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. Mamabear

    I hope more debates will be planned like this one. Obviously, the public is interested. Thank you, Tom Foreman for your professionalism. The format and conduct of the debate were absolutely perfect to allow the public to truly listen to the presenters. Please, please allow for more subjects to be addressed in this way – rather than fights, shouting and 30 second sound bytes!

    February 6, 2014 at 10:40 am |
  2. Robert Martinez

    Thanks for the fair moderating. It was a great debate I feel, largely because a proper moderator was positioned.

    February 6, 2014 at 10:36 am |
  3. Anxiety sufferer

    What nobody is looking at is the psychological components. I'm sure a lot of us suffer from anxiety. Some of us are jacked up on something, some of us medicated and those of us who take nothing for our anxiety get through the day with some combination of prayers, or a horse shoe or a rabbit's foot. Whatever works and it saves money in health care dollars.

    I can't tell you how many times I've been on an interstate repeating the Lord's prayer. Back roads, not so firm of a believer.

    Once you've experienced a panic attack you'd do anything to avoid it, and maybe that includes believing in a six thousand year old planet. Who knows. You feel like you are going to die then and there.

    February 6, 2014 at 10:23 am |
    • henry

      Sorry to hear about your anxiety. But you do know you can believe in God and not throw scientific knowledge out the window with the 6000 year old earth thing. A lot of believers get by fine without grasping onto bad science.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:32 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      I understand how anxiety is brutal to live with.

      Why, living with anxiety, would you want to embrace a philosophy that if, for whatever reason, you fail to do the right things all the time, you will burn in a lake of sulphur for eternity?

      It seems like that would make me even more anxious.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:35 am |
      • Patrick

        It is not merely embracing a philosophy, The Bible, Heaven, Hell etc, is either the truth, or it isn't.

        If Believers are wrong and God doesn't exist, then nothing has been lost, They shall just be dead.
        If Non Believer's are wrong and God does exist, then they risks going to hell.
        Embracing or Rejecting Christian Doctrine won't make it any more, or any less true.
        The Christian Doctrine Either is True, Or it isn't.

        February 6, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Patrick you are retreading Pascal's Wager.

          Don't you think an omnisicent God could tell if I was faking belief in order not to go to hell?

          February 6, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I certainly don't begrudge anyone their personal faith if that is what helps them get through the day.
      The man widely considered to be Canada's greatest Prime Minister routinely conferred with the spirit of his dead dog.
      Such gentle delusions do no harm.
      The problem comes when people like Ken Ham want their personal, subjective, unprovable faith to be taught to everybody as fact, or even worse – legislated into laws that force their theological perspective of correct behaviour on everybody else.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:36 am |
      • The Running Twit


        February 6, 2014 at 10:39 am |
      • Rynomite

        We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

        H. L. Mencken

        February 6, 2014 at 11:10 am |
    • myweightinwords

      I have agoraphobia. I have panic attacks when I am in crowds, or a room that is too small with no clear path to an exit. Sometimes I can't even go out to see friends.

      I don't rely on faith of any kind to deal with it. I trust myself to understand triggers and avoid or mitigate them. I trust my doctor when she offers me a mild drug therapy for the times when I can't avoid the triggers (I'm a photographer that shoots live bands...puts me in the middle of crowds far more often than my condition would prefer). I don't pray for the symptoms to go away. I don't expect my deities to do anything to take the anxiety away.

      And it isn't that I don't have faith. I just understand that this is my work to do.

      February 6, 2014 at 11:14 am |
      • Anxiety sufferer

        I feel for you, it sucks. I'd rather do without meds, not even the herbal kind. I want to get through it by my own mindset. I'm not a creationist but I can see how that could happen to someone if you got uptight enough about things. Having a religious practice or two or three to deal with stress I don't think is such a bad thing.

        February 6, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          I'm not a monotheist of any kind, and I practice meditation to help me over come a lot of my issues. It helps a lot.

          I dislike using meds either, but I know myself well enough to know that a small dose of Xanax when I know I'm going to be putting myself in a triggering situation, helps me be more in control.

          February 6, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
  4. Slovensko

    I'm sure this comment section will get filled up with people on both sides passionately arguing, but I just wanted to say what a great job that Tom Foreman did moderating the debate. No personal opinions inserted, pretty funny quips, great job of keeping the time. Excellently done.

    February 6, 2014 at 10:17 am |
    • Opie Juan Cannoli

      I completely agree with you. I thought Mr. Foreman did an excellent job as the moderator.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:25 am |
  5. Jack Brooks

    Cause-and-effect is a major reason to believe in the Creator. Molecules aren't sentient, and yet sentience/consciousness exists. If there is reason, then it must come from reason. Bill Nye stumbled badly when this question was posed. If nothing but matter exists, then all of Nye's thoughts were being randomly generated by non-reasoning forces. That would invalidate everything he said! There are only three possible explanations for the origin of the universe. It either created itself, or has always existed, or was made. Self-creation is a logical impossibility (since if you can create yourself, you already exist). There is no evidence that the universe is eternal; all the evidence is that the universe is temporal.

    February 6, 2014 at 10:08 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      God is an explanation for the reason behind the Universe's existence, something which is unknowable and has no relation to what happens in the Universe.

      That being said – if there is a Creator, what do you think the chances are that it is Ken Ham's version of the anthropocentric God who fashioned the unfathomable vastness of the universe just so we, as the predilect objects of Creation, have a place to live?
      And what of the trap of infinite regression? What created the Creator, and so on ad infinitum....
      And which Creator, exactly? Virtually every religion has a creation story and since none can be proven or disproven, they all have equal merit.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:14 am |
      • Anxiety sufferer

        There is something very reassuring about the idea of an omnipotent being that cares about your trip down the highway. It's like the phrase "Everything is going to be fine". If you can get yourself to believe it, it's a beautiful thing.

