American Morning
Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
November 20th, 2009
09:08 AM ET
Kirk Cameron attempts to debunk Darwin
Former teen idol Kirk Cameron is on a crusade to debunk evolution. He's a born-again Christian and part of a group that wrote a new 50-page intro to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" to mark its 150th anniversary.
Cameron and his group are handing out thousands of copies of the book on universities across the country. CNN's Carol Costello reports.
About this Show
Welcome to the American Morning blog where you can get daily news updates from American Morning's reporters and producers. Join us for "the most news in the morning," weekdays from 6-9 a.m. ET, only on CNN.
On Twitter
RT @EarlyStart: Ten people, including a police officer, were killed Monday after a gunman opened fire in a grocery store in Boulder, Colora…
RT @calebsilver: On the @Investopedia Express podcast this week, my pal and former colleague, @ChristineRomans from @CNNBusiness and @CNN j…
This is amazing for us, Meredith! twitter.com/mbennettsmith/…
Derek Chauvin's trial is a chance for the justice system to prove it can actually work msnbc.com/opinion/derek-…
RT @ConstitutionCtr: #WomensHistoryMonth is a time to reflect on the women who have shaped America’s story.@RosenJeffreyey an@MSNBCBC's @Al…
RT @centralbanks_: The Exchange | Conversations for a Better Future One-on-one conversation with IMF Chief Kristalina Georgieva and Micros…
Good for Kirk! Evolution isn't even a fact-it's a theory for the reason that you can't justify it using the scientific method. Was there anyone there to observe it? Can it be replicated? Scientists try to connect the dots, but there is no "missing link". Evolution is a concept that also requires faith-just like religion.
when we look at the earth the oceans and the universe it all is soo complex we still dont know all there is to know. where there is complexity there is a mind where there is a mind there is intelligence. If mindless evolution was responsible life and everything else it should be very simpleto understand. Yet we still dont know what dark matter and dark energy are.Could this be because JEHOVAH GOD is so much more intellient than we are. I dont know why its so hard for people to give him the credit and glory.
To atheists, agnostics and so on... if evolution is "THE WAY" then "riddle me this" (smile). What came first the heart or the blood?
It seems that no one posting here contrary to design theory has read or seen the hot news flash so popular approx. 2 years ago... the one where scientist magnified the inner workings of a common cell. It was made up of individual parts... it was in essence a "flesh machine". AND it was determined that if any ONE of those parts did not work or were not there, the entire cell would not function. So what came first the complete cell or one part at a time? Hey I give you all credit... your faith in evolution... I can not muster the faith necessary to believe in evolution. One day, I promise... YOU WILL acknowledge Jesus. Hopefully it's not when you say to yourself, "why didn't I listen to those idiot christians"?
Where did Noah put all the dinosaurs? or the hundreds of millions of species of insects?
Kirk, the world is not 6,000 years old like you nutjobs think. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt: the universe is over 13 billion years old. The science is iron clad.
While, yes, the theory of evolution has had many slight changes, Darwins theories have more often than not proven the bible to be historically inaccurate
get your friggin head out of the sand, ostrich
also, just because some scientists dont believe in "your" god, doesnt mean that they do not believe in a god.
if you would like an accurate view of how the bible was written, check out "Misqouting Jesus".
Science is science. Faith is faith. "Creation Science" isn't science.
As a Christian, I don't know why God's word in Genesis doesn't match the evidence of his natural world, but it doesn't.
I am a Christian and I have been all of my life. I got to church every Sunday, and this week I have been attending special services at 5:30 AM with my wife. I also believe in evolution and I recognize the importance of science and the scientific method, I even got an A in college biology. Creationist theory and intelligent design is all a load of crap, clearly, science and mathematics are the language of God. Regardless of what deity you believe in, or what reality you choose to believe, 1+1 will always equal 2.
Here we go again...
Some of us believe that both accounts are true. Creationism and evolutionism are not mutually exclusive. I firmly believe God is going to reveal to me when I die the facts that link the two. For example, the in the beginning, the Earth was without form and void, and there was an evening and a morning one day. Forget for a moment that you currently believe a "day" to be 24 hours. At the time, the earth was without form and void, so how could it be rotating at its current rate that yeilds a "day" that is 24 hours in length? It is entirely possible that the definition of a "day" was...perhaps...a millenia. Perhaps longer. Time enough for evolution to be working, as God was creating.
