Glenn Beck and Creationist Idiocy


Every time I hear a creationist claim that evolution is a myth, I shake my head and smile.  And that’s because I know only too well that the individual has not taken the time to do their due diligence and actually investigate what it is that evolution is.  And how would I know this?  Well because they spout off the same nonsense that came out of Glenn Beck’s mouth yesterday when he said he believes that it is “ridiculous” to believe that “we came from monkeys.”

“I haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person yet.”

Not content with coming off as a moron with that last line, Beck goes on to say:

They have to force it down your throat. When anyone has to force it, it’s a problem. You didn’t have to force that the world was round. You didn’t have to.

Truth is truth. You don’t have to force the truth. You just keep adding evidence and evidence and evidence and evidence until it becomes self-evident.

Wow.  It’s hard to imagine that anyone could pack so much crap into a couple of sentences.  But then again, we’re talking Beck here, the ultimate bullshit/idiot-meister. I’m not going to bother trying to refute nonsense of this sort.  I’ve wasted too many hours of my life debating people like Beck – simpletons who would rather hang on to childish fairy tales then actually do the study necessary to allow for intelligent debate.   But if you do care, MediaMatters puts in the attempt here.

I’ll just say for the hundredth time that evolution does not speak of the existence of god or gods or for that matter, the beginnings of life.   It says only that the diversity of life we see around us has come about in the most beautiful and elegant of ways – evolution.  It is the individual’s choice to study and know or remain clouded in ignorance.  What is not an option though, is forcing their self-imposed ignorance down the throat of schoolchildren.


To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s page. Click on ‘Like’ here


  1. Charliesommers says:

    Sponges have long been considered one of the “simplest” forms of life. Now an international team of scientists has analyzed sponge DNA and concluded that it shares representative genes associated with the core processes of all animal cells–including human cells. What does this say about where sponges and people came from?

  2. mandograss says:

    So you believe in God?Jesus? If not & you wrong, boy did you mess up big time,for eternity. Me if I messed up well, I lived a decent life with nothing to lose. Think/pray about it.

  3. ritterrific says:

    GREAT illustration! You should send it to Glenn.
    Good blog too – I especially like your plain vanilla description of evolution.
    I have a question. If you are someone who believes in God (with a capital “G”), why would you find it hard to believe that he or she could design evolution?
    I guess the answer is that the creationists believe literally in the Bible, that God created the world in six days, rested on the seventh, etc.
    What a bunch of monkey-brained idiots (sorry Uncle Zippy).

  4. E.A. Blair says:

    Another fallacy that the creationists and simple-minded keep failing to comprehend is that evolution is not directed towards a certain end. I’m thinking here of an old “Outer Limits” episode, “The Sixth Finger” (originally aired 14 October 1963) in which David McCallum plays a man who is subjected to treatmens that “accelerate” his “evolution” to an “advanced” form of human. This assumes that there is a predetermined end product (and, necessarily, also assumes a form of ID).

    Where Beck’s and O’Donnell’s reasoning falls short (well, with regard to evolution, anyway – it’s so deficient in so many other areas) is in assuming that Homo Sapiens is an end product and that all species, or at least primate species, are evolving “toward” being human. This is a notion that is easy to refute. Sharks, for example, have changed little over many millions of years (and a lot longer than humans have been around) because they have already adapted to an ideal form for their environment with little further need of change.

    Besides, I thought everybody knew that it was a giant monolith with the proportion 1:4:9 that did it.

  5. Craig says:

    mandograss: Guess you’re pretty much screwed if Allah turns out to be the correct answer… or Krishna, or Buddha, or….

    And Mario, love the illustration!

  6. E.A. Blair says:

    mandograss is using Pascal’s Wager ( which is nothing new. It’s also a porposition that is philosophically, logically and theologically flawed. Oh, and Craig – the Buddha is not a deity.

  7. Charliesommers says:

    If I were God I would be more inclined to reward a sincere doubter rather than one who professed belief only to cover his ass out of fear.

    You are correct E.A. Blair, not only was the Buddha not a deity but he told his followers to question even what he told them. We all have the power to reason and should not be ashamed to use it.

  8. E.A. Blair says:

    Amen to that, Charliesommers. And if I were God, I’d make sure that what people got in the afterlife was not what they hoped they’d get but what they feared they deserve.

    There is the famous koan that says, “Followers of the Way [of Chán], if you want to get the kind of understanding that accords with the Dharma, never be misled by others. Whether you’re facing inward or facing outward, whatever you meet up with, just kill it! If you meet a buddha, kill the buddha. If you meet a patriarch, kill the patriarch. If you meet an arhat, kill the arhat. If you meet your parents, kill your parents. If you meet your kinfolk, kill your kinfolk. Then for the first time you will gain emancipation, will not be entangled with things, will pass freely anywhere you wish to go.”

    That would be good advice for anyone who is politically active: “…never be misled by others.”

    Which makes me wonder – if Chuck Jones had been a follower of Eastern traditions, would Elmer Fudd have spent his time trying to kill the Buddha instead of trying to kill the wabbit ( ?

  9. Craig says:

    For what it’s worth, I do know that Buddha was not a deity… ;-)

  10. Marie says:

    So God created the Man in his own image,
    but 65 millions years before that, he created the dinosaurs in the image of his cousin Ted, and he get mad on them one day and he kill all of them, and he put them in stone!
    from the ” Genesis” chapter that never get into the official version of the holy bible…
    I’m just joking of course it is from Eddie Izzard show: Circle!
    Glen Back is a joke, not funny one!

  11. Katz says:

    mandograss: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
    ~Stephen Roberts

  12. Brad says:

    @mandograss: I’m going to pick on you some more because I’ve met so many ‘believers’ like yourself where the beauty of logic has eluded them, leaving only ignorance to take its place. Your statement, which has been pointed out by others to essentially be Pascal’s wager, is fundamentally flawed. This is not only acknowledged and accepted among atheists, and secular philosophers but also among theologians and spiritual leaders to actually _not_ be a basis of faith. That argument itself undermines the core meaning of faith in the sense that it is not by faith that you are believing, but by fear of being wrong. So therefore if that is your basis for your choice in religion I would rather you label yourself ‘hypocrite’ or ‘coward’ than ‘believer’. I’ll just leave you with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd president of the United States, “question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”

  13. Jim says:

    We should teach Science in science class, and only teach Science in science class. Intelligent Design is a theory, but not a theory that can ever be empirically tested so it is NOT science. And we’re done.

    If the teachings of the bible work for you because you actually read them and use them in your life, great – keep using them. But I can’t see how your belief in Sky-Santa should have anything to do with what my kids learn in public school. Not until we repeal the 1st Amendment.

  14. Lusky says:

    Love that someone believes we just accepted the world being spherical. People were burnt alive for that one for centuries.
    Oh, and numbers, numbers would have got your block separated from your body if found using them. You wouldn’t have got to ten.

    People like this have a problem with evolution? Just wait till they learn we are all just remnants of radioactive waste from long dead stars. All that stuff has to happen before we even talk about mutating rna and dna. Remember, only exploding stars spit out all the stuff that makes everything else in the universe possible. That includes monkeys and ignorant *******.