        February 6, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • The Running Twit

          It´s like "oh lord, please make sure no tire blows up, I have not check them before going down the highway."

          Verify your car regularly to avoid those mishaps. However, concerning other drivers, nobody, not even your god will prevent this one to crash head on in your car, if alll the factors are in line.

          It´s blunt but that´s life!

          February 6, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • Anxiety sufferer

          It's not about the reality of it it's about a way to psych yourself out. Like the positive thinking for example Tony Robbins and what not. You check the tires and if that's not enough then you get the rabbits foot out or whatever. If you judge you haven't been there. I wouldn't wish it on you, but if you haven't had it happen you just don't get it.

          February 6, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
    • BRC

      Jack Brooks,
      I think you give conciousness too much credit. Single celled organisms move to find their food. They're not hunting, but the ones that didn't move failed to collect nutrients and didn't replicate, the ones that did prosperred. As organisms became more complex so di dthe neural processes, and as motor and control cellular groups began to seperat eth efunctions of the control cells began to grow. "Instinct" was the first thing to develope. The creatures with neural networks that compelled the actions most fitting for survival, with the best fight or flight nerve responses, thrived and grew. Cells continue to increase in complexity, and nerve control networks becames brains, capable of peforming more complex actions when functioning as a unit then when functioning as single cells, and gradually forming what we call thought. Thought, conciousness, reason, it's not magic. We can watch the effects that chemicals have on brain function; it is clear how there is an evelutionary advantage to develope neural centers that are capable of MORE complex thought, it's a huge survival advantage. Reason is the end result of this, chemicals and cells performing functions that have been honed through billions of years of evolution to create thought. There will come a time when humans create algorithms so complex that computers will be able to function in a way indistinguishable from human thought... because in the end it's all just functions. And the only thing we can say for sure abotu the universe is that it's constantly changing. It could be eternal, temporal, self correcting, self destructing, or cyclical, we do not have enough information to know; but with time we can find out.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:23 am |
    • Sungrazer

      "There are only three possible explanations for the origin of the universe. It either created itself, or has always existed, or was made. Self-creation is a logical impossibility (since if you can create yourself, you already exist). There is no evidence that the universe is eternal; all the evidence is that the universe is temporal."

      As a mental exercise, apply this logic to a creator and tell me what you come up with. Presumably you would come up with the same three explanations. Presumably you would rule out self creation and eternal existence. That leaves one option, that god was created. Who created god? Who created the creator of god? Etc.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:29 am |
      • maybe some more?

        What about – came from nothing, and – was transformed from something else (with or without an intelligent cause)

        February 6, 2014 at 10:39 am |
        • Sungrazer

          You mean the universe? Then it still "came from nothing", and that is a possibility he rejects. I'm trying to get him to see that he can't imagine the universe coming into being from nothing, but he likely has no problems with god coming into being from nothing. If god, why not the universe? Why, counter to Occam's razor, introduce an unnecessary condition?

          February 6, 2014 at 10:56 am |
    • Rynomite

      Jack, even if you happen to be correct that the Universe "was created". That does not mean it is a god concept that did the creating (or as Doc points out – your particular god or even a single god).

      There's also the just as likely possibility of some advanced yet mortal race somehow seeding our universe or perhaps we are some elaborate computer simulation or 100's of other possibilities that we can use and insert in the place of "WE DON"T KNOW."

      February 6, 2014 at 10:35 am |
    • ME II

      @Jack Brooks,
      "If nothing but matter exists, then all of Nye's thoughts were being randomly generated by non-reasoning forces."

      Why must it be "random"? Evolution is an example of a non-directed, but non-random process.

      "There are only three possible explanations for the origin of the universe. It either created itself, or has always existed, or was made."

      Two of your options require something to do the creating, why not spontaneous creation? virtual particles are known to pop into and out of existence, perhaps there is a natural process for this to involve universes.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:44 am |
  6. Bada

    Quoting from a balanced perspective I came across: "There's a fundamental difference between religion and spirituality. Religion means you ascribe to a certain set of beliefs. You are referred to as a believer. Spiritual process means you have realized that you do not truly know and are seeking the truth, hence referred to as a seeker.

    Now when it comes to modern science & technology, we have gotten too engrossed in technology & gadgets and have lost our way of exploration. True power for humanity will come when we simply explore without exploitation. Right now, technology is the means of exploitation of every little thing that we know, but science is a way of exploration which needs to happen. It is very similar to spiritual process; though an outward process. No one who truly involves himself in a scientific quest can escape a spiritual tendency within himself. Either people should be steeped in the spiritual process or they must be steeped in science, because both are a quest, both are an exploration, they are not conclusions. They are not about, ‘What can I do with it?’ They are about wanting to know. Only when the human mind is in a mode of wanting to know does it behave profoundly, does it behave responsibly; otherwise it naturally becomes exploitative, ‘How can I use this? How can I use that?’ Initially, it is about things, then it is about people, then it is about the whole world.

    Whether you call it physics or spirituality, both of them are seeking the same thing. One is trying to explore the outside and know it. Another is exploring inward, because it is more at hand. That scientists are willing to spend billions of dollars just to know something is a lot like spirituality."

    February 6, 2014 at 9:58 am |
    • Sungrazer

      "Spiritual process means you have realized that you do not truly know and are seeking the truth"

      I feel awe and wonder for the (materialist) universe and I enjoy seeking out knowledge, but I would not describe myself as spiritual. When someone says they are "spiritual" (as opposed to outright religious), I have no idea what they mean. Most of the time I don't think they do either.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:13 am |
      • Bada

        "When someone says they are "spiritual" (as opposed to outright religious), I have no idea what they mean. Most of the time I don't think they do either."