Without going on ad nauseum (I'd love to talk about how the Bible seems to omit dinosaurs, but mentions the modern day Cormorant by name), suffice it to say that there is enough evidence for evolution that those who believe in Creationism (as I do), had better open their eyes to the possibilty that God has not yet revealed to us everything there is to know about the beginning.
Just where does the certainty of true belief come from? Genes? Are critical thinking skills not learned? Or just not applied? I am forever grateful that God blessed me with the need & the ability to think independently. Having faith & taking things on faith are not the same. Parse, scrutinize, analyze, question – even if you choose not to subvert the dominant paradigm.
FOR THE CLUELESS PEOPLE who've said that there is "no proof" of evolution, and if there were "it would be in the news":
When was the last time you turned on your TV? Swine Flu? HELLO?!?!? Bacteria that are resistant to many antibiotics, like MRSA? I bet you could type MRSA, Swine Flu (H1N1), or even VRE into any search engine and you'd get an overwhelming number of scientific articles that are horrifying in that they all have one thing in common: they say that bacteria and viruses are evolving to become more and more resistant to our current medical treatment.
Be staunch in your religiosity if you must, but In the least, you should concede that God is behind evolution, whether it be sudden, gradual or variable in rate. You simply can't argue that evolution doesn't happen. IT IS FACT. But please, keep yourself busy and out of my way while you argue that the mechanism as God caused or not.
I am a Kirk Cameron denier. I doubt he exists. And that statement is as obviously absurd as his own.
I am a born again Christian. And I say these Creationists are morons and I wish they would shut up and stop giving Christianity a bad reputation as being a religion full of nutcases, hillbillies, and morons! Please! Believe what you want to believe Kirk, and shut up and get off television. Keep it to yourself and stop trying to strong arm everybody else into sharing your stupidity. Most of the idiot Christians I know want to believe Creationism is true because then that means it's all about Religion and then they can CONTROL RELIGIOUS THOUGHT and practice in this Country. What scares them about Science is that they don't understand it and so it can't be controlled by them. That's why they "debunk" anything new or scientific or progressive. It threatens them. I don't follow that line of thought. God created Science so we could come to understand His true nature. Science is the trail of crumbs God left for us.
The real concern we need to have is that neither the creationists, nor the evolutionists, in spite of people like Dawkins, and the rhetoric of evangelicals, can establish a proof tested theory of origins. Both sides wish to describe as science propositions that are not defensible by scientific scrutiny. Both sides of this mindless discussion all too often appear to have SIMILAR RELIGIOUS FERVOUR in attempting to promote their views. For myself I find it more acceptable to view the cosmos as having some sort of first cause. This is not a scientific belief at all. I have no testable data, but neither does the anti-theist camp which I used to belong to. I feel more comfortable in the "first cause camp", but I am troubled by the misguided ardor on both sides of a quite useless debate. Having chosen by faith alone to believe in some sort of conscious First Cause, I feel more comfortable because if I am wrong, it means little. When I was anti-theist, if I were wrong, it could have been a big deal. If I am right, and I submit I do not know, I think it will give more meaning to what appears to be a rather chaotic appearing world of people and stuff.
"I would rather be a creation of God than a monkey's uncle...."
Wanting something does not make it so. I wish my dad had been a billionaire but he was blue collar. God is an invention of man, a story – just like countless creation stories from other cultures – created to explain where we came from. Of course the story is that we were created in the image of the most powerful figure in the universe. Makes us feel special, sort of like a kindergarten story. But we are in a coming of age, humanity is growing up and learning to separate superstition from reality. Still, taking off the blinders can be scary. Blue pill or red?
Nicely said, Dave Wilson.
cb in this case 'theory' is used in the scientific nomenclature. such as 'theory of gravity'. It is not guess-work. It dismays me that in this day and age that the arguments have to be so shrill and black and white. It is perfectly acceptable to believe in a Supreme Being and still clearly see that evolution is a fact. The Catholic Church resisted the earth orbiting the sun, that continents drift, and that other stars had planets. At some point even 'born-again' Christians will recognize that evolution is real and that it doesn't contradict a belief in God.
The scientific evidence for evolution is at present so massive and overwhelming it is irrefutable. Natural selection is not a theory today, it is a time and again proven fact. Anyone who doubts this or proclaims otherwise is either woefully ignorant and delusional, or an outright charlatan.
Creationists have no proof whatsoever to back their fanatical claims, their position relies completely and solely on their own particular religious beliefs.
