home
RSS
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. Doc Vestibule

    When I was a 10 year old kid programming in BASIC on a Commodore 64, I constantly used

    IF THEN statements.
    This is the scientific mindset – if A is true, then B must follow. Scientists then

    meticulously lay out every step of their logic in getting from A to B so that other

    scientists can replicate the process and either verify the IF THEN statements

    validity, or prove it wrong and send the hypothesizer back to the drawing board.

    For example:
    If 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples, 1 million apples plus 1 millions apples must

    equal 2 million apples.
    It is not necessary to have a room full of millions of apples and count each one – all

    that is needed is to follow the chain of logic. 1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 and so on.

    The scientific method allows us to make predictions based on this IF THEN logic.
    IF life evolved in a graduating scale of complexity, THEN we should find fossils

    arranged in geological strata in a linear way (Ie: the deeper the strata, the simpler

    the life forms). This prediction turned out to be true.

    Just like in those childhood programs I wrote, IF the logic applied is sound, THEN the

    program will run continuously and without error. If the chain of logic is faulty, the

    program will fail.

    The Young Earth program spits out a SYNTAX ERROR at numerous stages.
    IF there was a global flood, THEN there would've been no fresh water 4,000 years ago.
    Terrestrial life existed, therefore there was fresh water. Program fails. Start again

    and re-evaluate your chain of logic.

    Unfortunately, the standard fundamentalist chain of logic, translated into BASIC 2.0,

    is:
    10 PRINT "THE BIBLE IS TRUE BECAUSE..."
    20 GOTO 10

    February 5, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
    • Damocles

      Mmmm I remember those days.

      Thought life couldn't get any better and then bam, Commodore 128. Whaaat!?

      February 5, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        What could anyone possibly do wiht a computer that would take up 128K ?!?

        February 5, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
    • Rainer Braendlein

      I guess you know that there are a lot of historical docu-ments beside the Bible which confirm the truth of Christianity. Even enemies of Christ or the Church mentioned Christ and his Church in their historical doc-uments and rage against them.

      What they wrote they did not write in order to support the Church, and that makes their writings very valueable for us today.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
      • Treelady

        Really? Such as....?

        February 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
      • ME II

        @Rainer Braendlein,
        "Even enemies of Christ or the Church mentioned Christ and his Church in their historical doc-uments and rage against them."

        There are plenty of docu.ments that mention the Church and Christianity, but few that speak of Jesus Christ directly and those only as hearsay.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
  2. georgex9

    For those who were around at the original time of Cosmos this was a ground breaking presentation for television which emphasized the naturalness of the universe. I am looking forward to this and I am sure that many of the posters here will want to tune in. On a Bill Moyers show (PBS)he mentioned that there will be an updated "Cosmos" program on the National Geographic channel in March. This is from the BM site:
    "Starting in March, Tyson will host a new, updated version of the hit PBS television series Cosmos, which made the late Carl Sagan a household name. This time the new series, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, comes courtesy of the National Geographic Channel and Fox TV."

    February 5, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
    • Whitney

      For those of us who understand science, this was not in fact ground-breaking news at all. For those of you for whom it was ground-breaking, perhaps you might want to tune into Cosmos. But be careful: you might learn something. And as we all know, stubborn ignorance is the last bastion of the delusional.

      By the way, did you know gravity is just a theory? How about I come drop a cinder block on your foot to test that theory? After all, science can't know anything, right???

      February 5, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
      • ME II

        @Whitney,
        I think he is saying that the show was ground-breaking for its time, not that the information was ground-breaking science.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
      • georgex9

        I am looking forward to this new "cosmos" and hope that many will tune into it and especially if there are children in the home. I wanted to give it a bit of publicity since its on the NGEO channel that many don't regularly use.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
  3. georgex9

    One should not expect religious writings of a pre-scientific age to be accurate about the physical world. And, indeed, the Bible is incorrect in so many areas. Centuries later and during the Dark Ages religion was used to discourage open scientific advancements with dire punishments. Science has since clarified many ideas and errors in the Bible. Unfortunately, some still wish to cling to Bible teachings that have clearly been shown to be wrong, ie. creation in six days.

    February 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
    • Dionysus

      For me there is no inherent conflict between scientific findings and the understanding of God as creator, redeemer and sanctifier. Each scientific discovery increases our understanding of God and His creation.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
      • georgex9

        Science tells us how the process worked and works.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
  4. dan klein

    In your graphic at the end of the video regarding the debate, it would be helpful to spell creationism correctly.

    February 5, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
  5. LinCA

    I am in favor of "teaching the controversy" in public schools. I think it would be very beneficial for all children to learn about the issues regarding evolution and creationism. I think it would greatly help our nation if its future generations were better informed.

    The controversy, of course, is that in a developed nation like the US more than 40% of adults still believe in fairy tales, and that criticizing those nonsensical beliefs is frowned upon. It may be time to use the public schools to dispel some of those delusions. Let's teach kids that primitive people still cling to ancient folklore, but that those beliefs are no more reasonable than believing the Easter Bunny lays colored eggs.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
    • Gentle reason

      That's the last thing they want. Too many children would look them dead in the eye and ask if they were out of their minds once they mentioned Noah's Ark.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
      • LinCA

        Of course, they only want their nonsense taught on their terms.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
    • Jake

      And which religious story would you teach them? Hindu I assume?