        That's fine as long as they're working on figuring it out with an open mind. 🙂 Cookie-cutter definitions of something, limiting notions of "self", and stereotypes don't do much good anyway.

        February 6, 2014 at 10:48 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      True power for humanity will come when we simply explore without exploitation

      When was this ever the case?

      I like a lot of the sentiments you have expressed here, but technology has always been used for exploitation. From the 16th – 18th centuries, the height of technology was expressed in sailing ships maps and navigation instruments. To what ends were these used?

      February 6, 2014 at 10:18 am |
      • Bada

        That's a good point, and your example makes sense to me.
        I wouldn't go so far as assuming that this has *always* been the case, since I honestly don't know enough one way or the other. But my impression is that there have been examples of certain ancient civilizations that flourished on multiple levels (kept a balance between scientific exploration, medicinal & lifestyle applications, preserving Nature) and had a more holistic & symbiotic way of life. Seems like remnants of some of that culture & 'life-science' understanding still exist in some parts of the world, but unfortunately not at the scale that it needs to be.

        February 6, 2014 at 11:09 am |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        I would posit the opposite view.

        Those cultures that lived in harmony with nature, eschewed technology and employed very little of it except in the form of tools (hunting weapons) that were life sustaining. Examples would include tribal cultures that existed into the 'modern' era – Australian Aborigines, Inuit, Native Americans, Papua New Guinea highlanders, etc.

        The cultures that created technology exploited it in terms of Empire building. This is evident from the ancient world to the present.

        Egyptians and their peers – bronze weapons, chariots
        Greeks – galleys, greek fire
        Romans – iron weapons, ballista, masonry, all manner of exploitative war technology
        Middle ages – armour, stirrups, gunpowder etc.

        Technology enables the 'baser' instincts of humans. It always has. (Think internet p0rn.) It took less than 30 years to turn the theory of general relativity into the most formidable weapon that the world has ever seen. Technology has many blessings too of course. I like living in a world with modern medicine.

        February 6, 2014 at 11:34 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Whether you call it physics or spirituality, both of them are seeking the same thing.

      If you want to call science by it's antique name ("Natural Philosophy") sure – philosophy being a love of wisdom. It is a school of increasing our understanding of the natural world based on what can be observed.

      We moved the sciences out of the Philosopy department long ago. Religious studies however, remain the domain of the Philosophy department.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:28 am |
      • Bada

        "We moved the sciences out of the Philosopy department long ago. Religious studies however, remain the domain of the Philosophy department."

        It seems like this statement comes from an assumption/misconception that religion and spirituality mean the exact same thing. I tried to point out a key difference between them in my original quoted content.
        There are certain Eastern sciences (Ayurvedic, Yogic sciences) that have a long-established scientific basis and yet are closely tied to spirituality.. Those are examples in which the founders & proponents were considered spiritual, and they didn't settle for philosophical or dogmatic conclusions.

        February 6, 2014 at 11:30 am |
        • Jack Brooks

          There is no such thing as a completely neutral interpretation of data. Everyone approaches data with pre-existing philosophical prejudices. That's why I think Ham should have questioned Nye's underlying naturalism, instead of going on about the age of the earth.

          February 6, 2014 at 11:33 am |
  7. Todd

    Some of the great American Universities (e.g Harvard, Yale, etc) were founded by Christians and dedicated to exploring the natural laws put in place by God. God is evident in the magnificent, simple, intricate universe. I find it interesting that the more we "know" the less we truly know about it. For me personally, I find it hard to not recognize that the universe in it's entirety was not created by an inteligent designer. I find it takes a whole lot of faith to believe that life just "happened" out of randomness. I don't deride those who believe this. I believe evolution will never be absolutely proven and therefore is not a fact. It is a belief and can not be absolutely proven. I can not absolutely prove to you that creationism is an absolute fact either, as much as I want to be able to convince you of that. Both are based upon a faith that we will be bore out in the end. God Bless!

    February 6, 2014 at 9:42 am |
    • Doris

      "I believe evolution will never be absolutely proven and therefore is not a fact. It is a belief and can not be absolutely proven."

      Unlike having to explore the universe for answers, wouldn't you expect the future answers to support or discredit evolution likely to be close to us here on earth? So why with your absolutes – "will never" and "can not be"?

      February 6, 2014 at 9:48 am |
    • The Running Twit

      You are mixing everything up. Faith has nothing to do with scientific research and methodology. Faith is believing in something without having repeated facts and tested theories to back it up.
      People of faith can do science, I am not denying that.

      February 6, 2014 at 9:49 am |
      • Actually...

        Actually, faith is trust based upon reliable evidence. In other words, it takes into account the reliability of certain evidences and actions (particularly if you are talking about a person) and then trusts because it believes that it is the only reasonable option in light of the evidence. Faith does "leap" but only once it is convicted that it will be caught. Everyone has faith and trusts. We all trust experts and authorities in fields we ourselves are not expects in, and we do so because we have deemed them trustworthy or because they have demonstrated that they are an authority worthy of listening to. There is an account in the Gospels of Jesus telling a women about here whole past. She is stunned that He could know all of this about her, having never met her previously. The woman's trust in Him was entirely reasonable in that sense. He had demonstrated that was worthy of being listened to. Christians view God and His Words in the Bible to be worthy of trust, thus we have faith, because God has shown Himself to be trustworthy. That is different than how you have described faith. How you have described/defined faith is not the way that Christianity does. Thanks for your time.