Lastly, what they're doing with Darwin's monumental, yet Victorian era, achievement ought to be considered a crime against humanity.
Silly to argue on this topic. It is most certainly true that evolution is an observed phenomena. It is not theory. No evidence of macroevolution? Lets just ignore the fossils that allow us to explain the natural history of dogs, cats, rodents, birds, and yes, people through the fossil record. That those records may have gaps lacking examples means little. The environments required for fossilization and preservation of an organism's remains are very specific, and not all fossilized organisms have yet been found. It's entirely likely that we are missing a great deal of the fossil record, because many whole species did not die in environments conducive to fossilization. Where do you think fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) came from? they are the products of decaying organic matter.
The theory is natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. That was Darwin's theory. We now know that there are other means of selection, including sexual selection, and selective breeding by people. Evolution is simply reflected by the change in gene frequency in a population over time. The process can occur over time, and it can also occur as more stochastic events. The process occurs more quickly when the environments change rapidly, and it occurs more slowly when the environment is relatively stable. That does not negate the geologic time scale. The geologic time scale was developed independently of natural selection, and stands on its own body of evidence.
There is also radioactive decay of elements, which is an observed process in physics. Half-lives of different elements are measured. This is not theory. It is observable phenomena. To debunk the geologic time scale, you need to debunk radioactive decay. Only once both phenomena have been debunked will evolution's time scale be fair game. But then, that's only time scales. Next, you would have to debunk that gene frequencies in a population can change over time. Those who would even attempt to debunk evolution have an awful lot of work to do. And people like Kirk Cameron are wholly unqualified to even begin that process.
An interesting sidenote: my undergraduate evolution professor is an ardent Christian. He doesn't have ANY problems reconciling both schools of thought. Stephen Jay Gould put it very simply. Science and religion exist to explain different things about the world. Science works to explain what happens and how, while religions work to explain why those things happen. Conflicts occur when one school of thought attempts to explain the other. Some 2000yr old book cannot explain to me what occurs as a tree grows, or how that occurs. Science can. Similarly, science cannot explain why I am alive today. Religion (rather, faith) can.
there is also strong evidence to suggest the Biblical account of intelligent design. As niether is absolutely verifiable it would seem prudent to allow both theories (beliefs) to be presented and considered in the search for truth.
Science is based upon observable facts, using fossil records, bones and other data to extrapolate information. While the conclusions reached have a flexible nature, due to the correlation new information or more precise methods, religion has no such self-policing. Religion relies upon scripture, of which extremely small amounts are verifiable and could be by any logical measure call factual. By it's very nature, religion is not precise or accurate, nor does it desire to be. Any conclusions reached using imprecise methods should be subject to change, or evolution. Religion does this only when "the word of god" proves to be inconveniently backwards or unacceptable by the BORG sheep who believe such nonsense. That is why we have "old" and "new" testaments. They had to change some things that were inconveniently brutal or just plain stupid. We have never witnessed a miracle. And we never will. We will, however (assuming these religious nutjobs don't lead us into a new dark age) see a progression of scientific understanding. Religion will never progress.
Just a couple of facts... Darwin's book is very far from the current theory of evolution. Darwin just observed a lot of extremely specialized bird species, and postulated that their variety and specialization could be explained if they had evolved in step with their surroundings. It was the very beginning of evolutionary theory, nothing like the current one (which, by the way, is called the Modern Synthesis).
To suggest that "debunking" Darwin is debunking evolution is like saying that, by showing how Isaac Newton was wrong about some things, you've debunked the gravitational theory. Newton didn't know about relativity, and Darwin didn't know about genetics; but that doesn't mean gravity has been debunked - nor evolution
The whole "only a theory" thing is getting really old. It only sounds convincing if you don't know what you're talking about. Think about this: Gravity is only a theory. Yes, it is. It's a FACT that every time you've dropped a ball, it has fallen to the ground. It's a PREDICTION that this will happen the next time, too. The thing that lets you make that prediction is the THEORY, which was made by observing and explaining the FACTS. That's how it works. Also for evolution.
You could easily make an alternate theory of gravity. You could hypothesize that, every time any object has fallen to the ground, ever, since time began, it has done so because God has reached out His will and deliberately made each individual object behave in the way that was observed. Nobody could ever prove this theory wrongYou could call it "Intelligent Physics" and insist it be taught in public school, since it's just another theory - but that doesn't make it right.