      February 5, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
      • LinCA

        @Jake

        You said, "And which religious story would you teach them? Hindu I assume?"
        Hinduism deserves a mention, just like a number of other religions. I envision this to be an ongoing part of the curriculum. I expect it to need repeating until it sinks in. indoctrination can be hard to reverse.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • Saraswati

          I think the best you'll get is a term in middle school and a high school socialmstudies elective. Better than nothing.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
    • fred

      In the United States more than 70% believe in a purpose onto God and only 1.6% (atheist) believe in accidental intelligent life that formed out of inorganic matter. Your fantasy is without hope and a life that ends just like the rock it evolved out from. Strange darkness surrounds those whose life is without purpose.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
      • Observer

        fred,

        Yep. Keep telling us what a miserable world that God created here on earth. At least you will have to give him credit for it.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • fred

          Observer
          Check close and note that "all things work to the good of those in Christ".
          We live in the same physical world and regardless of your belief or nonbelief an attitude where existence has purpose greater than ourselves trumps any other attitude

          February 5, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
      • LinCA

        @fred

        You said, "In the United States more than 70% believe in a purpose onto God"
        You aren't really trotting out the ad populum fallacy, are you? Just because most people believed the earth to be flat doesn't mean it was. Beliefs in gods, and the religious nonsense built on those beliefs, spreads like an infectious disease. You get it from your parents and you give it to your children. Indoctrination is what keeps believers ignorantly believing in their imaginary friend.

        You said, "Your fantasy is without hope and a life that ends just like the rock it evolved out from."
        There is no evidence to suggest anything else. Your delusion is nothing but wishful thinking, based on an infantile belief in a creature no more likely to be real than the monsters under your bed.

        You said, "Strange darkness surrounds those whose life is without purpose."
        Only in the twisted minds of slaves to their delusions.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • fred

          LinCA
          You suggested 40% believe in the Easter Bunny I was setting the number straight.
          It does not matter if God is real or imagined when it comes to hope and inspiration. There is a reason Stalin needed to kill off religion and Hitler twisted it to his cause. On the darkest longest night it is proven that those with hope have a greater survival rate. Armies of past always raised their gods banner. They did it because it worked and often because they believed.

          Lack of evidence is not the cause for lack of hope. Evidence my be valid in establishing scientific theory but a belief comes from who you are. The thought that this organic blob is nothing more than chemical reactions omits that which makes us human. What is the purpose of seeking God or discrediting God (in your case) that is so important that mankind has done so since first recorded history.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • LinCA

          @fred

          You said, "You suggested 40% believe in the Easter Bunny I was setting the number straight."
          No, just over 40% are young earth creationists, based on their infantile beliefs in the Easter Bunny, or some other fictional character.

          You said, "It does not matter if God is real or imagined when it comes to hope and inspiration."
          It does if that nonsense is perpetuated in public schools.

          You said, "There is a reason Stalin needed to kill off religion and Hitler twisted it to his cause."
          The reason is pretty simple. Religious delusion is pretty strong and impeded their desire to do their own indoctrination.

          You said, "Armies of past always raised their gods banner. They did it because it worked and often because they believed."
          Delusion, especially when shared with others is a strong motivator.

          Steven Weinberg said it best: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

          You said, "Lack of evidence is not the cause for lack of hope."
          But if you wish to hope for something, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to hope for some god that doesn't require any special sacrifices? That would take just as much evidence, and wouldn't have all the nasty side effects.

          You said, "What is the purpose of seeking God or discrediting God (in your case) that is so important that mankind has done so since first recorded history."
          Dispelling ridiculous notions of fictional characters is important for society to get past the nastiness done in their names. If you need some examples of what makes religion so toxic, you need to look no further than 9/11, WBC, the discrimination of gays, the subjugation of women, the opposition to science.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
        • fred

          LinCA

          You said, "It does not matter if God is real or imagined when it comes to hope and inspiration."
          It does if that nonsense is perpetuated in public schools.
          =>now you are speculating that a godless world will produce Christ like character. You have no clue as to what a godless world would look like as the world has never known such a way of life with the exception of localized pockets.

          Steven Weinberg said it best: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
          =>again we have never been without god or God real or imagined. Nonsense speculation and risky environment to subject you child into

          "But if you wish to hope for something, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to hope for some god that doesn't require any special sacrifices?"
          =>the greater the personal sacrifice the greater the love required towards the object of sacrifice and the greater the bond of unity

          "Dispelling ridiculous notions of fictional characters is important for society to get past the nastiness done in their names."
          =>don't forget our great institutions that care for others and educate others were thanks to belief in something greater than self.

          "9/11, WBC, the discrimination of gays, the subjugation of women, the opposition to science."
          =>all of these perversions of the truth went against the Word of God.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:45 pm |
        • Observer

          fred,

          "the subjugation of women" "went against the Word of God". Nonsense.

          The Bible discriminates against women all the time. They can't speak in church, but have to ask their (smarter) husband at home. They can't sell their daughter in slavery like FATHERS can. When injured, the monetary payment usually went to the husband or father, not the injured woman.

          The stupidity of all that can be shown by the fact that the person with the highest IQ in the world is a woman. Oooops!