    The last witch was tried in the UK in 1944. Fact or fiction?

  15. Roberto says:

    I always crack a smile when people say you’ll spend a lifetime in eternity melting due to some horrid place that they’ve never actually seen. What makes people so insanely crazy that they actually think that there is a place like this. They read a book, follow some morons and suddenly they’re experts on fire and brimstone. Those of you that do this should really look at yourselves in the mirror and realize that you’re the epitome of insanity. You’ve never seen it, but yet you believe it as if the fairytale was true.

    Why would you claim something you’ve never seen? And don’t give me the “faith” bit. Generally sane people have faith in something they know will work, like I have faith may lights are gonna work when i turn them on, or my car will start, cause i have faith it will work properly once i turn the key. It’s retarded to think that you know something about a place where you go when you die. Seriously, you all look so stupid, and those of you that do it, should feel an overwhelming sense of embarrassment for pushing that sort of stupidity on others. You no more know Jesus than I knew Socrates. It’s just plain dumb.

  16. AuH2O says:

    Creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution because there is a key word at the beginning of both: theory. It is not called the proof of evolution or the proof of creationism, they are both unproven. Creationism taught in schools would not include a reading from Genesis. It would state that the physical universe was created by a being greater than humans. Its a valid theory.

    And I can already anticipate that the argument back to this is that science has proven evolution. Thats actually an assumed fact, not a real fact. Darwin did not believe that his theory accounted for all life on the planet out of a single organism. He believed that species (not the highest of the taxonomic ranks but actually the lowest and most specific) undergo evolution. We’re talking micro-evolution, not macro. That means a bird’s beak could evolve to better find bugs in tree bark, not turn into (or from) a dinosaur.

    Before you attack creationists for wanting valid theories taught, study the issue. Read The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Its not going to attack you with the Bible. Its written by a former atheist who set out to prove scientifically that there was no creator.

  17. jack says:

    Craig, it doesn’t sound like you know much of anything. Your god is better than their god. What the hell is that? A reading from the book of the ancient Ken L Ration commercial, my dog is better than your dog, thus sayith the lord?

  18. Craig says:

    @jack: I wouldn’t claim that my god is better than your god. No need to when there’s no evidence one exists. As others have so eloquently explained, professing belief in a god in the hopes of escaping fire and brimstone is totally illogical.

  19. Rob says:

    good point and great comments by some folks…

    However, I would like to add:

    “Never get into an argument with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience” — unkown.

    Dissecting and arguing points by Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, et al… just gives credence to what they as being a valid arguable point and slows down progress.

  20. BigD says:

    First time on your site. Very interesting stuff. I understand where a lot of people are coming from with their disbelief in God. Most people want to see something before they believe it to be true. I am a Christian, and I will defend my faith. However, I get upset when believers come off with their Holier Than You attitude. The fact is that if you are a Christian…. You should believe that EVERYONE has sinned. From a person who has killed, to a person who held the door open for someone for there OWN personal gain. There is nothing we can do about that. I believe that God looks at sin all the same. We as Christians believe in a fallen world. The only way that we can be saved of our sins is the acceptance of Jesus.

    As far as evolution. I believe that there are very moderate changes that occur within a species. Question for you all to ponder. If you believe in evolution…do you think that we are stopping evolution from occurring with the fight against cancer? Just a thought to ponder?

  21. Jim says:

    Hi AuH2O,

    Creationism = the physical universe was created by a being greater than humans. Its a valid theory.

    It is a theory – just not a Scientific Theory. It can not be tested with empirical evidence. There is no scientific test for a creator being, and therefore, it is a matter of Faith, not Science.

    In science class, science – the study of testable theories should be taught. Not theories of faith – which are not theories, because no testing can be done.

    Articles of faith (or untestable theories) should not be taught in science class, any more than disproved scientific theories like the classical elemental theory (earth, air, fire, water) or Aristotle’s dynamic motion, or Newton’s corpuscular theory of light, should be taught as anything other than what they are – tested and discarded.

    I do not dream that you have the courage to hear any of this. But if you do, try reading this: which should clear up your misunderstanding of the chalkboard use of the word Theory.

  22. Joshua says:


    The difference being that there is evidence for evolution. There is evidence, and proof, that proteins can form in the early oceans. And there is evidence that life can form from those simple proteins. And there is evidence that life gradually, necessarily, becomes more complex over time.

    While it’s impossible to prove that any chain of events happened millions of years ago, it is possible to prove that all of the mechanisms required to get from our theoretical beginning to our current state are possible, and, in fact, probable.

    There is no evidence of any mechanism of a higher power. All of the “evidence” for this falls under the “argument from ignorance”. Lack of scientific answer used as evidence for a supernatural answer – an illogical fallacy at best.

  23. Brad says:

    @AuH2O: Well, normally Creationism is something children learn at Sunday School or Vacation Bible School/Camp. I see no reason other than those who plan on studying liberal arts, philosophy, anthropology, art, etc. for there to be a class on Creationism. Even at that I think that it should be saved for colleges to administer and not the public school system. We already have enough distraction is our current public school system that adding another class would be a waste of the Tax payers money. I think if parents want their children to learn about Creationism, send them to a church, synagogue, mosque, or other religious institution. Pre-school to High School are supposed to lay a foundation for our children to go out and pursue a higher education. I just don’t believe that Creationism is a necessary facet of a grounded educational foundation.

    Now, I’m no expert on evolution, and I will not claim to be, but wouldn’t these small micro-evolutionary changes,over a period of millions of years, eventually add up and look like macro-evolution, especially given the planets own evolution in environment and geology? Or is my idea of extrapolation of changes over time flawed? These would eventually cause some species to adapt depending on their specific climate and geographical location, coupled with genetic mutations from normal reproduction. Now, I agree that a single organism is most likely not the progenitor of all life (if I did, I think it would put me on par with Creationists :) ), but rather a multitude of organisms (single-celled bacteria, etc) and their interactions with each there after and through the course of their evolution are the cause of such a variety of life on this planet. Not to sound pompous or arrogant, but just because Darwin failed to see the scope that his theory implied does not mean that the theory itself is limited. I wonder if Einstein ever believed his theories on Relativity would be used to open up Pandora’s box and unleash the power of the atom upon humanity via nuclear warheads.

  24. Crikey says:

    “You didn’t have to force that the world was round. You didn’t have to.”

    Wow. wtf? Yeah, sailors didn’t have to be told, b/c their survival depended on correct math, but I seem to remember there were people called “heretics” that weren’t allowed to pose such THEORIES.

    Maybe my schools were wrong. The GOP should fix that.

  25. Martian says:

    AuH2O: “Creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution because there is a key word at the beginning of both: theory.”

    Wow! Yet another moron who reads two sentences and thinks he is an expert. Creationists are like this. They go to a museum once, and they think they have given science enough of a chance, and science has failed, so science is bullsh.t, and therefore, by default, their brain fart opinion must be the right one.

    Hey AuH2O, I bet you think you could do brain surgery after watching one episode of Discovery Channel, too.

