the law of causality. Of course fallacious arguments are the hallmark of atheism.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
      • Observer


        Speaking of fallacious arguments, it's the believers who have at least 7 different EXCUSES for the errors and nonsense in the Bible.

        February 5, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
    • Darph

      Al: I think science is amazing and provides us with explanations of how the universe operates.

      internet atheist: I like science too, I think it explains how there is no God.

      Al: What started internet atheism?

      Emily: People without science.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:49 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        That makes no sense. btw an atheist doesn't believe that there is any evidence for any god (just like you for the gods of other religions). Modern knowledge shows that all creation myths are not correct, so it is pretty clear that the gods they describe didn't create the universe as described and so have no credibility.

        February 5, 2014 at 8:55 pm |
        • W.Falls

          Science doesn't show that creation myths are incorrect. Myths, art, literature, music and fantasy can reveal truths. Not every religious person is asking you to literally believe a story. Not even in church do they suggest you have to. A lot of churches actually teach the opposite. And you will find religious people that support science just as much as atheists. Some even more. I know some atheists that are not interested in science.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:07 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "Not every religious person is asking you to literally believe a story. Not even in church do they suggest you have to.

          Please explain that to Ken Ham and the young earth creationist fundies.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
        • W.Falls

          I'm sure they know that a majority of Christians don't agree with them. Even Bill Nye recognized that fact.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:15 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          I presume you support the christian creation myth. If Genesis is not literally true then what role did your god actually play and what evidence is there that your god did it?

          February 5, 2014 at 9:29 pm |
        • W.Falls

          The origin story explains the relationship between the Creator and his creature. And also important things, like why snakes don't have legs. 🙂

          February 5, 2014 at 9:35 pm |
        • Adam

          Wow. God is such a great guy. One guy disobeys him once and his entire lineage is doomed, and Lucifer takes the form of a snake and god decides to punish all snakes for it. What is this guy smoking?

          February 6, 2014 at 1:43 am |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        But some snakes do have a pelvis.

        February 5, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
      • tallulah13

        I like science, but I stopped believing in god when I took the time to learn about world history. Your god is just one of thousands, and there isn't a shred of evidence for any of them.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
  16. REDIT

    Actually, I find origins science to be a complete bore. The only thing interesting about it is that it intersects with religion. I'm often surprised at how passionate the supposed objective "Science minded" people are about this issue. It is also interesting how atheist get involved, as if somehow science is inherently atheistic.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Naturalistic, yes – but not necessarily atheistic.
      The problem is that people like Ken Ham cannot separate the two.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:20 pm |
      • Paul

        Science is neither naturalistic or atheistic. Science is an abstract tool we use to help us understand and evalutate the world around us. It has to naturalistic or atheistic beliefs. But people do. Which brings up one of Ken Ham's main points in the debate: the origins issue is ultimately about one's philosophical worldview.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
        • Adam

          It's about ego. Many folks are willing to say, "I don't yet know the answer to the origin of life, but I'd like to find out." This is a concept that creationists can't comprehend. They already think that have the answers and that they are absolute despite what science has helped us learn. To them, it's a fact, but they constantly claim they don't need evidence because it's "faith based". So which one is it?

          February 6, 2014 at 1:46 am |
    • Barry

      REDIT's wife tells me that she finds him to be a complete bore. It's a size thing, too.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
  17. God


    While tons of the story is missing, Jehovah is actually a scientist. Genesis is about a science experiment in an artificially simulated environment. Everything went great until some PETA jerk named Lucifer snuck in and told them who they really were. Everybody rebelled and Jehovah had to terminate the experiment except for the one dumb family that didn't figure it out. He felt bad afterwards and promised he'd never do an experiment like that again.

    February 5, 2014 at 6:50 pm |
    • Peta

      laughing a lot. x-D

      February 5, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
      • Next on cnn

        The Price of Celebrity

        Was God high when he created the earth?

        February 5, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
        • The Running Twit

          and he lives in Colorado.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          ♫ Angels we have heard on high...

          February 5, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
    • God

      After that, Jehovah went on to bigger and better things like slavery and slaughtering first borns.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Wait, so are we just abandoned, then? Shouldn't he have to clean up the experiment? Aten't there ethics boards or something?i

      February 5, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
      • God

        Oh, he cleaned up the experiment all right. He flushed that entire environment, by opening the firmament and letting the waters flood everything. Do you deny the word of God?

        February 5, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
    • LithiumFlower

      And then, God thought the world he made, and the AI constructs running around in virtualized bodies looked fun. So he coded himself an avatar: Jesus!

      And he ran around using console commands to to res people, turn water into wine, walk on water and all that jazz. He was going to stick around, because it was fun hanging out in a world you have full control over. All the worship was a lot more fun than "Jehovah! Get off the supercomputer and your little simulation! Its time for your chores!"

      But then, they killed him, and he couldn't write a hack fast enough to save himself. It was pretty painful so he went back to top down management. The last thing Jesus said before he left earth was "Avatars are lame, dude. But I'll come back when I get bored. "

      February 5, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
  18. @Qcit

    "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." – Galileo Galilei‎

    February 5, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
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.