          Please read a Bible.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
        • LinCA

          @fred

          You said, "now you are speculating that a godless world will produce Christ like character."
          I did no such thing, but getting rid of silly superstitions can't hurt.

          You said, "again we have never been without god or God real or imagined."
          We've always been a world without real gods, just never without imagined ones. The world with these fictional creatures has been little but abject failure. It's past time we try something new.

          You said, "the greater the personal sacrifice the greater the love required towards the object of sacrifice and the greater the bond of unity"
          I think that's the Stockholm syndrome that you're talking about.

          You said, "don't forget our great institutions that care for others and educate others were thanks to belief in something greater than self."
          That implies that religious people are somehow more caring or generous than others. That is pretty insulting. I, and a lot of others, don't need superstitious nonsense to help others, volunteer and donate.

          All the good that is done for religious reasons doesn't negate the bad, nor is religion a requirement for it. Any "good" that is done that does require religion, isn't good. If the "charitable" works include proselytizing it ceases to be charitable.

          You said, "all of these perversions of the truth went against the Word of God."
          Maybe according to your interpretation, but even if that is true, you clearly don't represent every believer. Not even a majority of them.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:05 pm |
        • fred

          Observer
          Again you confuse the Word of God with some translation of the Bible you have read. Based on your consistent posts expressing your underlying hate for God and the Bible it is clear you have never heard the Word of God. Jesus made it all real simple by summarizing the Law of the Prophets into "Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself". Your strange quotes from the Bible imply the opposite of this governing commandment for all believers.
          If what you say cannot in anyway or does not fit into this command you are not hearing the Word of God.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
        • Observer

          fred

          "Again you confuse the Word of God with some translation of the Bible you have read."

          So you don't believe the Bibles that were "the inspired word of God".

          Are there ANY COMPLETELY TRUE Bibles?

          February 5, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
        • fred

          Observer
          From the very beginning we took the original scroll format of Genesis and packaged it into verses and chapters for easy reading. The flood story was like the movie Titanic captivating the audience in presentation and they left the reading with tears in their eyes and the hope of being rescued from this wicked harsh world in their hearts. Their love of God overflowed in his care for the chosen ones of their tribe.
          What translation of the flood story do you read? See, you need the Holy Spirit as translator otherwise you are on your own with your personal issues and bias. The Word of God is spoken to your heart when you read any translation of the Bible with the Holy Spirit present. The Word of God is stored in your heart then your mind is transformed.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:08 pm |
        • Observer

          fred,

          Are there ANY COMPLETELY TRUE Bibles?

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

          LinCA
          "That implies that religious people are somehow more caring or generous than others. That is pretty insulting."
          =>read it again, I did no such thing unless you assumed all non believers are selfish. In short all I said was purpose was either onto God or onto self. If there is no God then this is it and what you do you do for mankind and that is us. It is a selfish cause for mankind.

          " I, and a lot of others, don't need superstitious nonsense to help others, volunteer and donate."
          =>good for you as Jesus said we should have been doing these things anyway simply because it is the right thing to do.

          "Any "good" that is done that does require religion, isn't good."
          =>no doubt about that as the motive is wrong.

          " If the "charitable" works include proselytizing it ceases to be charitable."
          =>No, I personally find a hope outside of the broken person to be the beginning of transformation. If the people I deal with could have done it themselves they would have. If a transformation comes about through an atheist I have never seen it. Not that it does not happen but because those who come to me can sense I believe Jesus is the hope.

          "you clearly don't represent every believer. Not even a majority of them."
          =>not even Moses or Jesus did that..................

          February 5, 2014 at 9:13 pm |
        • fred

          Observer
          The truth can be found in the Bible only with the help of God (Holy Spirit is the agent). Outside of that you will only see what you can in the eyes of this world. The flood story is not possible in the eyes of the world. That being said the flood story would not be true to you and accordingly the bible cannot be true to you nor can any other translation be found true in your heart.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:20 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          The Holy Spirit puts you on a different reality where the Flood did happen, fred?

          February 5, 2014 at 9:23 pm |
        • fred

          Tom, Tom, the Other One
          "The Holy Spirit puts you on a different reality where the Flood did happen, fred?"
          =>No
          =>The oral tradition as it was told to the then present audience presented a flood story that brought the reality of a flood combined with the emotional connection of a personal attentive God into sharp perspective. It cemented a relationship of worshipful love and awe of God in the Hebrew. By the time of Jesus that worshipful love had degenerated into tradition of works, ceremony and festivals all surrounded by man made laws of the high priests.
          =>Today except for a few even the traditions are empty and the flood story based upon scientific consensus requires known laws to be set aside for events to have transpired as written.
          =>miracles will not convince a heart set against God as only God through the Holy Spirit can do that.
          =>There is no necessity for the flood story to be anything more than a massive collection of spiritual truths that explain relationship between God and man, good and evil, life and death all in accordance with the plan of creation for the salvation of souls. In general I can also make it work with known science up to about 700Ma. however, that would put me in a position of forcing the things of God into a box constructed by man which is not biblical. It is like the way we have backed away from Adam and Eve being as stated to Adam and Eve being representative of mankind.

          February 5, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
      • Fallacy spotter

        Appeal to popularity fallacy.

        In the old days 90+% of the Greeks believed that lightning and thunder were created by Zeus when he was angry. And that's way higher than 70% so it must be true, right?