  26. Alan says:

    I have a question that nobody who believes in both God and evolotion has been able to answer…maybe you self-claiming experts can answer. If you believe in God and eternity, then you must also believe that humans have souls – the spirit that will exist forever when our body is gone. If you believe this and that humans evolved from other beings then you must also believe that other beings all have souls as well. Dogs, cats, trees, a singled-celled organism..etc. Now, if you believe that a tree and a single-celled organism have a soul – tell me which one of us is crazy? Otherwise…what magic happens that determines when an evolved being suddenly gets a soul?

  27. John F says:

    The irony that a Mormon would say, “They have to force it down your throat. When anyone has to force it, it’s a problem,” is fantastic.

    I grew up in Utah and saw first-hand that forcing the faith is part of the plan. Kids growing up in Mormon households don’t have a choice. In most cases, if a young Mormon leaves the faith, they are ostracized by family, friends and neighbors. I’ve seen it many times and it’s not pretty.

    Evolution is easy to understand. Religion takes a bit of mental arm-twisting.

  28. Joshua says:


    While i don’t believe in god at all… I’ve asked that question to someone before and got a reasonable answer (in the context of religion, so take that for what it’s worth)

    That god has a plan from the beginning, and that life prior to humans in our form was laying the groundwork for us that satisfied natural laws and order – and that humans were the end goal, and that we, upon becoming, were given souls.

    Again, not that I believe that at all – but in the context of religion and being open minded about evolution, it at least gives them the out…

  29. E.A. Blair says:

    @BigD: “If you believe in evolution…do you think that we are stopping evolution from occurring with the fight against cancer?”

    See my post above from October 21, 2010 at 1:55 pm. Your words here indicate that you are thinking of evolution as something with a predetermined goal or path – the same kind of thinking that lets people falsely assume that today’s apes will someday be tomorrow’s next humans. Evolution is adaptation to circumstances and opportunities, nothing less, nothing more.

    @Brad: “I wonder if Einstein ever believed his theories on Relativity would be used to open up Pandora’s box and unleash the power of the atom upon humanity via nuclear warheads.” I couldn’t say as to whether he foresaw what E-mc^2 would lead to when he discovered it, but Einstein (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) did live long enough to see it – in fact, it was his prompting that convinced FDR to start and support the Manhattan project, so I think it’s safe to infer that he did, in fact, forsee it.

  30. Martian says:

    Here is an exercise for the Creationists:

    Do you think that Plate Techtonics is real?

    Serious question …

    Because, after all, you haven’t been around long enough to observe all of this.

    This is yet another theory in geology that coincidentally confirms the huge time spans that has allowed biological evolution to occur on earth.

    Now, if you are a young-earth Creationist, then you must start fighting the oil companies, because THEY were the ones who discovered this. Not a bunch of biologists studying pandas or a bunch of geologists studying rock formations. In fact, the geologists were really really puzzled for decades about why certain fossils appear in some very separate locations with no apparently link to each other. Oil company geologists, whose only concern is about drilling for oil, are now taking advantage of GPS to accurately account for the drift of the earth’s crust when they drill.

    If you are willing to conceded that the world is a lot old than 10,000 years old, then perhaps you should start getting an education on what biological evolution would mean in a very large time frame. This false dichotomy between micro-evolution (which many of you are willing to concede) and macro-evolution (which you refuse to accept) become very difficult to cleanly separate when such large time scales are involved.

    Which brings us back to the idea that “you haven’t been around long enough to observe all of this”. In fact, your holy book does not write about dinosaurs, why? Because no one knew about fossils. Your holy book does not write about huge undersea mountain ranges, why? Because they were not observable back then. It also does not mention anything about continental drift, why? Because, without the accuracy of GPS and other modern instruments, it is a lot more difficult to prove that continental drift occurs. Let’s not even get into quantum mechanics.

    It is obvious that many of these scientific concepts was never even hinted at because the people of the time simply did not know about it (and would not have cared).

    In short, your holy book is not a science book. It is not a book on biology. Is is not a book on astronomy. It is not a book on physics. It is not a book on geometry or calculus.

    It is ridiculous for you to assert that your book could be any of those things because it is like going to your brain surgeon and demanding that he fix your Audi fuel injection system. You are asking your book to give you things it was never meant to give you.

  31. Jason says:

    I struggle with this topic to be honest. I am a christian, but I do believe in evolution. As mentioned earlier in the posts, I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that God could have programmed this in. As for the comment about no factual proof of intelligent design, just look at some video games (World of Warcraft). Scripting an NPC isn’t so hard, and we are at the beginning stages of this.

    As to the point about teaching religion in schools, I also agree that it shouldn’t be allowed. I think the kids already have a lot to deal with and don’t need to struggle learning what most adults have a hard time understanding, religious theology.

    I like how Jesus put it though in Mark 6:11, “And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.” Don’t argue with them until you are blue in the face, it’ll just turn them off that much more.

  32. Martian says:

    “If you believe in God and eternity, then you must also believe that humans have souls – the spirit that will exist forever when our body is gone. If you believe this …”

    Good for you. Look, if you believe that there are secret monsters under your bed, or that you have an invisible friend who whispers sweet nothings in your ear, good for you.

    Note, however, the logical flaw in your question, you are assuming that we also believe this soul concept (for real, not just as a metaphor), and then you try to fit this within biological evolution.

    Sorry, wrong assumption.

    But let’s take it further on your model. Let’s say there appears to be something like a soul. Does your dog have a soul? How do you know? Must it be able to speak English and sing Britney Spears for you to qualify it as having a soul? (Okay, maybe NOT Britney.) How about an elephant? How about a sewer rat?

    Why must all souls have the same advanced architectures and features?

    Your Nindendo NES may have Super Mario 1.0, and your Wii may have Super Mario 4.0. Why must they have exactly the same capabilities?

    But what you were really hoping for, is that all souls are the same. There were all created with advanced features, and you (meaning humans) must necessarily be special enough to “deserve” having this soul through the actions of some magic wand.

    It is kind of nice and fanciful to think that if you are a really good child, then when you get to be 16, your fairy god mother will grant you a castle on the hill. The only criterion is that you are on good behavior and that you fight evil dragons.

    But the reality is a lot more boring and laborious. You have to study. You have to do your homework. You have to go to college. Then you have to get a job. Then you have to have enough savings to have a down payment. And then you only get a small 1-bedroom because that is all you can afford the monthly payments on. And oh, you have to fumigate because of termites. Oh, and the town demands that you get a permit to tent the house to fumigate …

    It is not as fun and exciting as having your fairy god mother give you a castle with servants and delicious food that just magically appear every night at dinner, isn’t it?

  33. BigD says:

    @EA Blair

    I do not believe in evolution from Apes to Humans. I believe that Humans have always been humans…just maybe a little taller. Or a birds beak has grown a little more. I do not believe fighting cancer is stopping evolution I was giving a point of view that I have heard from people who believe in full blown evolution… but say this to me when I ask them why we have not seen evolution in humans.

  34. pat says:

    ok this is much easier than before give us one scrap of true proof of creation. (IE: look its in the bible isnt proof) I have heard the arguments for this and really it isnt science science is testable theory as evolution has shown up in species then it has passed the first test and can be seen. glen beck said no one argued the world was round that is a lie it was widely argued and derided.

    In closing.
    this class should be in a world religions class it is a christian belief not a theory and belongs in a religion class.