        February 6, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • No Evidence

          "Actually, faith is trust based upon reliable evidence"

          ....so you're saying the bible is this "reliable evidence"

          February 6, 2014 at 11:38 am |
    • tallulah13

      Evolution has been observed in bacteria in labs. Human evolution is supported by the fossil and genetic records.

      There is no irrefutable evidence to support the existence of any god, only anecdotal accounts.

      February 6, 2014 at 9:57 am |
      • Todd

        Adaptation is what you are referring to not evolution.

        February 6, 2014 at 9:59 am |
        • tallulah13

          No, Todd. I am referring to evolution. Do some homework.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:02 am |
        • Todd

          I read American Scientific Journal, which talks about what you elude to. I stand by my point. It is NOT evolution, it's adaptation. It's still bacteria. It did not evolve to a different type of organism. For example, like a fish evolves to a mammal.

          February 6, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Matters of degree, not principle.
          Changed in physiology to adapt to the environment IS evolution.
          Individuals in every generation are different from one another, or, at least some of them are. In every generation some individuals survive and reproduce better than others. Their genes multiply.
          Species either split into or bud off other species, often through the geographical isolation of a founder species.
          However, changes take place through the gradual change of population rather than the sudden production of new individuals.
          These are the laws of evolution.
          The "micro / macro" division was made up by Creationists when they were backed into a corner and couldn't deny the evidence anymore. It is akin to calling a rain drop "micro moisturer" and an ocean "macro moisture".
          Again, matters of degree – not principle.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:08 am |
        • tallulah13

          I highly recommend the book "Why Evolution Is True" by Dr. Jerry Coyne. It gives an excellent, easy to read overview of some of the evidence we have for evolution. You should understand evolution before you dismiss it.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • Jack Brooks

          It is arrogant to say that people who disagree with evolution don't understand it, especially considering that there are no less than *four* models of evolution competing today. "Evolution" is no more of a monolith than the Catholic Church.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:16 am |
        • The Running Twit

          To adapt, you have to evolve, either mentally or physically.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:13 am |
        • The Running Twit


          Your book would be too easy to understand. It is not as confusing and full of contradictions and folk stories as the bible.

          It must contains unicorns, dragons, wizards, great castles....

          February 6, 2014 at 10:16 am |
        • Truth

          For something to evolve it requires additional genetic information to do so. For something to adapt is more of a re-arrangement of existing information. Only adaptation has been observed, in any context, labs or otherwise. Evolution is still a faith-based assumption that millions of adaptations can result in new information.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:18 am |
        • igaftr

          why do so many call themselves truth and then not speak the truth. Genetic mutation happens all of the time. Not really new information is needed, but different, and mutation accounts for this.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:21 am |
        • tallulah13

          Mr Brooks, Todd demonstrated an ignorance of even the most basic understanding of evolution and attempted to change my very deliberate wording. I chose to offer him means to inform himself. I am a big fan of education.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • tallulah13

          Also, Mr Brooks, could you please find me a link so I might learn about these four models of evolution? I am only aware of the most common and could not find any references to the other three.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • Jack Brooks

          This might be useful: http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Controversy-The-Competing-Theories/dp/0801031745

          There is Classic Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Meta-Darwinism. I would need to scroll down through Facebook to find the science article, posted by a friend, in which the writer pointed out that even the word "evolution" is deceptive. Christians believe that organisms change in response to environment, and that speciation expands out from basic "kinds" (the taxonomy term is Families, I think). The Achilles heel of Darwinism is atheistic naturalism, which is a presupposed philosophical grid. Ham wasted a great deal of time on the age of the earth, which in this debate pretty much missed the point. Ham also did nothing to give reasons for belief in the Bible (which have been known for centuries). Nye by his answers and comments showed that he doesn't understand Christianity that well, and doesn't understand philosophy at all.

          February 6, 2014 at 11:12 am |
        • tallulah13

          Oh. So you were talking about different interpretations of the evidence. Well, I'll stick with the interpretation that is based on what the evidence says not the ones that try to twist the evidence to fit a personal agenda.

          February 6, 2014 at 11:26 am |
    • Sungrazer

      "For me personally, I find it hard to not recognize that the universe in it's entirety was not created by an inteligent designer."

      Because you personally can't imagine that the universe and everything in it could be governed by natural laws without the need for an intelligent designer doesn't mean that an intelligent designer exists. This is the argumenet from personal incredulity, and it is fallacious. It speaks more to your lack of imagination than anything else. I, for one, am thankful scientists don't just give up when faced with a difficult problem and decide to attribute it to god.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:18 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      It takes an abandonment of faith to accept that so called "natural laws" can result in life.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:21 am |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        I should clarify that previous comment: "... without divine intervention."

        February 6, 2014 at 10:22 am |
  8. LWJR

    One Religion (Darwinism) vs another (Judao-Christianity). Microbiology and DNA make Darwinism look foolish and mythical...why? Who was the DNA programmer? It couldn't of happened randomly without cause.

    February 6, 2014 at 9:04 am |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care

      Darwinism (whatever that is) is hardly a religion.

      There was no DNA programmer because it's not a program or a code. It is molecules that follow the lawsof chemistry and physics.

      Just because you dont understand science doesn't mean that you have to be afraid of it.

      February 6, 2014 at 9:07 am |
      • Pmike

        Just because you don't understand God doesn't mean you have to be afraid of Him.

        February 6, 2014 at 9:58 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          It's not like God would destroy the entire planet and 99.9% of the creatures living on it, right?
          And He certainly wound't rain fiery destruction on town He doesn't like, or command His followers to kill everyone and everything in certain cities.
          And He certainly wouldn't do something like send a good person to eternal damnation simply because they failed to perform the necessary rituals ...

