1. anon says

    The problem with the death of Christopher Hitchens is that no one really stepped up to take his place as the main public policy rhetorician in favor of a secular world view.

  2. johnny says

    There is a middle ground that beautifully blends both intelligent design and evolution and is ultimately where many scientists (who, BTW, have much better pedigree than Bill Nye) end up in their viewpoint.

    While I realize it’s hard to accept that there is some spiritual presence involved overall (especially for agnostic and atheistic folks), IMO the universe’s evolution reality is the outcome of a spiritual presence’s involvement from the very beginning. That presence may not have been involved other than starting the process and then later imparting a higher order intelligence into pre-humans at some point in their development. Two points, that’s it… and watching ever since.

    Not a big stretch for me to accept that, because it embraces evolution IN TOTAL and has only one basic premise in spirituality to accept: there is something higher than ourselves out there. How we define that “something” is up to each individual.

  3. Luke says

    @Johnny, I get what you are saying.. I was raised in a very religious house where my family absolutely rejected evolution and I used to think in that “middle ground” you’re talking about, but it doesn’t make sense. In the bible it says everything was created a few thousand years ago(?) Anyway, I don’t believe in god at all anymore, not sure I ever did, but I don’t think there really is any middle ground. You either believe in evidence-based science or you believe in a fairy tale.

  4. jamal49 says

    @JOHNNY: WOW! Why didn’t I think of that before?

    A Divine Spirit, Unknowable, Magical, There From The Beginning Who Started It All With A Snap Of The Divine Fingers And Then Stepped Aside.


    Here’s the problem with your neat “solution”. Who’s “divine presence” shall it be?

    See, the creationists want it only one way–THEIR way.

    Creationists are judeo-christian bibilical literalists. To accept creationism in any form is to concede that their “bible” and its account of the world’s beginning is acceptable as “science” and that the same bible is historically accurate and infallible.

    That is to say, the world was created a little over 6,000 years ago, perfect, as it is, with no changes whatsoever since then. Humankind walked with dinosaurs, there was this big flood, two of each living thing plus a bunch of righteous humans were saved on this big ship which landed on top of this big mountain, upon which bloody sacrifices were made to thank the “divine spirit” for saving them, and then humankind and all the animals got off the boat and repopulated the earth again.

    The sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat and stationary, the sky is actually a dome filled with twinkly lights called stars.

    Petroleum is not a result of millions of years of biological plant decay, but the result of mysterious abiogenic forces deep within the earth and if we just look hard enough we can have unlimited amounts of oil.

    The world’s other great faiths simply do not have this difficulty with accepting evolution as a factual, realistic PROVEN theory, which gets reaffirmed over and over again through constant, daily, empirical research. Those religions do not fret over such nonsense.

    It is obvious to me that you have never read any of the current textbooks that promote creationism. It is the Book of Genesis disguised as pseudo-science. It is an abomination and an affront to human intelligence.

    There is no way–NONE–that creationism can and should EVER be accepted as valid.

  5. says

    the bible is bull sht, meant by rich church EMPLOYEES to rip off the masses. do your education and learn, don’t just be brain washed by religious dogma that freezes your brain cells

  6. says

    I don’t think Bill Nye was strong enough in his refutation of creationism. Unfortunately, Genesis gets a bad rap. It is a beautifully fashioned story meant to explain the world to a pre-scientific community. Many other cultures, including Native American tribes and other aboriginal peoples also have fascinating stories of the beginnings of the world and humankind. We don’t enshrine those stories as science – neither should we take the Bible as a science textbook.

  7. Chris says

    Sorry, @Johnny, even if you could reconcile your first point with evolution “in total”, there is no way to reconcile your second point. To infer divine intervention “at some point” would be contrary to the contingency at the heart of evolutionary theory. It just won’t work – you end up with a confused, illogical worldview, as Bill Nye says.