It seems to me that most people do not know what the word 'Theory' means in the context of the scientific method. Most people tend to confuse a scientific Theory with the common use of the word. A scientific Theory is a general explination for observed events. No one has a problem with the cell Theory (all living things are made of cells) or the atomic Theory (all matter is made up of atoms). The common use of the word theory means an idea that has little or no evidence. Many people are uncomfortable with the Theory of evolution because it is in conflict with the idea that a supreme being said "poof", and everything just came into being. And for all you people who say things along the lines that evolution is only a Theory and not a Law, only shows further ignorance into what the definition of a Law is. A Law is a repeating pattern in nature that can be defined mathematically. Such as the Law of Universal Graviation – All objects exert an attractive force upon each other in direct proportion to their mass. There is, however, no Theory of gravity – no one has a good explanation as to how exactly mass exerts this force. We just know that it does. Theories do NOT become Laws – they are two totally separate things.
That the Nazis twisted evolution to their evil purposes is no more a reflection on Darwin than that the Ku Klux Klan twisted Christianity to their evil purposes is a reflection on Jesus.
Kirk couldn't pass freshman logic.
Theory is not a guess. Hypothesis is a guess. Then you work on the evidence and test and retest and follow it where it leads you, then you have a theory. Theories are not half-a**ed speculation. They are pretty factual, tested, and found to hold water.
That said, Christians are foolish to decide this is the hill to die on. There is nothing that says evolution, or any science, and God are mutually exclusive. Only the very silly fundamentalists (and we know how bat-sh** crazy they are in most religions) would even bother.
The bible is not a science book. It has to do with our higher selves, not our biology. This is the silliest controversy in the world – as it is completely manufactured.
I don't believe in evolution, but I'm not a Christian, and barely spiritual at all. Speaking strictly as an engineer, I just simply don't believe that evolution, on its own, is capable of creating what we see around us. It is obvious beyond refute that evolution causes incremental changes, but even evolutions largely agree that this amounts of a shuffling and stretching of genetic code *that is already there*. The writing of new code is an entirely different matter.
I think that biblical creationist thinking is pretty much a joke, and I'm not looking for fitting a preconceived explanation to the fact. Rather, evolution, as a scientific theory, is in my belief a very small part of what is happening. The rest, I assume, is fueled by a natural creative force that we have yet to discover.
It is not scientific to come up with the theory of evolution and then *stop there*. The ideo of evolution raises some pathetically obvious questions, and to be closed minded towards exploring other options, is unscientific and disingenuous. By all means, let's take Christian creationist thinking off the table, that's in the same ball park as Santa Claus. But still, aren't you curious where all this life is coming from, what is fueling the constant rewriting of genetic code, that causes cells to work together in spectacularly complex ways?
Do you really, honestly believe that simple selection between randomly coded genes can create new functional genes? Do you know how destructive mutations are? Change one line of code in Photoshop and it crashes. You have to write millions upon millions of lines of code *correctly* to make it function!
Life reaks of engineering. By whom or what or how, I have no idea. I really would like to know.
Per
It is truly sad when you try to debunk the truth - when you deny reality for your saddly narrow interpretation that ignores facts in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I hate to say this - I genuinely do - but it is the earmark of a small or otherwise brainwashed mind.
To me, Creationism and the Theory of Evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive. Only those that believe in an extreme literal interpretation of the Bible would be unable to reconcile that they could, in fact, co-exist. You can believe that God spoke the universe and the world into being and still believe in evolution. Yes, the Bible mentions 7 days, but I don't believe that this was literally 7, 24 hour days. Nobody knows how God spoke the world into being. It's really a very short part of the Bible at the beginning. No detail. We know scientifically that there were dinosaurs, but they aren't mentioned in the Bible. We know scientifically that the Earth is billions of years old, but the literal Bible believer would say that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Science and God can co-exist. You don't need to fight against one or the other. Just use some common sense and think the issue over.
Yes, the scientific community can't debunk evolution... But Growing Pains gives Cameron the experience to. Ha! This is such nonsense.
I actually received a copy of this book on my campus, and it's nothing but slander. Their "debunking" is an attempt to link Darwin's ideas to Hitler's Nazi Germany.
There is one simple phrase that sums up CNN, Kirk Cameron, Darwin, creationists, evolutionists and the scientific method that proves all conclusions are idiotic:
From little information comes big extrapolation.