          February 6, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          If I wanted to justify destroying a town and killing everyone in it, and livestock as well, God might be the best place to turn – people have actually believed in justification by God.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:22 am |
    • Dyslexic doG


      February 6, 2014 at 9:07 am |
      • L

        Doggy, why do you disobey? Why must be be out of your cage? Bad doggy! Very bad!

        February 6, 2014 at 9:14 am |
    • igaftr

      " It couldn't of happened randomly without cause"

      First, in English it would be "should HAVE" or "should've"...there is no "should of"

      Secondly, why not. In fact it COULD happen, but not really randomly, and of course there was a cause, just we do not yet know what that cause was. Still no evidence of any "creator" though.

      February 6, 2014 at 9:10 am |
    • Saraswati

      Everyone should be required to play with Conway's Game of Life to pass highschool freshman bio. Seriously, it's embarrassing when people say things like this. A few basic rules in place, as nature provides, and matter will self-organize under many conditions. If you don't get this, you need to start your education back at the beginning.

      By the way, I have no idea whatsoever if gods exist. But the self-organization of matter says nothing on the topic.

      February 6, 2014 at 9:16 am |
    • JJ

      I sometimes long for the days before the Internet when such extreme ignorance wasn't so much on display.

      February 6, 2014 at 9:26 am |
    • Cal

      Darwinism wouldn't really be an appropriate term. He laid a decent foundation for evolution, but he didn't get everything right. And Darwin is hardly deserving of worship.

      February 6, 2014 at 9:34 am |
      • Saraswati

        I've never heard anyone but an anti-evolution creationist say "Darwinism" (except in referring to history). What I see is that many of these folks don't understand modern evolutionary biology, or don't even understand that theories have changed since Darwin, so they argue against him as though they are fighting modern scientific theory. It's a pretty good clue that they don't know the field.

        February 6, 2014 at 9:58 am |
    • ME II

      Not sure what Darwinism is, but acceptance of the theory of evolution is based on evidence not faith.

      " It couldn't of happened randomly without cause."

      Why not?

      February 6, 2014 at 10:47 am |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Post by 'LWJR' contains a common form of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.


      February 6, 2014 at 10:49 am |
  9. Cal

    I am ok with anyone using the scientific method to find problems with the current theories regarding evolution. But you have to admit that from evolution's first emergence, the first response to the idea of evolution by a creationist is "It can't be true because the Bible says so." You can't deny any science that refutes any theory, but that is a pretty flimsy foundation for an argument.

    February 6, 2014 at 9:04 am |
    • LWJR

      The bible actually advocates the scientific method....'Try the spirits, see if they be from God'.

      February 6, 2014 at 9:05 am |
      • Honey Badger Don't Care

        How is that in any way science? How can you test a spirit? What an idiotic statement.

        February 6, 2014 at 9:09 am |
  10. The Running Twit

    I would challenge a non-scientific creationist to write a book on astronomy, nuclear physics and medicine.

    I bet it would be full of nonsense as the bible is as far as explaining the world around them at the time.

    They did not have any clue of what was going on so they made stories up.

    February 6, 2014 at 8:58 am |
    • The Running Twit

      And in the same aspect, if an extinction event was to arrive now and only a handful of people survive with only one book, the lords of the ring, future generations would take that as the new bible.

      Just imagine!

      February 6, 2014 at 9:02 am |
  11. Robert Raulerson

    Edward Jenner, who developed the first effective vaccine, against smallpox, did religion far more harm than good Mr. Darwin. People care about smallpox. Science talked and religion walked. That was the beginning of the end for the Xtian worldview in Western Civ.

    February 6, 2014 at 8:36 am |
    • Saraswati

      Modern neuroscience is another nail in the coffin for at least most western Abrahamic religions. Once we see behavior as part of explainable causal chains, the type of blame required in a heaven and hell scenario no longer works. We still recognize the practicalities of putting people in jail as a deterrent and for safety, but eternal punishment and reward are ludicrous.

      February 6, 2014 at 8:41 am |
      • St. Lawrence of Arabia

        But you ignore the possibility that our own ability for causation is only secondary to God's overarching providence that controls all and weaves all into a tapestry that glorifies Him. We are creatures with a will of our own. We make things happen. Yet the causal power that we exert is only secondary. God’s sovereign providence stands over and above our actions. He works out His will through the actions of human wills, without violating the freedom of those human wills.

        February 6, 2014 at 8:58 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          that's an interesting fantasy but with zero proof of your god's existence, it remains just a fantasy.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:10 am |
        • Honey Badger Don't Care

          Nice word salad, now please say something that means something.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:11 am |
        • Saraswati

          I don't even know what that means. What "freedom" do we have? And how is whatever that is maintained by a manipulating god?

          We see perfectly law abiding loving people turn into monsters who are violent and se.x.ually aggressive after a brain injury. We see childhood trauma alter personality. The social and organic influences on behavior are increasingly understood to the point that a god condemning one to eternal pain for such behaviors is absurd.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:11 am |
        • igaftr

          Of course we don't "ignore the possibility" but since there is NO evidence that there are any gods other than in the imaginations of people, there is no sense in pursuing it just because there is a possibility...otherwise, you would have to pursue every one of an infinite number of possibilities.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:13 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          To the thinking man, fantasy exists in so-called "scientific" explanations of origins. No explanation of origins, strictly speaking, can be scientific. Science is a method of examining data, but since origins are not observable, any explanation must be based on faith.