        You also attempted to define what all atheists believe based on one thing they do not believe in. How silly. Have you ever heard of Buddhism? It is an atheistic system that does indeed believe in purpose. It's just not hand crafted by god purpose.

        Plus your stats are a lie. Non-religious people make up 16% of Americans.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • fred

          Atheism @ 1.6% was a subcategory of non religious Pew study 2007
          Other than that you are spot on thanks.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
        • Fallacy spotter

          Sorry, Freddie. It still does not disqualify your fallacious argument.

          "1.6% (atheist) believe in accidental intelligent life that formed out of inorganic matter."

          Unfortunately if you are strictly saying atheist, then you need to include Buddhism, agnosticism, Taoism and plenty of others in the number, because they are technically atheists because they do not believe in god / gods.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
        • fred

          Fallacy spotter
          The Pew report listed atheists as 1.6% of the population and categorized them under non religious (16%). If atheists believe existence is the result of an intentional action with purpose for creation they have never mentioned it. I did not address the other beliefs such as Buddhism because I did not wish to begin comparing the purpose of existence relative to Karma verses a resurrected soul or the three gems of Buddhism over the Christian Trinity.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Fred that 2007 data is long in the tooth. Pew's 2012 data is 2.3% for those self-identifying as atheist. It is 5.7% counting those who self-identify as agnostic.

          PRRI gives 6.7% for atheist/agnostic.

          ……………………......…………Pew-07 … Pew-12 … PRRI-12
          Evangelical Protestant ………. 26.3% ...… 19% ..… 19.9%
          Mainline Protestant ………...… 18.1% ...… 15% …. 14.9%
          Historically black Protestant …. 6.9% …...... 8% ….... 8%
          Catholic ………………….….… 23.9% ….... 22% …. 22%
          Mormon ……………………...… 1.7% …...... 2% ....… n/a
          Jewish ………………………….. 1.7% …………….... 1.7%
          Muslim ………………………………………………..… 0.6%
          None ………………………………………………..…..17.8%
          Atheist ………………………..… 1.6% …..... 2.3% .… 6.7% (with Agnostic)
          Agnostic …………………….….. 2.4% ....… 3.4% ….. n/a
          Other secular unaffiliated* …… 6.3% ....… 2.7% …. 7.3%
          Spiritual but not religious ………. n/a ….... 7.4% ….. n/a
          Religious unaffiliated ………….. 5.8% ….. 3.6% …. 4.3%

          * Not atheist/agnostic, but not spiritual or religious.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:33 pm |
        • Barcs

          I'm not sure I trust the Pew numbers. It's not as accurate as the census numbers, only a select amount of people are polled. The problem with Fred's statement is that there is a difference between not believing in god, and labeling YOURSELF as an atheist. If I label myself an agnostic, a Buddhist or a Taoist, it doesn't go on the survey as atheist, even though technically it is. So your numbers were not only outdated, they were deflated.

          February 5, 2014 at 10:37 pm |
      • Saraswati

        "Strange darkness surrounds those whose life is without purpose."

        a) what evidence do you have that non-believers lack purpose? My purpose is to maximize happiness of all conscious ent.ties and I am deeply committed to this.
        b) what evidence do you have of this "strange darkness" of which you speak around those without purpose? Are you claiming to see auras?

        February 5, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • fred

          Saraswati
          If we are simply the product of matter changing form over time there can be no purpose for existence, only existence itself. Any thoughts you have concerning the great things you do are tied to that existence. Non existence then takes with it your thoughts and actions for no purpose whatsoever.

          If there is no God then even though your thoughts and actions are Christ like they are without purpose. Belief or non belief in God matters not as to purpose if there is no purpose for existence.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
      • ME II

        @fred,
        According to Gallup, around 15% think "Humans evolved, but God had no part in the process". Another 32% think humans evolved, but with God's guidence.
        (http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx)

        February 5, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
        • fred

          I don't know how Gallop asked the question. Even the Pope gives a green light to evolution so I am surprised the numbers are not higher than you present.
          We do need to separate scientific fact from extrapolations that suggest no god since science has never arrived at such a consensus.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
        • ME II

          @fred,
          "In the United States more than 70% believe in a purpose onto God and only 1.6% (atheist) believe in accidental intelligent life that formed out of inorganic matter. "

          What's your source for this bit of ad populum misinformation?

          February 5, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
        • fred

          MEII
          Old Pew research 2007 religion in America, I was lazy. Googled religion in America and it was the first one to come up.
          http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

          February 5, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
      • sam stone

        why do you feel that atheists life is without purpose, freddie?

        is the only purpose of your life is the hope in the next life?

        if so, what is keeping you here?

        don't let time waste

        February 5, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
        • fred

          sam stone
          "why do you feel that atheists life is without purpose, freddie?"
          =>It is not necessarily atheists unless they turn out to be correct. It goes back to the gold fish in a bowl on your desk. If we are simply organic accidents existence is without purpose only life akin to a gold fish. The gold fish in his world carrying on with what gold fish do and we in our universe carrying on with what humans do. Both die and get recycled.

          "is the only purpose of your life is the hope in the next life?"
          =>no, I am like you just doing what I do but with one added dimension. A hope in a promise. If the purpose of creation is the redemption of souls it will be more than worth living for.