  35. Brad says:

    @E. A. Blair: :) Quite right, but I guess I should have been more specific in my statement in whether he had the foresight, upon publishing his theories in 1905, as to whether or not they would be used to create the atomic bomb in 1940′s. He did have this foresight in his 1939 letter to FDR, but I seriously doubt he had any inclination as to its application to warfare when publishing his theories at the beginning of the 20th century.

    @Joshua: That’s a pretty good answer. Far better than some of the other answers I’ve gotten from spiritual leaders when growing up and questioning Christianity.

  36. Martian says:

    Jason: “I struggle with this topic to be honest. I am a christian, but I do believe in evolution.”

    Here is the deal: No self-respecting scientist would tell you straight out that the things he does not believe in is GUARANTEED to not exist.

    There is a very real and serious difference between saying “X does not exist” and “there is no evidence for X”.

    Therefore, it is entirely possible, at least to those of us who are intellectually honest about science, that things like “souls” and “God” and “ghosts” and so forth do actually exist. But then, so could any number of other things we don’t have the instruments to measure today.

    It is the same as saying there is an invisible flying spaghetti monster who controls all living things.

    Ok … how would you know? What is testable here that we can say, that the IFSM has been here or has done this or that. How do we distinguish betwen IFSM’s doing and something else? Technically, an IFSM “could” exist.

    At some point, the arguments are totally bogus and pointless. It has to eventually distill down to something scientists can measure.

    If you believe in your heart that some great Creator set in motion the chain of events that led to today, good for you. There are actually some interesting coincidences that may warm your heart a little bit, like the fact that certain physics constants are apparently “just right” (the Goldilocks effect) to allow life to eventually form. The logic flaws have already been pointed out, but if you want to believe that, good for you.

    Just don’t teach THAT to my kids in school in science class.

  37. E.A. Blair says:

    @BigD: the G127V gene; the lengthening of the human reproductive period (children are reaching puberty earlier, women remain fertile longer), the shrinking appendix, the coccyx and gradually dropping blood glucose levels (leading to an increase in the occurrence of diabetes). These are not visible changes (except, maybe the early onset of puberty), but require dissection and an electron microscope. What were you expecting, bigger heads and extra limbs? It don’t work that way.

    Another bit – people are taller today than they were a few hundred years ago. The average Medieval suit of armor is tailored for someone standing 5’6″ or less – and the Knights were the big hulking bruisers of their day. This is a direct effect of better nutrition available in the human environment.

  38. Alan says:


    I understand your point of view based on what you believe. My question is for those who do believe in God and eternity. For example someone who claims to be a Christian and also believes that humans evolved from a single-celled organism. For them – I think they have a dilemma. The point is that this does relate back to the original article in that if you believe in evolution whole-heartedly it does have implications about what you may believe about God or even the spiritual part of a human. I would doubt that a Christian who believes in evolution would really believe that a single-celled organism really has a soul – be it different than a human soul. That takes real faith.

  39. Ryan says:

    My grandpa told me a story about when he was in college: He and another guy were cleaning out an old barracks to be turned into a dorm. After chatting for a while the other guy asks my grandpa about what he was studying. “Geology” my grandpa responded. The guy responded “you must believe in fossils then huh?” “Of course” “You fool, don’t you know the devil put those there to fool you?” End of conversation. Creationism conversations always end the same way. “Its gods will/the devil is deceiving you.” At that point the door of ignorance is shut.

  40. BigD says:

    @EA Blair

    Thanks. that helps clarify my point. (Small…Minute Changes) But we are all still humans.

  41. Hellscream says:

    *** E.A. Blair says:
    October 21, 2010 at 5:30 pm
    Amen to that, Charliesommers. And if I were God, I’d make sure that what people got in the afterlife was not what they hoped they’d get but what they feared they deserve. ***

    Guess that makes EVERYONE happy that you’re not God

    @Ryan: “At that point the door of ignorance is shut.”

    Just remember, ignorance works both ways and that evolution doesn’t disprove God, nor prove anything beyond what it is – incomplete.

    @EA Blair – also keep in mind, and that all evolutionists have to accept this – to those that don’t believe, there’s still the possibility that God exists…and God, Himself, started “evolution”. Because, to put it simply, you cannot prove God doesn’t exist with 100% certainty.

    Lemme know when all evolutionists believe that possibility, regardless of how minute, can still exist.

  42. Brad says:

    @Hellscream: While that is true, and that true 100% atheism is ignorant, it’s up to Creationists and other believers to prove the existence of god. See Russell’s Teapot by doing a search on Wikipedia/Google. The lack if scientific evidence only points to the very large possibility that there is no God. The history of religion suggests this as well. For example, when we look at Jesus’ life, we can draw some very prominent parallels between him and the Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates. We see parallels between Old Testament commandments and laws and the laws written down in cuneiform by Babylonians (Code of Hammurabi). We can even draw parallels between Old Testament ideas about monotheism and those of the Ancient Egyptian religion of Atenism and the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism.

    I myself can say with a certain degree of certainty that there is no God, but guaranteeing it 100% would be foolish. Unfortunately, atheism has its share of ignorance in the melting-pot like any other ideology. Insanity will grasp onto whatever ideology it can and twist it just so it can justify itself.

  43. Joshua says:

    I do not recognize the possibility of a god of any kind.

    It’s not ignorance. It’s common sense.

    I do not believe that you have an invisible flying unicorn in your closet either. It’s not ignorant to not believe that. It would actually be quite crazy if I did believe that. And there is no more proof for god than there is an invisible flying unicorn in your closet. Does it not then, by common sense, make a belief in any god just as crazy?

    It’s mislead to accept the possibility of ANYTHING without proof. You cannot prove a negative, so no, nobody can ever prove that there is no god. You also can’t prove that I don’t have an invisible flying unicorn in MY closet… The fact that you can’t prove it’s not there has absolutely no bearing on the fact that it’s not there. So when you ask someone to prove a negative as part of your argument, you’re simply taking an easy way out of the argument.

  44. Rah Bee says:


    1 puddle of goo
    1 energy source
    2 dozen amino acids
    spice to taste

    Do the math;
    1st you have to ask yourself “what are the odds of two of these ingredients being at the same place at the same time?” Say 50/50 (or 1/2). Those are good odds.
    2ndly you have to surmise the odds of three of these “ingredients” being at the same place at the same time. If you use the above odds, then the answer would be 1/4 (1/2 x 1/2).
    3rd, 1/8 which, of course, is 1/2 x 1/4
    4th 1/16 etc…
    At 26 ingredients, you have 1/67,108,864 to one odds.
    That’s before adding the real important stuff!

    Personally, I’ll take the 50/50 odds that we were put here.

    And where are all the half monkeys anyway? I imagine it would take several hundred thousand generations to “mutate” or “adapt”. It seems we should have found at least one specimen intact.

  45. E.A. Blair says:

    @Hellscream: Did I ever say I am an atheist? While I don’t believe in the biblical version of god, I never said I rejected the notion of deities altogether.

    And if everybody got what they truly deserved, wouldn’t that be just?

  46. James m says:

    Too bad you haven’t evolved into someone who believes in the Word of God.