          “The scientific method is experimental, observational, and repeatable. A scientific investigator, be he ever so resourceful and brilliant, can neither observe nor repeat origins. This means that though it is important to have a philosophy of origins, it can only be achieved by faith.”
           Henry Morris, founder of the Inst.itute for Creation Research

          February 6, 2014 at 9:14 am |
        • igaftr

          First, you get no points for quoting a creationist. They too have no answers on the origins of the universe. ALL is speculation, and science understands that. It is only the religious zealots that think anyone (other than the creationists themselves) claims to know anything. Science will theorize and speculate, since we know we do not yet know....still far better than "goddidit" which has NO basis in reality.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:21 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          You're usually pretty good at presenting your arguments – but I'll give you a hint:
          Try to avoid quoting ICR, AIG, The Discovery Insti/tute, Prof. Behe, or other such sources that specialize in double-think rationalizations instead of actual science or theology.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:21 am |
        • Saraswati


          I really don't even know where to start. Science involves multiple types of research of which experiments are only one type. Any introductory level science text has a chapter or two on this topic at the beginning.

          For some reason creationsts want to claim that they recognize nothing but experimental science, yet this is clearly not the c ase. These same people accept not only the research they themselves claim to have done archaelogically as more than "faith" but also the historical research on the bible's origins. More immediately they accept observational correlation studies regarding religion and morals, education and health. You are just selectively limiting what counts as "science" when it is convenient to you. But I really don't know if you can see this?

          February 6, 2014 at 9:23 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          The point I'm attempting to make is that the subject of origins may be speculated upon, and conclusions may be drawn up based on what is observable, but since the event itself was not observed, and cannot be repeated, then that excludes it as a strictly scientific topic.

          If any statement begins with "I believe" or contains any of the marks of the language of speculationese such as "may have," "could have," "we think," and so on, then the topic has left science, and has now been allocated to "belief." And belief by definition is not scientific.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:30 am |
        • Saraswati

          "Science is a method of examining data, but since origins are not observable, any explanation must be based on faith."

          Scince is a much broader topic than you seem to think. When you grow bacteria in a lab or conduct almost any experiment you are looking at data that implies what happened and you are making an historical theory about exactly what that was. Almost all science is observation of data that implies past events. Theories are strung around that data. Your standards virtually eliminate any science.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:31 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          "Scince is a much broader topic than you seem to think"
          Then would you mind telling me how an unprovable "scientific" idea can be presented as an indisputable fact? And before you go telling that it isn't presented in that manner, I could give you names and insti.tutions that I have attended where it was presented in such a light. And yes, I made these same arguments to those professors.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:34 am |
        • Saraswati

          What you are missing is that that is how all science works. Data points are measured. You NEVER witness the whole picture. You test a drug and people get better or die. You check a month later to see what happened. This is science. And then assumptions are used with the data to build theories. You're idea of science is a fantasy.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:34 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          "You're idea of science is a fantasy."
          The scientific method is a fantasy?

          February 6, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • Saraswati

          Give me a peer reviewed article that uses the term undisputed, proven or fact. I have no idea what professors have said to you where. However, while we can't be sure that a theory is the only one to fit the facts (observations...correctly using that term) we do know when a theory doesn't fit. I suspect that is the dispute one is more likely to have with a professor when trying to argue a particular creationist theory.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:38 am |
        • Saraswati

          No, your beliefs about how the scientific method is properly applied to science are a fantasy, in particular how theory evolves from experimentation.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:42 am |
        • No Evidence

          Larry is a funny sort of religious nut job, he spins a meaningless word salad and when asked a simple question about providing evidence for his christian god, he spews more salad and side steps the question again. Typical deluded religious nut job.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:44 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          "No, your beliefs about how the scientific method is properly applied to science are a fantasy, in particular how theory evolves from experimentation."
          Maybe... Afterall I went to school for mechanical and architectural design, not for astrophysics. BUT, it's doesn't take extreme intelligence to look at the language contained in statements to be able to tell when the topic drifts from the realm of observable reality into the realm of belief. Origins is one of those topics. And as such, doesn't belong in a science classroom.

          Science classrooms are for "This is the way things are." Not "This is the way we think things might have been."

          February 6, 2014 at 9:48 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          @No Evidence,
          I answered you before, but you never responded to me, so I thought we moved on.

          What I said numerous times, is that if you want evidence for the existence of creator God, all one needs to do is to look at the Law of Causality, and see how that applies to the Argument from Contingency to see the logical necessity of a creator God. ie, only the supernatural can explain the existence of the natural.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:51 am |
        • Doris

          So Larry, are you telling me that because we can't prove 100% the age of a tree by the same methods that keep us safe when we travel that we shouldn't teach those methods and how they may very well accurately predict – even into the past?

          February 6, 2014 at 9:53 am |
        • BRC

          St. Lawrence of Arabia,
          Alright, lets do a theoretical excersis here. A group of scientists gather all teh chemical components necessary to form protazoa and amoebas, including some amino acids that were successfully formed from raw components. The place the ingredients in a soution of the chemicals that they determine were most likely the most prevelant on Earth's surface a few billion years ago, and surround it by an an atmosphere they predict would have been most likely (more abundant nitrogen, sulfur, and carbon monoxides/dioxides than we have), and then they run this micro environment through a range of possible temperatures, and occasionally introduce electrical currents that properly simulate lightning taht could have been formed in that atmosphere and after many many trials they find the right combination, and single celled organisms form. So they repeat the process, and in the same conditions, it works again. At that point, wouldn't you say that we have used science to provide a very likely explanation for the early developement of life? How is that not a valid study of past events?

          February 6, 2014 at 9:59 am |
        • Science Works


          Just wondering you from Tennessee ?

          February 6, 2014 at 10:00 am |
        • BRC

          St. Lawrence of Arabia,
          "ie, only the supernatural can explain the existence of the natural"

          There is nothing, in this or any other universe, that can make that statement true. It is a stretch of the imagination to even believe that the supernatural (which by definition is outside of the known and knowable universe and might not even exist) could even POSSIBLY explain the existance of the natural. The fact that there are Orcs in literature will never cause them to exists out here in reality. But it is absurd to say that only something that may not exist at all could be the reason for existence. That idea fails from the beginning. It is a possibility, it is not the only possibility.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          Science Works,
          Nope, I'm from here...