          "if so, what is keeping you here?"
          =>apologetics would have us believe it is because we are adding to the blessings of God here and eternally for all that are willing.

          don't let time waste

          February 5, 2014 at 8:20 pm |
        • sam stone

          i am an atheist, and my life has plenty of purpose

          namely, treasuring it and enjoying it because i believe it is the one shot we have

          another bike ride, another skydive, another cross country skiiing expedition through the woods

          loving my family, loving my girlfriend, loving my friends

          smelling the flowers, feeling the warmth of the sun, enjoying the aroma of fresh cut grass or sauteeing onions

          i do not need a promise

          i have a life

          February 6, 2014 at 3:19 am |
        • fred

          sam stone
          That is wonderful!
          You however are not a dolphin frolicking in the ocean and living a full life filled with back flips on a good day. Absent purpose or intent for creation the purpose for your species is the same as that of dolphin, do you agree? If yes that is contrary to what is self evident to you. If no, then you assume yours is a higher or greater purpose as a lessor purpose would be contrary to what is observable. A greater purpose than self by extension as organic matter responding to chemical stimuli as with the dolphin.
          Lack of purpose outside of self is contrary to what you claim to be true therefore atheism is a contradiction

          February 6, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
  6. Marty(Near Death Experience) Guy

    Ask someone like me who had NDE (Near Death Experience) or better yet ones that had it and were totally monitored brain and heart and seen on the monitor their were dead , but they could see exact things what was happening to them on the operating table , what doctors said what tools were handled from one person to other. God is MORE REAL THAN THIS 4th fast fleeing, temporal limited dimension, better be right with Him or there's eternity to pay !

    February 5, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Which afterlife were you on your way to?
      Perhaps we should strive to die gloriously in battle, bathed in blood of vanquished foes so we can get to Valhalla.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
    • Colin

      That's OK, maybe next time you'll get it right.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
    • ME II

      People have dreamt of lifetimes in mere seconds of REM sleep. The brain can do some amazing things.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
    • Snow

      Maybe.. Maybe what you saw in your NDE is god.. but I highly doubt that god is the same one described in the bible though

      February 5, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
    • Whitney

      Congrats on having survived, and that's awesome you got to experience something that few of us ever will. However having an experience that cannot be explained by modern science is not evidence for God. Humanity used to not be able to explain lightning or bird migrations or water spouts or earthquakes or jaundice or epilepsy or synesthesia or gout, either. Yet all have since been explained, and none are evidence for God. Or are you saying that as of this moment we have reached the ultimate pinnacle of human understanding, and that science will hereby cease and desist and no further learning about the universe can possibly ever take place because we know all there possibly is to know? Hmmmmmmm????? Yeah right. Give me 5 minutes and I'll find you something we didn't know yesterday.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
    • Madtown

      better be right with Him or there's eternity to pay !
      ----
      How does one get right with him?

      February 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      go peddle your lies somewhere else.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
    • Damocles

      Awesome! So all you need to experience a deity is temporary brain death. Sounds fantastic.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
    • sandralogan0430

      it was a chemical reaction my friend.. nothing more

      February 5, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
    • Barcs

      So you were able to monitor your brain and know that the hallucinations were exactly at the time of death? Interesting. Either way, it doesn't prove god that your brain hallucinates when near death. I mean, that's kind of common sense.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
    • G to the T

      Either you died or you didn't (and that can take some time in some instances). It's called a "near" death experience for a reason.

      February 5, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
  7. Alan

    That such debate can take place and draw nearly a thousand people is a sad commentary on scientific literacy in the U.S. Has the Home of the Brave become the Land of the Stupid?

    February 5, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      yes.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Most of the observers appear to be people who believe in evolution and an old earth and watched for entertainment.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
    • Barcs

      America is still recovering from religion. Slowly but surely fundamentalists are disappearing.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
  8. Tony

    The fact that a once reputable and hard hitting news organisation like CNN now gives fruit loops like Ham serious credence only flags the colossal decay of the USA media in reporting science. No wonder the country is descending into international laughing stock and jobs created through scientific innovation are steadily shifting offshore when even those charged with educating your children act as if creationism has any validity in the science classroom.

    Good luck with the 21st century USA. Try hard not to act too surprised when your economy gets overtaken by those that look ahead, not 2000 years behind.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
    • Skyler

      Like. No, love.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
    • Barcs

      It's all about the sales. Controversy sells more than facts. If CNN streamed a REAL evolution debate between 2 scientists about a certain fossil and its classification, nobody would tune in because they wouldn't understand half the things they are referring to. Ham made quite a bit of money selling tickets to the debate, plus DVDs afterwards. I mean he even sold the "Digital download + DVD copy" bundle as if it was a great deal. "Here, folks! By it twice for this cheap rate so you can watch it right now, AND a week from now when the DVD arrives". Too hilarious. I'm sure CNN's getting a cut of the sales as well.

      February 5, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
      • Tony

        Yeah, look at discovery channel. Once about scientific discovery, now about alien conspiracy theories and who can chop a motorcycle. There's advancement of American society for you.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
  9. mpoidvin

    Basically it comes down to this. Creationists are saying that the physical laws of the universe did not apply a few thousand years ago and that this is some sort of test of faith. They simply lacks the stones to say it flat out, and prefer to instill doubt in the uneducated. Doubt is better than a statement you can nail them on because everyone can have their own doubt so you don't have to explain anything.