  47. Joshua says:

    @Rah Bee… your simplistic views are the problem…

    First of all, even with your number… there are more billions of stars in our galaxy alone, so 1/70mil isn’t bad odds – and considering the whole of the universe, those are actually great odds.

    And for the half monkey. Different species of monkeys are at different evolutionary stages. The error in your thinking is that we came from Monkeys… its an idiotic thought that’s only parroted by creationists to make the argument look absurd. No evolutionist thinks that at all. Modern primates and Humans share a recent (in evolutionary terms) ancestor. We did not come from monkey, us and monkeys came from the same place. We can see our prior selves in the fossil records, and we can see precursors to modern primates as well.

    The reasons we don’t have fossils for every step of the process is that fossils only form in specific scenarios. Its why you probably cant dig under your house and find million year old fossils. So what we can see in the fossil record is actually quite a small picture, and its why we have large gaps between stages of evolution. We only see the fossil evidence in areas that are geologically conducive for fossils. Imagine how many dinosaurs lived over the millions of years they were around – and we can count complete fossils discovered in the thousands… barely a percentage of a percentage of a percent.

  48. Rah Bee says:

    Joshua, you need to keep it simplistic for the simplistic.

    You seem educated on the number of stars out there. Wouldn’t you agree there is a greater chance we came from there and not here??

  49. AdamE says:

    Curious… Why is it that those who scream ignorance always tend to scream it in an ignorant tone? Are you aware that their are two completely different pieces of evolution? Macro-evolution is a THEORY which discusses the idea of interspeciation. That is evolution that causes one species to become another. Micro-evolution, which is globally accepted by scientists and Christians, is proven in nature every day. It is also known as adaptation. You see, Their are Christians who demand intelligent debate, however if you ask me your state above, which is written boldly in rage, seems no more ignorant than Mr. Beck’s. Be cautious my friend, your belief in a scientific theory is starting to sound a lot like faith….after all what idiot would have faith in the writings of another man???

  50. Crikey says:

    The change in human height is not an example of genetic change necessarily. That is to say, not always.

    If you take a short squat fat(ish) family from a very cold region and move them to the tropics, children born there will be slightly taller and probably a lot slimmer than the would have been in the tundra. The existing family will prob get slimmer too, but if they aren’t growing, the development effect isn’t the same.

    The adaptability of humans is represented in many ways, not all adaptive reactions are genetic – aka evolutionary. Sorry to be picky. The spirit of your argument is still valid.

    As to how “Christians” explain science fact X, it’s ‘differently’ just like most of us atheists. If you are talking to someone that believes in something unseen, don’t get too frustrated that their explanation doesn’t have proof. Once you believe that force A affects all things, then you’ve framed your world view.

    It’s only the pushy ppl that are actually telling us how to live that should put up or shut up. I’m all for ppl believing in ghosts or aliens or photons (hint: only 2 of those are real :P) if it makes them nicer. Beck’s or Palin’s faith isn’t helping heal ppl, so in my opinion, whether they are right or wrong, they should stfu.

  51. Everin says:

    “after all what idiot would have faith in the writings of another man???”

    What is wrong with you people? Can you actually be this clueless? It’s not the writings of a man sane people believe in. It’s science. The same science which has you operate your cell phone and toaster.

    Get a brain.

  52. opensourcer says:

    Listen to Tim Minchin’s song Storm. It have a lot to do with the faith vs. science debate. Great Beat Song.

  53. Joshua says:


    The difference between a scientific theory, with evidence, and a ideological theory, with no evidence, is very important. I have no “faith” in scientific theory. I subscribe to the theory that has the most supporting evidence. If tomorrow someone proved a whole new method of the creation of life, and supported it with strong, peer reviewed and demonstrable evidence, I would have no problem supporting that view. There is a reason the term “scientific fact” is a misnomer …

    Religion is believing something with absolutely no evidence. If a grown man was allowed to grow up and never be exposed to the idea that santa was fake, he would be right here arguing his existence if someone denied him – purely on blind faith alone because someone he trusted at a young age told him it was the truth, and that ‘truth’ at a formative age holds itself very deeply. Why do you think some kids cry and actually show signs of real depression when they find out that santa isn’t real. Someone they trusted very much lied to them, and even in the face of that lie, they have a hard time letting go of the lie – the same thing happens with religion. It’s why I find it appalling that people force their children into religion at a young age, it’s nothing short of accepted brain washing. In fact, “brain-washing” itself is nothing short of people raising children as part of a culturally non-accepted religion.

    You can’t believe in micro-evolution without believing in macro evolution, while accepting the timeframe of life on the planet. Macro evolution is simply the product of millions of years of micro evolution. The term “micro evolution” is essentially just a way to describe macro evolution over a shorter time period.

  54. AdamE says:

    Tell me Everin, what is the definition of science? Actually what happens in my toaster is mechanical and no longer science. The physics that drives it can no longer be dis-proven, and science is…oh yeah will let you educate yourself on that matter. However my friend, I can state that I think the world is made of cheese, and that is truly science. It is a testable theory just as macro-evolution is. Admittedly evolution is much more difficult to prove or dis-prove and even rides a thin line between faith and science because it is so difficult to prove or disprove, it is still science because it is testable to the best of our knowledge.

    Please don’t spit back a list of genetic similarities, Correlation is not prove. I understand the validity behind the THEORY of evolution, I just wish that people would remember that it is a theory. A good scientist has a mindset to disprove theories.

  55. Joshua says:


    Technically, gravity is still a theory, since we can’t prove the actual cause or source of it. There are actually a few theories to what gravity is that are very popular, ranging from strong forces in neighboring dimensions spilling over into ours, to explanations on the quantum level.

    Same with your toaster. We know how to generate the electricity that powers it. We know the properties of the electricity. What we don’t know, is that’s happening at the subatomic level that actually leads to all of those properties – if we did, we could much more efficiently harness it.

    There is almost nothing in the universe we know to be an accepted scientific fact. It’s really just a group of widely accepted theories.

  56. Joshua says:


    Your last statement is very wrong.

    A good scientist has the mindset to neither prove nor disprove theories. In fact, the scientific method prohibits that – you do no perform an experiment with an expectation of a particular result, you simply perform the experiment to get a result – and treat that result the same whether it’s the result you would prefer or not.

    A good scientist has a mindset of wanting to find a more provable answer, not to prove or disprove anything.

  57. AdamE says:


    You see, the problem with your statement is the refusal to see the difference between Santa and God… Rather bold statement I might say. If it is the most generally excepted opinion you are looking for you may need to look into how large of a following Christianity has as compared to Evolution. Remember, at one point in time it was the accepted theory that the world was flat. Also as to your statement that there is no support behind Christianity, I would say that as monkey is to human in evolution, Jesus is to God in Christianity. There is no doubt in there similarities, but the belief in their relation is simply left up to faith.

  58. Joshua says:


    Santa and God have exactly the same amount of supporting evidence. They are, scientifically, indistinguishable.