          February 6, 2014 at 10:08 am |
        • Charm Qyark

          Saint LofA
          Would you agree that chemosynthetic bacteria have been produced and are still being produced? Do you have an opinion as to how this is possible?

          February 6, 2014 at 10:08 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          What, you mean the ones that live around hydrothermal vents? Are we back to this again? If I remember correctly, it wasn't even me that explained to you that it has never been observed that these have been produced by just a combination of chemicals...

          February 6, 2014 at 10:13 am |
        • Charm Quark

          Saint LofA
          Yes and no. Yes about the hydrothermal vents but also in laboratories. Simply google chemosynthesis for more information if you are curious about the world outside of the bible.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • igaftr

          "only the supernatural can explain the existence of the natural."

          False, flat out lie once again.

          Apply the "law of causality" to your god. The cause of your god is men made him up, otherwise, by your own "law" he cannot exist.

          You try to claim we do not know about the origins of the universe, yet you try to apply your flawed logic to claim a creator. Disingenuous as always.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • The Running Twit

          You have to know where you are from to know where you are going. It is a fundamental question to humans, that have not been observed yet in other species, the concept of time.

          Science encompass everything in nature. Our ability to analyses and test empower us to make predictions for a particular thing. Just as Bill Nye said about the big bang, I don't know what happened. That is a basis for research.

          If we find out that a particular star or maybe a black hole exploded and matter expanded to create the current universe, it will be, not tested in laboratories, but programmed in computers, and in the very distant future, it could be observed again. This his just an idea.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • Science Works

          Well Larry I will give you that – are you at the otter limits of space ?

          Tokyo Insti-tute of Technology. "Organic chemical origins in hydrothermal systems." ScienceDaily. 22 January 2014.


          February 6, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • No Evidence

          "only the supernatural can explain the existence of the natural."

          Pure comedy...

          February 6, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
    • WASP

      @robert: i would agree that jenner has his spot in history of science; however i would say Louis Pasteur experiement disproving "spontanous generation of life" to be far more damaging to the religious belief at that point in time.
      science has always shattered religious doctrine from galieo to hubble and beyond. science moves forward to explain what, where, why and how, (notice no who is involved) and religion just keeps shaking the same old "beware the boogieman" stick at people.

      February 6, 2014 at 10:19 am |
  12. guest

    As a Christian, I think there are too many “creationist’ views, mine included to argue the creationist’s view versus the evolutionist’s view, but I’m sure there are differences in opinion among evolutionists also; so I do not know how either theroy can be legitimately taught in public schools.
    I am sure there would be many creationists that would disagree with me when I believe that this planet, we call earth, was here for millennia before God created life on it just as was all the starry host has been here for many millennia. There are no Biblical arguments saying otherwise. So, when scientists say rocks, or other earthly materials, are so many millions of years old I have no argument with them. But when the same say that because fossils are so many years old just because the ‘environment’ they were found in was so many millions of years old, then I have other questions.
    In short: I don’t believe in the “young earth” theory; I believe this planet to be very old, it is the life here that is relatively new or young if you please—6,000 to 10,000 years or a few more young, but not millennia. I also believe there are many other planets that are inhabited and have been inhabited longer than earth. I didn’t hear all the debate, but, unfortunately, I’m sure I could not have agreed on every point of Ken Ham’s arguments.

    February 6, 2014 at 8:31 am |
    • JJ

      Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution – ignorance is.

      February 6, 2014 at 8:40 am |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Young earth creationism is willful ignorance.

        There is no distinction.

        February 6, 2014 at 10:31 am |
    • The Running Twit

      When scientists find fossils with layers and layers over them which are very old and made of sedimentary rock, would you think that those fossils would be younger than the rock?

      February 6, 2014 at 8:43 am |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Next morning, when we got a phone call from officer Obie. He said, "Kid
        We found your name on an envelope at the bottom of a half a ton of
        Garbage, and just wanted to know if you had any information about it." And
        I said, "Yes, sir, Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie, I put that envelope
        Under that garbage."

        Alice's Restaurant"

        February 6, 2014 at 8:50 am |
        • No Evidence


          February 6, 2014 at 9:46 am |
  13. Robert Raulerson

    Medical Science is Religion's true enemy. Most people don't care about evolution one way or the other. They should have a cardiac surgeon debate a faith healer. How many people will consult a faith healer when they have chest pains?

    February 6, 2014 at 8:14 am |
  14. Robert Raulerson

    Nobody wins a debate. That's because the loser never admits defeat. Not much point in having one, is there?

    February 6, 2014 at 8:09 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      People who reason successfully reason from facts. Ham had an impossible position from the start.

      February 6, 2014 at 8:19 am |
    • Saraswati

      Thought's change slowly, but they change. A debate gets ideas out into the public arena. For people who either have not considered those thoughts, or haven't taken them up on first consideration, a debate is just another way to continue the discussion. Few change their minds on the spot, but that very often comes months or years down the road.

      February 6, 2014 at 8:44 am |
      • No Evidence

        Yes indeed. Maybe a few people who watched the debate started to think more rationally..... "maybe god is just an invention of man" we can only hope.

        February 6, 2014 at 9:47 am |
  15. Science Works

    Who won the Bill Nye – Ken Ham Debate? Bill Nye


    February 6, 2014 at 7:21 am |
    • truthprevails1

      Nye most definitely won.