    I honestly think Mr. Hamm is a concious fraud, and laughs at these people, his fraudulent arguments are too polished to be of ignorance. They are the work of a flim flam artist

    Then Mr MRI has the nerve to say he invented the MRI but does not believe the earth is more than 6000 years old. He stands on the shoulders of giants to invent ( not discover, big diff) what is essentially a doo dad that depends on radioactive decay rates, particle physics etc... and kick these giants in the head. A pompous old fool if ever there was one.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
  10. Donna

    Searched specifically for an after debate article from you, Tom. That was a nice recap of your evening, but what did you learn?

    February 5, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
    • Whitney

      I was wondering the same thing.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
    • Gentle reason

      Religion and Science don't mix. Religion forces you take things on faith. Science makes you question your own hypothesis.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
      • KP

        It takes more faith to believe the nonsense that something exploded into everything that we see today, or that a cell or an animal one day decides that it wants to be something different so it "evolves".

        February 5, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • Gentle reason

          No, it takes more intelligence to say "we don't know, but we can keep looking" than just say "god did it. don't need to think of another answer."

          February 5, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
      • Whitney

        It makes me sad that so many people conflate facts with fairy tales, and try to insist that just because they believe something, it therefore must be true. Sorry folks, it doesn't work that way.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • Gentle reason

          This is how cults like religions get started.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
    • Jahtez

      Why do you think moderators are there to learn anything? I'm not sure that falls within their function.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
  11. boger

    They may as well be TAKING A SHlT on live TV.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
    • ME II

      That may have worked for you, but scatophilia is not for everyone.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
  12. Rainer Braendlein

    I have heard that during the Ti-tanic was sinking some idiotic passengers discussed about its origin instead of seeking for rescue.

    We live in a world which is about to sink, and discuss about its origin instead of seeking for rescue. Ain't we idiots.

    The great declension or apostasy of all churches worldwide is a clear sign that we have entered an extremly severe state of crisis. The only thing which still lacks is the conversion of Israel to Jesus, the Messiah, their true God. If that would happen, Jesus would return, and destroy Israel's enemies.

    Worldwide pressure on Israel increases. Maybe we approach an apocalyptical Holocaust but if they (Israel) convert, Jesus, their God, will save them, and destroy all their enemies.

    Israel hear that message: The one you have crucified 2000 years ago is your Messiah who loves you. He died on the cross according to God's decision. God used you (Israel) only as a tool to fulfill his will. Jesus has borne your sins when he died for you at the cross, and he has resurrected in order to dwell in you, and to improve your life. You could never keep the law but through Jesus you could even fulfill it.

    Believe that, and get sacramentally baptized, beloved Israel, and God will protect you against all your enemies.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
    • BenZ

      NO Jewish is the only correct religion. Oh wait meant Islam. Oh know sorry today it is Hindu. NO NO it must be Rastafarian.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
      • Whitney

        My Linguini God squashes the Pastafarians!! All hail the great Linguini, who squeezes the starch out of that limp noodle Pastadaddy and gouges out his meatball eyes!!! Raaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

        February 5, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
      • Rainer Braendlein

        Never a God incarnated, and dwelled amongst people, even cured them, forgave their sins, save Jesus, the Son of God.

        Jesus, the Son of God, became man, and dwelled amongst us. That is a historical fact.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Gilgamesh was a demi-god who ruled the Kingdom of Uruk for 125 years.
          He is the only one to take a trip to the Underworld and come back to tell the tale.
          Archaeologists have unearthed his ancient kingdom and its mighty walls, exactly as described in The Epic of Gilgamesh.

          February 5, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • Rainer Braendlein

          Hi Doc,

          I like your comments to some extent but why do you always rage against Him. Ain't I right that it would better to use your intellectual power for Him instead against Him?

          Wish you well, and that you would convert.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • Whitney

          Rainer, it is historically demonstrable that a man named Jesus existed and had a lot of amazing things attributed to him. That he was the son of god is an entirely different matter, one totally up for debate and not at all an historical fact. Just because you want it to be does not make it so.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • Rainer Braendlein

          If Jesus was only an ordinary man, how could he work miracles?

          Curing people was Jesus' profession after he had finished hs career as carpenter.

          He worked very, very many miracles. It was impossible to deceive.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Jeff

          I don't think that "historical fact" means what you think it means.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • Observer

          Rainer Braendlein

          "He worked very, very many miracles. It was impossible to deceive."

          History is loaded with fake healers and snake oil salesmen. Some of them are likely on TV today. There is no PROOF Jesus was or wasn't one of them.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
    • Whitney

      Wow, for a second I thought you were a voice of reason. Don't worry, you quickly disabused anyone of that notion.

      Now, if you told me that getting Isreal to convert would reverse global climate change, I might be interested. But trust me hon, there are bigger problems on earth than what Jews believe or don't believe. And even if you got them to convert, you still have how many thousands of religions to go?

      If you want a monopoly on truth, try science.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
    • Charm Quark

      Rainman
      You're back. Okay you have a pair of 4's and the dealers up card is a 5 and the card count is -21, how do you play the hand?