Evolution, today, is a fact. I think the uneducated often confuse the concept of speciation for evolution. Evolution can be defined as the change in the gene frequency of a population over time. It is constantly happening. Sometimes evolution is rapid and sometimes populations "appear" to change very slowly, but as long as there is reproduction and or mortality there is a change in the gene frequency and evolution occurs! There is a better chance of the earth being flat than disproving evolution.
Yes, because we should all base our cognition in the fact-based universe on what superstitious pinhead post-teen actors have to say.
Tell you what, Kirk should enroll at UCLA, get his PhD in biology, and then come back and tell us what he thinks about creationism.
Microevolution is easy to support because it is observable. Macroevolution is the matter in question. Giant, land-roaming mammals evolving in to whales or apes evolving into humans is every bit as much a leap of faith as believing in "intelligent design".
My chief issue with supporters of macroevolution is the use of vast amounts of time (e.g. millions of year) as the primary means of defending a theory as though it were fact. Especially when the means of deriving such "precise" estimates of when species evolved is very subjective and presumptuous. These are not statements coming from an evangelist, just someone who appreciates sound logic. Don't call macroevolution a fact when it is very much still a theory.
Kirk Cameron's attempt to debunk Darwin is laughable. Perhaps he should spend some time thinking about the downfall of his acting career vs. trying to understand the origin of any species. Darwin's legacy cannot be obliterated by anyone, much less by imbicils like Cameron who have neither theological nor scientific expertise/merit. Darwin simply started a dialogue, a thought process, a rhetoric, an analysis of facts. For that he should be saluted. Mr. Darwin, I solute you!
Fact: Nothing cannot create something.
so if God did it how did he/she/it do it? the Bibnle is moot on that point!!!
cb, a scientific theory is a way of explaining certain known facts with the available evidence. It is not a guess. Gravity is a theory as well as Germ Theory.
To quote Darwin himself;
"I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious sensibilities of anyone." - Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, 1869.
I find that the majority of creationists don't even know what evolution actually is. It is not about the origin of life so therefore it doesn't exclude a god. It doesn't say we came from monkeys either. We share a common ancestor with the other primates.
Also, Darwin didn't coin the phrase "Survival of the Fittest..." That was from an economist of the time. When Darwin heard it he said that it wasn't survival of the strongest nor of the most intelligent, but of the more responsive to change.
There is far too much intellectual dishonesty on behalf of the creationist movement.
I just read the Introduction. It claims the world's major religions are Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity. (maybe he just forgot Judaism being in such a state). The introduction then slams the non-christian religions as pure folly in just one paragraph each. This is just a taste of the slanted propaganda being pushed by these people.
Carol, you forgot to mention that the edition of Origin of species they are handing out has also had 4 chapters removed from it.
ps. Tell J D Roberts that Cameron has been an evangelical since he was a kid, he's the one that got Erika Elienak booted from his show because she posed in Playboy
Actors are accustomed to living in a make-believe world, so I am not surprised at this.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Amen George and Dave, to both counts!!
When did the "Theory" of Evolution become "fact"?
Science – yes. Evolutionism – no.
This is the kind of desperate sensationalism that has me functioning between Agnostic and Atheist. Let's take that leap of faith to explain the unexplainable- wait, let's even do it to question the science that we do have too. Kirk is too much, just like so many of the other devout out there that have to have a devine explaination for everything...
I would like to point out that the "introduction" of the book is questioning Darwin's personal life and not deconstructing his argument. If creationists wish to debate evolution, don't resort to character assasination...
My compliments to Mr. Dave Wilson; I could not have said it any better or more eloquently. And, to George, rational people understand that people like Kirk Cameron are extremists and while they like to think they speak for all Christians–they don't and we know it. Thank you both for the sane dialog.
Hear is a guy that lets his literal interpretation of the Bible get in the way of his rationality. I suppose if the Bible said the earth was flat he would expound his flat earth belief.
Hear is a guy that lets his literal interpretation of the Bible get in the of his rationality. I suppose if the Bible said the earth was flat he would expound his flat earth belief.
It still seems incomprehensible to me that their are still people so blinded by a dogmatic literal meaning of religion and the bible. After more than 80 yrs. since the Scopes trial we still have people trying to undermine the education system with their fundamentalist philosophy. This is a danger to our society because it is direct contradiction to our fundamental belief in separation of church and state. Are we going to start witch hunts again because religion claims thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
I would rather be a creation of God than a monkey's uncle, or a former blob, and there are scientists, then and now, much more brilliant than Darwin (assuming he is brilliant) who believe they were creations of God, not former mindless blobs floating around in space or something.