      "A recent Pew Research survey finds that most Americans (60%) say that “humans and other living things have evolved over time.” But a third of U.S. adults (33%) reject that point of view, instead saying that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

      I'd like to hope this is a positive sign but there's a long way to go yet.

      February 6, 2014 at 7:57 am |
      • Science Works

        Yeah and there are states like this .

        Take action on Tennessee's Monkey Bill


        February 6, 2014 at 8:02 am |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          I don't welcome this kind of polarization, but people often identify themselves by where they live. Tennesseans now have to live with being the sort of people who deliberately put blinders on to avoid inconvenient facts. They have aligned themselves with the most ignorant and most intellectually dishonest people in America. And they may think God blesses Tennessee.

          February 6, 2014 at 8:14 am |
        • Science Works

          And the ghost deal ?

          Americans' Belief in God, Miracles and Heaven Declines

          These are some of the results of The Harris Poll® of 2,250 adults surveyed online between November 13 and 18, 2013 by Harris Interactive.

          The survey also finds that 42% of Americans believe in ghosts, 36% each believe in creationism and UFOs, 29% believe in astrology, 26% believe in witches and 24% believe in reincarnation – that they were once another person.

          February 6, 2014 at 8:30 am |
        • Science Works


          February 6, 2014 at 8:31 am |
      • Science Works

        truthprevails1 and then we have insti-tutes like this in the US Now run by the son John D Morris !

        Groups such as BioLogos and a growing list of Christian schools and universities have bought into the terrible lie that plants are just as much alive as humanity—that we “kill” plants before we eat them. While that idea may seem innocuous (after all, we do kill animals before we eat them), the implications and applications are enormous!
        —Henry Morris III[1]

        The Insti-tute for Creation Research (ICR) is a young-Earth creationist faux-research organization that produces voluminous quote mines and logical fallacies in pursuit of debunking evolution and an old earth. They are essentially a bunch of cranks who want to undermine science education and eventually turn the United States into a young-Earth creationist, dominionist society. The Insti-tute was founded by Henry Morris in 1972 and has since gone on to become one of the centers of the anti-evolution movement and quite possibly the general anti-science movement in the US.

        February 6, 2014 at 8:56 am |
        • Science Works


          take dash out of ti-t in url for it to work.

          February 6, 2014 at 8:58 am |
        • truthprevails1

          That's frightening. I'd seriously like to know how in a Secular country stuff like this is gotten away with. I understand freedom of and from religion but in no way should religion be taught as fact in the education system.

          February 6, 2014 at 9:18 am |
        • Science Works


          Yeah and L O A is quoting Old Henry !

          February 6, 2014 at 9:37 am |
  16. Big Bumba theory

    You're all wrong Bumba puked the whole world into being. Prove me wrong. Even those who take DMT have visions of celestial stick figures puking reality into existence.

    February 6, 2014 at 6:39 am |
  17. Don't kill kindness

    Let me explain this another way. In the past mankind has created a hierarchy based on wealth. Due to economic changes that may one day be part of the past.
    When and if it goes I do not want to see a new hierarchy formed based on intellect alone, because it does not bode well for people who have organic brain disorders such as schizophrenia or even people who have mild forms of dyslexia.

    Besides that humanities desire to one up itself is leading to consistently petty things like reality TV and grammar gestapo trolls.

    February 6, 2014 at 3:41 am |
    • Saraswati

      This is a tough one, as I'm not sure if humans are able to function without hierarchy. I do think we have managed to have some societies with more or less heirarchy, but in general people value themselves in relative comparison to others. But usually there are a few ehirarchies going at a time, with people valuing wealth, intllect, spirituality, musical talent, social skills etc. more as they feel they are better at one (or they pick the wrong system and become clinically depressed).

      The grammar police bit is weird, though. Virtually no one with significant education in linguistics cares about piddly little grammar issues in a single language, so it's sort of a fight of the semi-educated who are either compulsive or feel the need to prove themselves.

      Perhaps more education on language would solve this weird snobbery, but Imdon't think this is either what you are looking for or the ideal solution. My guess is that better education in psychology and sociology, regarding the origins of value systwms might help people better see that their chosen systems are socially constructed and therefore become more flexible. There's some evidence to support that. In a competi.tive global market where more task oriented education is key, however, I suspect such knowledge will not be pushed to the front of the line in what we value.

      February 6, 2014 at 5:59 am |
      • G to the T

        A better posting and editing system on around here wouldn't hurt either...

        February 7, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
  18. Come sail away

    Wouldn't it be interesting if aliens landed and explained that Ham and Bill Nye were both absolutely wrong?

    February 6, 2014 at 3:24 am |
  19. Don't kill kidness

    I would rather spend time with someone who thinks the moon is made out of cheese than spend time around someone
    who would rip me to shreds over a typo.

    It is entirely possible to be brilliant, and still be miserable company.

    Keep that in mind as you post.

    A fellow evolutionist

    February 6, 2014 at 1:59 am |
    • Don't kill kidness


      2 am.
      If you insist on jumping on that typo there is plenty of space below.

      February 6, 2014 at 2:01 am |
    • Christian Crusader

      OMG! I don't know if you knew this but you totally misspelled kittens.

      February 6, 2014 at 3:14 am |
      • Don't kill kindness

        For the love of humanity, I explained my typo in the space below. This is exactly what I'm so tired of.

        February 6, 2014 at 3:34 am |
    • King of Darkness

      Since when does an evolution supporter refer to himself as an evolutionist?


      February 6, 2014 at 3:16 am |
      • Don't kill kindness

        Miss the point much? I'm not a creationist if that's what you mean but if you had it your way you'd have me dunked to see if I float I must there fore be one. Sound familiar?

        It can't possibly be that I'm awake at weird hours like I stated before.

        February 6, 2014 at 3:30 am |
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.