  59. al says:

    These articles always end up becoming more about the comments than the article itself. Oh well.
    To be fair, I think that Glenn Beck doesn’t understand the theory of evolution very well. I don’t say this simply because I disagree with Beck’s theocratic politics, but because the theory of evolution simply makes more sense than creationism from a scientific standpoint. From a religious point of view creationism makes sense to the faithful. In fact the two theories aren’t really in opposition to one another at all because creationism is pseudoscience while evolution is based on hard science. A creationist starts off by saying God created the universe and then sets out to prove their theory correct through rationalization.
    An evolutionists starts off wondering how life on earth works and sets out to find out with no preconceived notions other than the unavoidable part of natural philosophy which says that science by definition seeks to study and understand how the PHYSICAL universe works. In order to prove the existence of a higher being that created the universe you’d have to first of all step into a completely different field of study than evolution known as cosmogony to further such a theory anyway. Characterizing evolution as a field that studies the origin of the universe is a mis-characterization of evolution theory. Misrepresenting the idea that human and apes share common ancestors as the idea that we came from apes is equally as negligible.
    One last point, in science a ‘theory’ has a very different meaning than in popular culture. A theory basically has much more supporting and corroborating evidence than a mere theory invented by a humanist or literary theorist.

    Anyway, no one cares so why waste my breath? Glenn Beck is ignorant of science because he is a religious zealot who thinks you can find all the answers in religion obviously. Some religious people understand evolution but they posit unnecessary additions to the theory about God as if God had anything to do with the physical universe — as if there is evidence of a God that has any relevance to scientific research. Can you study the physical characteristics of God? If so, then maybe the creationists have some hard evidence to support their theory. Pointing out holes in evolution doesn’t prove the existence of God though.

  60. Grizz says:

    There actually was a time in history when just about everyone believed in God and the church was in control…it was called the Dark Ages.

    Just throwing that out there.

  61. Marie says:

    Exactly so…
    They burn the Alexandrian Library, and we lost so much, but not to worry, all they need is their Sunday dose of a kool aid:
    “God love You, yes he does, he just dont remember Your name even for Christmas”!
    We could still live in the Dark age if people were following them!

  62. Joe Pereira says:

    Its sad to think that an ignorant man can create such debate. Glen is not only foolish and uninformed but also dangerous. It is dangerous to ignore and ridicule the truth. Evolution is FACT, pure and simple, and there is proof in every decent museum the world over and countless scientific records.Creationism is fiction, mythology, superstition and intelectual lazyness. Thats also a fact.
    It is tragic to think that 40% of Americans believe in the myth of creation. Unbelievable.

  63. Martian says:

    “Glenn Beck is ignorant of science because he is a religious zealot who thinks you can find all the answers in religion obviously.”

    I think you are giving him too much credit. There is already some evidence that he knowingly and actively participated with the Koch brothers and their little secret group to strategize for the upcoming elections. This group was not a group of poor, down trodden, persecuted Christians; this group was a collection of very powerful and very rich owners of industries most affected by the Democratic take over in Congress. So when Glenn Beck says he is fighting for the little guy, he is lying through his teeth.

    You can be certain that he will never ever address this point, and the politically astute members of this group will never be caught answering questions like really politicians are required to do. Check out the behavior of the leading Tea Party candidates, and you will see consistently, that they have learn from Sarah Palin that answering questions is very dangerous to their political careers.

  64. Martian says:

    “I would doubt that a Christian who believes in evolution would really believe that a single-celled organism really has a soul – be it different than a human soul. That takes real faith.”

    Absolutely. On the other hand, the definition of God (except for the literalists) is such that it is pretty much impossible to prove that he (or she or it) does not exist in some form.

    If the universe is a petri dish in some big green giant’s lab, how the hell would WE know? We probably would not have the technology to discover this for a very long time.

    If this big green giant meticulously injected a thing called a “soul” into each highly developed homo sapien just at the time of birth, how the hell would WE know this? It is hard to test for something without a clear definition of what it is.

    Just because you “feel it” does not mean that it is real. Physicians specializing in pain management know this. There are traumas that will lead you to feel all sorts of things that are simply not there.

    Your biological system is not perfect, and your perception system can be fooled.

    This is why science, when it attempts to make observations, it takes many many repeated experiments (some times over decades) before a question is confirmed or denied. After all, “science” does not make observations, people do, and people are flawed in many many ways.

    If someone says, without mentioning Jesus or God, that he has an invisible friend (say an invisible dog) he talks to regularly to get moral and ethical advice, you would be a little skeptical. If you hear your dog talking to you, you would double check your hearing.

    Now, if this person tries to force the school to teach the kids about invisible talking dogs, you would probably have some objections.

    And that’s where we are.

  65. Crikey says:

    I guess I’ll respond to Adam. Not meaning to argue against you though. Seems like everyone wants everyone to see their point of view. I only know mine so here goes…

    The ‘just a theory’ argument is semantic. ‘Theory’ has different meanings. So many ppl change the meaning to say it’s a hypothesis / idea. That’s not the definition of a scientific theory. I just mean that the semantic argument that theory = unproven is not correct. Theory = reproducible. The theory of gravity was ‘proven’ by applying it to heavenly bodies, etc and seeing the math hold up. New types of heavenly bodies may appear, and if the math breaks, the theory does too. Creating new species by manipulating their environments and watching them genetically adapt over time is reproducible. The creation of man might become reproducible, but it origin of OUR race of man will probably not.

    To your point, a scientific theory is just the kind of thing scientists DO try to disprove, or they WANT to disprove. I’m not a scientist, so I lazily tend to follow what I consider to be well proven points. The bible has awesomely outdated and contradictory points if you try to take it literally, so my advice to non-Adams is don’t. Not a whole lot of Christians see it 100% literal. Don’t straw man them.

    The Santa comment is meant to try to get believers of gods to see what we mean in our (not Christian) comments. It’s not the same obviously, but it is in a way that you don’t SEEM to get. Who knows.

    Someone already posted this but this is what I think the Santa / Christ argument is about:

    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” ~Stephen Roberts

    So that’s my opinion. I do think that teaching the scientific method and previous theories in schools helps creates critical thinking, theology as well, but not religious or scientific dogma.

    Last point, the no proof comments get thrown around on both sides of the evol argument, iow no proof of the origin of man from man or monkey. I can say that if Christ/God did exist, he’s too contradicting. He becomes manifest in order to show us the new way then supposedly hides himself again so we can have free will. The hidden god theory of Christians does not help prove that he exists, it just proves that ppl don’t need proof.

    Crap – sorry about the long post. Back to the original point, Beck makes no sense. I still don’t know where he got the bit about not having to force the Round Earth Theory.

  66. Rah Bee says:

    Please forgive this rather large blog post…

    When I find myself engaged in these ‘discussions’, I always think of one timeless and true fact; millions upon millions believe(d) (and have died) in the name of faith. Intelligent political and military leaders, business titans and physicists, pastors and parishioners. what you never hear is that these really smart people almost never change their opinion of there faith in their religion (Christian or otherwise). Quite the contrary. They find more zealousness the more they study. It always is sad to me that these witnesses are blown off as heretics, ignorant of the obvious truth that modern forensics have brought to the 21st century. The Bible is an accepted historical document with PROVEN prophesies foretold. “NAY!” you say, but evolutionists as a whole don’t study works like “the Study of Pyramidology” by Capt or “The Natural Limits to biological Change” by Lester and Bohlin. For all you non-believers out there who dismiss religion, I say only through SCIENTIFIC study can true faith be achieved. Joshua wrote some quip earlier about “believing in knowledge written by man”. I prefer knowledge written in stone.