  8. johnny says

    “Creationists are judeo-christian bibilical literalists. To accept creationism in any form is to concede that their “bible” and its account of the world’s beginning is acceptable as “science” and that the same bible is historically accurate and infallible.”

    WTF? I didn’t mention the bible AT ALL!

    I’d never define myself as a “creationist”. Believing in intelligent design does not automatically make me a bible-thumping creationist. I didn’t say God or Jesus or anything biblical whatsoever.

    Spiritual does not automatically mean Christian.

    Wow, you guys are just as rabid about your evolution science as the creationists are nutso about their 6000 year old earth. LOL…

    Sorry, it’s not all black and white and nobody has this stuff all completely figured out and locked down yet. Guess some of us are more open minded than others.

  9. Elegir says

    @Johnny. I googled it. First google result for ID is Wikipedia. First line in Wikipedia’s ID article system:
    “Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. ”

    Either you need to go rethink whether you really understand ID, or you need to accept that you’re a closet creationist.

  10. johnny says


    So, instead of looking up Phd authors and scientist’s writings, you take Wikipedia’s first line and run with it? Wiki said it, therefore it must be true! LOL…

    Hilarious…That’s no better than taking Genesis 1:1 on it’s face value.

    The straw man that many pure evolutionists like to throw out is that all ID is creationism in order to lump those of us who are open to ID in with the bible-thumpers and then dismiss us out of hand.

    I’ve done a great deal of reading on this subject and many proponents of ID are not religious in any way whatsoever. They, like me, realize that the question of ID and/or evolution is open-ended and has no absolutes and needs no religious quotient in order to stand as a relevent, substantial theory.

    And in the end, they’re all theories, as I’ve stated, nobody really has this all figured out yet.

  11. PAUL B. says

    Isn’t the world/cosmos a fabulous place? I just love looking up at the stars at night and watching all the action. It’s a mystery to me how is works, where it begins & ends, how or when it began…or if it’s always been there.
    I love a good mystery…this one too !
    It’s like figuring out how we became gay…who cares. I am gay, I love being gay, I embrace being gay…including the mysteries of it.

  12. Diogenes Arktos says

    “How I raise my children is just that. How I raise them. I really don’t like other people/governments telling me I am doing it wrong.”

    I suppose you would support legislation which would allow children to refuse to do assignments which conflict with their religious viewpoint. What religious viewpoints are acceptable under this legislation? Let alone the nightmare of fair grading…

    In some sense, no one is telling you that you are doing something wrong, as you are perfectly free to educate as you wish within your four walls in addition to whatever external form of schooling you may be engaged in. On the other hand, public education is based on the premise that there is a certain core of knowledge that one must be aware of – not necessarily believe. As a caution, remember that the University of California won a lawsuit allowing it to deem null and void as an entrance requirement science instruction which did not meet the core of knowledge requirement.

  13. Jono says

    I’m not a big church goer now, but I was when I was a kid. My pastor put it simply in regards to Genesis. Who are we to state what the definition of a “day” is for God. If a “day” was defined as millions and million of years, then evolution is covered in the bible. That was his work around and it allowed us to be one with God and also fully embrace science within our church.

  14. MaddM@ says


    Yes, that did need to be in all caps, because whenever someone says there needs to be a compromise regarding evolution it’s pretty clear they don’t know what the hell they are talking about regarding evolution. Again, evolution is not a theory on genesis it is a theory of development.

    Do some people extrapolate evolution to mean that people evolved from non-life? yes. However is that really what evolution is? no. Don’t get it twisted.

    Also some kind of divine guidance is not a halfway point between creationists and people that are hardcore adherents of evolution of life from non-life people, as the creationists want to ditch the scientific method while deceptively trying to portray themselves as scientists. If that kind of deceit isn’t at the level of an evangelical concept of satan I don’t know what is. Why don’t christians see these people are liars and deceivers? It’s very sad.

Leave A Reply