      February 5, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
      • Jahtez

        You crack me up.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
      • Jahtez

        And I mean this with all due respect; you're funny as hell.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          Jahtez
          Thanks. Hard to get him to concentrate all he wants to do is drive the Buick.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
    • Barcs

      Something tells me that Israel isn't listening.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
    • sam stone

      lots of conjecture there, Rainy

      "repent, repent, the time is near"

      what a punk

      February 5, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
  13. Gentle reason

    I'd like to think that the science of "we don't know, but we'd like to look into it" takes precedence over "god says so."

    Putting science in the hands of people who believe that there is a god defeats the entire purpose of science.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
    • The Running Twit

      Wasn't it Socrates who said : to not knowing is the basis of knowledge

      February 5, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
      • The Running Twit

        But Socrates was not christian, therefore he is not relevant!

        February 5, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        As the great philosopher Tim "Lint" Armstrong once said:
        "All I know is that I don't know nothing. And that's fine."

        February 5, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
  14. BenZ

    As a person who grew up in a religious home and raised my children within a religious atmosphere. I actually enjoy reading the bible, I enjoy listening to my religious leaders explain how different religious leaders have interpreted different sections of the bible over the years and what stories of morality etc. we can gleam from the Bible. I also found it fascinating to go to Israel and see historic sites that were discussed in the bible.

    However please notice my wording I like learning about religion from my religious leaders and I raised my children and sent them to religious school to learn about religion. I do not want some HS Science teacher trying to teach my children their interpretation of the Bible. I want my childrens' science teacher to be teaching SCIENCE. In my case since I am not Christian it is even more important that my children learn about their religion from somebody who actually knows and understands their religion.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
    • Clayton

      The only people that want to talk about the bible in science class ARE religious leaders. Science teachers wish they would just go back to church where they belong.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
  15. ddanny1

    Ham was completely wrong on one thing that he repeated many times. That there was "a" book out there that explained how everything was created. Actually I know of several books that explain how everything was created. Every religion has one. And I'm sure there were hundreds, if not thousands of books throughout history that had alternative views that never got much traction. And there's every bit as much chance one of them is correct as there is for the bible.
    There is a book by Mark Twain about a guy who goes to heaven. He sees this one guy that all these great military leaders were fawning over. His guide told him the man was the greatest military strategist that ever lived. But the newcomer had never heard of him. The guide told him that was because the guy was the town drunk, and people just laughed at his military theories. Unlike the famous military leaders, he never got a chance to command. Who knows, it might be the guy that wrote a book 500 years ago that got him executed for saying that people came to earth on space surf boards that might be the one who is right.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
  16. Immortal Technique

    My mother told me that placing my faith in God was the answer/
    But then I hated God cause he gave my mother cancer/
    Killing her slow like the Feds did to the Blank Panthers/
    The genesis of genocide is like a Pagan religion/
    Carefully hidden, woven into the holidays of a Christian/

    February 5, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
    • Boltsfan

      Sorry to hear about your mother but God didn't kill her. Bad things happen to good people, that's just the way it is unfortunately. Jesus was beaten, tortured, nailed to a cross and left there to die. And this was God's only son. Regarding your comment on what you believe the government did to the Black Panthers. Keep in mind God gave each of us Free Will. This is a blessing but also a curse when people use to hurt others. If you believe in evolution, there are five inescapable consequences if evolution is true: 1) There is no evidence of God 2) There is no life after death 3) There is no foundation for right vs wrong 4) There is no meaning to life and 5) People don't have free will. Bad things happen...that's just the way life is.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
      • Religulous

        How does a loving god, create cancer? Doesn't make sense to me. Like what was going through his mind at the time? "Gee, ya know I really love my creation. Let me bless them with an incurable disease that kills millions every few years to test their faith!"

        "if evolution is true there is no evidence of God"

        Not true. God could use evolution as a tool to create.

        "if evolution is true there is no life after death"

        False again. What does evolution have to do with life after death? Is it impossible for god to use evolution to create, and still give us a soul? Is it impossible for a soul to evolve?

        "If evolution is true there is no foundation for right vs wrong"

        Nope, sorry. Not sure why you keep confusing evolution with the origin of life or matter. They aren't the same thing. Evolution has nothing to do with right and wrong. It has to do with natural selection and genetic mutations.

        "There is no meaning to life"

        Wrong again, read above.

        "People don't have free will."

        Everyone one of your points was wrong and has nothing to do with evolution. Stop equating evolution with abiogenesis or atheism.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • Barcs

          Forget cancer, how does a loving god create hell? It takes a certain type of individual to intentionally create a torture chamber to throw everyone that disagrees with him in. What was going through his mind at the time? God loved the world so much that he created a torture chamber to send everyone that defies him. The OT God sounds more like a dictator than an actual deity.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
  17. an drui

    Creationists seem to believe that God must be a magician because he/she is too stupid to have created the universe in a complicated way. Creationism is an insult to God as well as an insult to intelligence.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
    • KP

      And if you use voice activated commands on your phone, it must be because you are too stupid to execute the command manually.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
      • an drui

        Actually, I have a five year old twenty dollar bar phone. Just call me old fashioned.