    I believe the Earth has been here for many millions of years. I also believe “God” delivered all life to this Earth. I just don’t see a rose growing into a Redwood Tree, no matter how many billions of years you give it. Furthermore, I have a strong education in the field of archeology and geology. If ‘sub-man’ was trucking around more then 6,000 years, we would know about it. yet miraculously, we went from zero history to Babylon in as many generations. Agriculture, law, physics, astronomy, mathematics, economic and political systems and governments just sprang out of nowhere.

    Machu Picchu, The Pyramid in Giza, Tiwanaku and other sites defy modern explanation. But their precision of craft and locations, I believe, are left to educate those of us living in the here and now.

    The real tragedy is that whether you believe in evaluation or “creation” (life from beyond), one consistent fact still remains; those are the only two possibilities of life being here on earth. I feel it is inconsiderate and ignorant to dismiss the gut feeling of so many millions of believers through history as simply wrong.

    So let me conclude this novel by stating I sincerely hope I haven’t wasted my many years believing in Christ my Savior rather than hanging my hat on the notion the planet Earth won the Cosmic Lottery and sparked life. Because if you believe that, then you must also buy into the fact that we are alone in this universe. Because the chance of another spark of life on another planet is infinitesimally small. If that is true than your amazing gift of life is just an insignificant grain of sand in the sea of time. It is always my hope that closed-minded people warm up to the idea that maybe your life hear on Earth has some deeper purpose. Choose Christ, cause he’s real and acomin’ sooner than you might think.

  67. Jay says:

    I am embarrassed that so many Americans are creationists. How pathetic. :(

  68. Anonymous says:

    It’s called the law of biogenesis (life only comes from life)something Pasteur figured out a long time ago. There has never been a case of this law being broken. So, where did the first life come from in order for everything else to evolve from? While we’re at it, let’s throw in the ridiculous notion of the Big Bang. . . an explosion of matter with such a violent force that would have sterilized the universe many times over with the amount of radiation that was released. How does life form in a sterile environment? It can’t (our old friend the LAW of biogenesis, not the theory of biogenesis).

  69. Craig says:

    The Catholic Church figured out that the Sun revolved around the Earth too.

  70. J D O the First says:

    If you want to see a half monkey, half man, Google Image up Brock Lesner. Glenn Beck 0, me 1. Put it on the board.

  71. Martian says:

    “While we’re at it, let’s throw in the ridiculous notion of the Big Bang. . . an explosion of matter with such a violent force that would have sterilized the universe many times over with the amount of radiation that was released.”

    Wow … where to begin. How about “try reading about what the Big Bang Theory ACTUALLY says before spouting your ignorant garbage”?

    Hint: If you think the Big Bang was an explosion, you didn’t even bother to read the synopsis, let alone try to understand the full theory.

    Next: Mentioning a big technical sounding word like “abiogenesis” does not make you an expert. It might impress other idiots, but not people who know what this is. While there are numerous conceptual and practical mistakes, let’s see if there is any point in talking about them:

    Did you know that life, as we know it, can occur at temperatures that would normally boil water?

    Did you know that life, as we know it, can occur in utterly toxic sulfuric acid conditions?

    If you didn’t know this, there is no point in continuing because you aren’t actually interested in facts that contradict your world view.

  72. Martian says:

    “So let me conclude this novel by stating I sincerely hope I haven’t wasted my many years believing in Christ my Savior rather than hanging my hat on the notion the planet Earth won the Cosmic Lottery and sparked life.”

    The idea that a science class must necessarily address your spiritual needs is ludicrous. Again, you don’t go to a brain surgeon to fix a fuel injector.

    Science is a completely different realm of thought than religion. Religion addresses completely different issues than science.

    If you think that a nuclear physicist will help you decide whether you owe your Aunt Mary an apology for the nasty remark you made last Christmas or whether you should have tipped your waitress better, you are barking up the wrong tree.

    Moral and ethical questions are not the domain of science, and any idiot trying to force fit such a square peg into a round hole should have his head examined.

    This is where bozos like Ben Stein try to conflate Evolution with Hitler. It’s cute, but hey, Hitler has a mustache and so did Tom Selleck, so Tom Selleck must be a closeted mass exterminator of Jews …

    Cute, for a one liner or a bumper sticker, but not the slightest bit logical.

  73. Elish says:

    To the people who are saying they accept microevolution but reject macroevolution, what mechanism do you propose that stops the changes of microevolution from accumulating to the point of speciation, aka macroevolution?

    I ask this because microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing. The underlying mechanism of inherited genetic change is exactly the same. The only difference between the two terms is time scale. Macroevolution is the accumulation, over time, of microevolutionary changes. To say you accept microevolution but reject macroevolution is like saying that it’s possible to walk to the end of your driveway, but a magical barrier keeps you from continuing on down the street.

    If that’s enough for you, know this: The evolution of new species has been directly observed, both in the wild and in controlled laboratory settings. It’s been observed in kew and evening primrose. It’s been observed in the goatsbeard plant, in hemp nettle, in beetles and grasshoppers, fruitlies and houseflies, in worms. You should also look up “ring species”. Macroevolution isn’t just a theory. It’s also a fact, in much the same way that gravity is both a fact (objects with mass are attracted to each other, which we know from direct observation) and a theory (they are attracted to each other because of curvature in space-time, which is the current explanatory model for the observed phenomenon).

    To Anonymous: Yes, life would be impossible in the immediate wake of the big bang. Good thing it happened billions of years ago, plenty of time for the levels of background cosmic radiation to come down to levels compatible with life. It’s only ridiculous if you learn about it from your scientifically illiterate pastor rather than a qualified physicist. But thanks for playing.

  74. Anonymous says:

    The “Law of Biogenesis” is a “law” quoted by Creationist – there is no such thing. Creationists just love throwing the “law” around because of how much trouble they end up in when they misquote “theory” and get “law” thrown at them, also.

    Also, the church figured out about the heliocentric universe? Really? Because this was known WELL before Jesus’ time on Earth. In fact, the person given the most credit for the heliocentric universe, in modern times, was Nicholas Copericus who was deemed a heretic by the Catholic Church. His book could not be published until after his death because of his views. It was FIVE HUNDRED F’N YEARS AFTER THIS that the Church gave in and took his “heretic” title away.

    Don’t just read, investigate… damn.

  75. Peter says:

    @Rah Bee

    Just because many people have believed in the something does not make it true. A thousand years ago people would have believed that the earth was flat. Just because many people believed in this does it make it fact? no.

    Also simply stating that there are lots of intelligent people who were religious isn’t evidence in favor for religion. The ancient Greeks believed in gods such as Zeus, Poseiden, Hades, etc. In their society there would have been intelligent people who believed in those Gods as well. Basically belief in God/s is also influenced by culture.

    Your last paragraph shows how much you underestimate the size of the universe. I’m not sure of the accuracy of this number, but a site i just looked up stats that there are 10^21 stars in the universe, with an estimated 3 planets per star. Basically common belief is in opposite to what you stated. It is inevitable that there is other life in the universe.

    The reason I think people like you are closed minded is because you think too much with your emotions. Why must there be some deeper purpose? Why can’t you consider the possibility that life occured because of coincidences when the right conditions were available?

    “I feel it is inconsiderate and ignorant to dismiss the gut feeling of so many millions of believers through history as simply wrong.”
    That is one glaring example of your thinking with emotions. Millions of people having a “gut” feeling about religion has no relevance to the debate regarding Religion. Millions of people today believe in evolution. But if tomorrow Jesus came down from heaven would you think it ignorant to dismiss evolution? No you would think it was logical. In the end with regards to the debate, the only thing that matters is the facts you have at hand, and not emotional feeling about one thing or another.

  76. GregAtlanta says:

    These scientific explanations are great, but the bottom line is that thinking hurts for Glen (and those who follow, it appears.) This is the forcing he is talking about. His head hurts. All you have to do is look at an animal to see our connection to the animal kingdom; monkeys with ears, hands, fingers, two eyes, and the like…come on. Either God is short on imagination or we all came from the same source. This is putting 2+2 together…ouch! Put the monkey aside, if you like, we are not so different from a tiger, a porpoise, or a whale. Pick whatever animal cousin you like best and embrace the obvious. For those out working in the fields…the earth as a spinning ball in infinite space is a major conceptual leap, but this is not so for our obvious kinship with animals.

  77. Martian says:

    “Santa and God have exactly the same amount of supporting evidence. They are, scientifically, indistinguishable.”

    To be fair, the theory of Santa is a little more testable because he is supposedly situated in a house with elves somewhere near the North Pole.

    Satellite photos and some good scanning software ought to be able to narrow down where this could be.

  78. Anon says:

    I have to call BS on the Christian ‘life cannot come from non-life” idea. So you are admitting that your god came from another god? Probably an evil one. Makes sense, right? Lucifer came from Yahweh, so maybe Yahweh came from Glenn Beck’s butt.

  79. Martian says:

    “These scientific explanations are great, but the bottom line is that thinking hurts for Glen (and those who follow, it appears.)”

    I like your explanation better.

  80. MrAuH2O says:

    Wow lots of emotions running strong against religion and creationism. The first argument that I noticed was that people argue that creationism is not a valid scientific theory. I would argue that it deserves equal weight in a science classroom. To say that it is possible for a creator to have created the universe is not an attack on any other theory. It is simply another theory. It is as provable as macro-evolution (you cannot prove macro evolution either -check it out for yourself). Several people have argued that creationism couldn’t be proven scientifically in a public school classroom. Evolution cannot be proven either. The closest you can come to proving it is expressing several opinions about how life might have started and show several variants of species (micro evolution) but not link anything less specific than a species.

    The second argument I notice is that people assume they know a lot about evolution. I see post where people talk about amino acids form proteins when combined with energy. This is actually an assumed truth, not a real truth. It sounds like its legitimate but its not. Amino acids only form proteins in living organisms. In the ocean animo acids are actually shown to disperse rather than collect. In addition, one of the keys to life, RNA, cannot be recreated. You can make the case for a creator scientifically. See next paragraph for a good reference.

    The next argument that I find interesting is that people assume that smart scientists are evolutionists and not creationists. Google “creation scientists”. You’ll find many scientists from every area of study, many who are leading experts in their field. These scientists concede that there are parts of life and the universe that science is unable to explain. Once again, The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel would be a great read for those of you who see creationism as a dangerous theory. You’ll actually discover that SCIENTIFICALLY it makes sense.

    I am very curious why the world is so quick to strongly (and obviously hatefully if you read back through the posts) reject the creationist theory. We preach tolerance on every other front. Why not this one? Allowing this theory to be expressed alongside others doesn’t force anyone to believe it, just like I’m not forced to believe in macro-evolution. Let it stand under its own scientific merit.

  81. Joshua says:


    You’re just repeating the argument from ignorance. You’re basically saying that lack of definite proof one way is proof for the other, which is a logical fallacy.

    See, there IS evidence for evolution. You yourself admit that microevolution is a true. How then, does microevolution work for for a few hundred million years and not become macro evolution?

    Science doesn’t have all the answers – but that’s not a case for a creator. There is no evidence, at all, for a creator. Period.

    And it IS dangerous, when it’s being teached as a science when it meets none of the basic scientific principles – if you want to teach willful ignorance to your child, feel free – but don’t force it on others.

  82. charliesommers says:

    To all those who claim that creation is another theory I would caution you to consult your dictionary and discover what the word theory actually means; “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena .”

    A hypothesis is; “a guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.”

    Creationism has not made it up the ladder to the status of “theory” but is stuck on the bottom rung where it will stay a “hypothesis” until it is supported by something other than the Bible. The Bible has so many obvious myths and contradictions that I frankly don’t see how anyone can use it as validation for anything, although I thoroughly enjoyed the story of the 600 year old man who built a wooden boat large enough for two, or more, of every species in the world.

  83. bkitties says:

    Creationism has absolutely no place in a science classroom for one very simple reason: it is not and can never be science. Creationism makes no predictions. It cannot be tested using the scientific method. It cannot be falsified. All of those things are requirements of a scientific theory. Unless you can think of an experiment in which certain outcomes would prove life was not created by a divine power, Creationism cannot be science and cannot be a theory. It will forever remain a philosophical or religious hypothesis, and nothing more. If it has any place in a public school, it’s in a comparative religious studies or philosophy class. It definitely has no place in a science class.

    Evolution can be proven via the scientific method. It makes predictions that can be tested. Evolution predicts the types of transitional fossils we have found. It predicts the level of genetic similarity between species. Evolution also has the potential to be falsified. Keep in mind that just because it can be falsified doesn’t mean it has been, or that it will be. Falsifiability just means you can design an experiment in which a certain outcome would disprove the hypothesis you are working on. In evolution’s case, finding an earthly life form whose mode of inheritance is not a nucleic acid would falsify evolution. Finding pre-Cambrian rabbits would falsify evolution. Finding a synthesis of two extant species from widely divergent clades, such as a crocoduck, would falsify evolution. Etc. None of those things have been found. All of the thousands upon thousands of scientific studies done on evolution support it. The scientific consensus on the matter is as overwhelming as the consensus on the germ theory of illness. (Yes, the idea that people get sick from germs is also only a “theory.”)

    As for macroevolution being unproven, that’s a funny thing to say considering it has been *directly observed* dozens of times in both the lab and controlled settings in the wild. It’s been observed in drosophilia, in nettle and primrose plants, and more. If you want to talk about evolution, you should maybe stop using out-of-date textbooks and your scientifically illiterate preacher as your source materials. Otherwise you don’t poke holes in the theory, you only expose your own ignorance.

  84. Jason says:

    Ok, get off the god kick. If god was the same yesterday, today, and forever, then why does he even evolve. Look at Kabalism, Judaism, and Christianity. Secondly, we’ve found our missing link in Ardipithicus, have you? Proof is Proof, but you can’t tell me to just have faith because you think it exists. BTW, I’m a big Beck supporter until he goes off on his God Kick.