        February 5, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
      • Religulous

        irrelevant

        February 5, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • an drui

          I totally agree.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
  18. devin

    Whether or not God initiated and developed His creative work through the evolutionary process is of little consequence. For me, the evidence from DNA makes a strong case for the theory, but I also recognize the fact, as with "creationism", that a certain degree of speculation and conjecture is involved.

    Here's my problem. You get guys like Nye, et al, who in their defense of evolution, make these wide sweeping claims that belief in creationism is somehow going to undermine the very foundations of science. That is simply subterfuge. There has and never will be a single engineering application, development of new molecular compound, discovery of a mathematical theory, or advancement in particle physics, that is hindered by one's position on evolution.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
    • Nathan

      Medicine and a host of next generation drugs, procedures, and gene therapies rely HEAVILY on evolutionary theory in their development and application. So yeah...there are technologies that can be hampered by one's stance on evolutionary theory and the scientific validity thereof. What's more, people who deny evolutionary theory are more prone to reject other scientific theories that they feel threaten their belief systems. We see a much higher rejection rate of acceptance of global warming evidence when correlated with those who reject evolutionary evidence, for example. The willingness to suspend rigorous scientific application and thought processes in one area make one more prone to do the same in other areas.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
      • devin

        I can assure you, NO " next generation drugs, procedures and gene therapies" rely on macro evolution.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • ME II

          The same mechanisms that drive "micro" evolution also drive "macro" evolution. What exactly do you think limits one but not the other?

          February 5, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • foolishmortal

          I can assure you that the concept of "macro" evolution has no meaning outside of creationist circles. Evolutionary Theory is the cornerstone of modern biology and well deserves to be taught in every science classroom.

          As evolutionary biologist and Russian Orothodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".

          February 5, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • Barcs

          😆 Evolution makes predictions that come true, which is one of the pillars of the scientific method. Macro evolution = micro evolution over lots of time. There is no difference in the process. This is how we try to stay ahead of virus and bacterial evolution with vaccines and treatments. Macro evolution doesn't exist. There is just evolution; genetic mutations driven by natural selection. There is nothing at all beyond that, but when people get all their science information from religious websites it shows in their ignorance.

          February 5, 2014 at 10:49 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Nathan : Medicine and a host of next generation drugs, procedures, and gene therapies rely HEAVILY on evolutionary theory in their development and application.

        Modern medicine originated with the development of pasteurization techniques, which predate modern version of evolution. So, it would appear that evolution relies heavily on modern medicine, not the other way around.

           <><

        February 5, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • GS

          It predates it by 3 to ears, meaning they were being studied at the same time, you disingenuous twit. Why do you lie so GD much?

          February 5, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • foolishmortal

          Modern medicine is based on PASTEURIZATION? What on earth are you smoking?

          February 5, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
        • Jahtez

          Actually, Darwin started studying his theory long before Pasteur started his experiments in 1856, but I get your gist, GS.

          February 5, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
        • Saraswati

          What most of us think of today as modern medicine is heavily dependent on an understanding of genetics, but certainly the term "modern" is relative and those who still think a book of myths beats science might consider pasteurization and basic sanitation the height of modernity.

          February 5, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          L4H
          Hi sweetie, I know you claim to be taken but some times that can be worked around. Not really knowing you, just thought I would set the ground rules. I don't really mind ugly you can cover that up and fantasise. But I can't abide stupid, so I guess we should just call the whole thing off.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • igaftr

          L4H
          "Modern medicine originated with the development of pasteurization techniques"

          False. It has been built on EVERY medical advancement that has ever been.
          Evolution does not rely on any knowledge we possess, but we do apply our knowledge and use the mechanism of evolution to advance our medical abilities.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • Religulous

          😆 Bahahaha, this guy just makes stuff up as fact. There's a reason we have to constantly update vaccines for viruses that have been around for millenia.

          February 5, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
    • ME II

      @devin,
      "You get guys like Nye, et al, who in their defense of evolution, make these wide sweeping claims that belief in creationism is somehow going to undermine the very foundations of science"

      I think Nye's point was not that it would undermine the "foundations of science", but the foundations of a child's science education.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
  19. Dyslexic doG

    Why doesn't your god appear to the world and put an end to any doubt?

    He seems to be narcissistic enough and vain enough and insecure enough to want all the adoration and all the worship of every person in the world. Your book which you keep bleating is the "word of god", certainly sees god commanding you endlessly to adore him and worship him and bow before him and idolize him and praise him. "Oh love me, love me, tell me how wonderful I am!"

    It would be effortless for him to show himself, like he seemed to do pretty regularly back in the bronze age, and he wouldn't have to send so many people either born in the wrong place or people trusting logic and science over blind faith, to eternal fire and pain and torment. Surely, if he is the loving god that you claim, he would be anxious to save all these people rather than damn them?

    I am shaking my head as I write this, in amazement at the pure infantile foolishness that enables you to believe in something so patently false.

    It's amazing. Simply amazing.

    February 5, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
  20. Nate

    Regarding last night's debate: There were at least 13,000 groups hosting the event that we know of, that means the estimated audience for the live streaming of the debate was in excess of 3 million!

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

    February 5, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
    • Charm Quark

      Nate
      Who are you shilling for? Who gets the money?

      February 5, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
    • Immortal Technique

      Or just watch it on CNN or youtube. Charging money for that is laughable. We all know the profits go directly to Hamm and the museum.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Advertisement
About this blog

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