FYI – Before you decide on whether Darwin was racist or not , here is the original title of his book : On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
I agree with Dave to the point that science is constantly evolving. To that point, religeon is evolving, too. Though this might be a laughable statement to some, especially the hard core humanists or christians, the idea of the Bible as allegorical and not literal (re: the word of God interpreted by man) has expanded and made ground with young believers. The point is, nobody truly knows the origin, and adaptation is undeniable, but the timeline is off on all accounts and until somebody is able to travel to the past to bring back definitive observations, I will continue with my faith in both God and science, and NO they are NOT mutually exclusive.
Science also employs methods that the "Creationists" cannot handle – a requirement for repeatable results, the use of independent peer review, and as was pointed out, constant updating of findings and conclusions.
There is a reason it is called "Blind Faith". But it is easy, and you don't have to think....progressive
Kirk Cameron is brainwashing the world into believing falsehoods.
Cameron and his obscurantist colleagues can't comprehend "Origin of the Species" (or science apparently) outside of their rigid absolutist framework. It's like suggesting that Physics should be debunked because Copernicus didn't have a comprehensive understanding of the universe.
I just noticed another thing: You called it a controversy. It is NOT A CONTROVERSY any more than science has a controversy about the earth being flat. There are MORONS that believe it's flat but it is not a controversy – their views are not taken seriously by ANYONE.
STOP GIVING THESE MORONS PUBLICITY.
He is an actor and an idiot. That you bothered to mention him gives him a million times (and I changed from 1000 – a million is probably not enough) the attention he deserves. How about publicizing people that think pigs can fly or believe in the easter bunny. Either one of these make as much sense as religious beliefs in general or creation in particular. People may say that I should have respect for people's beliefs but I don't respect people (over the age of five) that believe in Santa Clause either...
Let me see.
Darwin: celebrated scientist who spent his life using science and fact.
Kirk Cameron: Born-again Christian from the 80's sitcom Growing Pains.
Wow, that is quite the debate.
I don't see how Kirk Cameron can deny evolution. After all, he evolved into an idiot.
As was said to Job - "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth?" Declare it – if you understand.
Objective science requires a fact to be observable, verifiable and repeatable. Neither modern science nor Bible scholors can produce this. Thus it is a matter of faith; faith in the scientific explanations or faith in the Biblical record. Although science has found what they believe to be evidence suporting their theory, there is also strong evidence to suggest the Biblical account of intelligent design. As niether is absolutely verifiable it would seem prudent to allow both theories (beliefs) to be presented and considered in the search for truth.
And then my 19-year-old son will ask me, "Who's Kirk Cameron?"
Then I say, "A guy that used to be a teen idol. He was on a popular show in the 80's."
And he'll say, "So?"
Let's see, who do I believe? A has been hack actor, or scientists? I'm so torn.
You go Kirk, tell it like it is. It's time people see where they really came from. People better get ready because Jesus is coming, the bible says so!!!
Kirk Cameron knows absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution. The only thing he is capable of debunking is the idea that he has something intelligent to contribute to the discussion.
I'm a devout Evangelical with a very high view of Scripture and this sort of folly brings unnecessary dishonor to Christians. St. Augustine said it best,
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the [natural sciences] and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"
The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume 1, 39
I'm curious. Since giving up acting, just how many hours has he logged in the classroom or in the field studying anthropology, paleontology, archeology, astronomy, biology, etc.? Has he even been to the Galapagos Islands?
Other than becoming all-knowing, does he have any real qualifications to take on the task of re-writing some pretty established science?
To Dave Wilson and all of the others who follow "the Religion of Evolution" - you guys always say "Facts" and "Experts have discovered" – the problem is – every one of your "Facts" and "Discoveries" later are proven to be frauds. That my friend is trying to manipulate science to reinforce your beliefs. Please tell us of the amazing life form changes you have seen - it would surely make the news – because it just doesn't happen – that's the whole issue – there is no evidence. Evolution is a lie pushed by non-believers.
"Former teen idol"? Yeah, I'll take his word for it...roflmao....
CNN did a good job of covering the recent attempt by Kirk Cameron and the Living Waters organization to overthrow the theory of evolution by reprinting Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” with a new introduction. Your coverage was balanced and included a rebuttal by a credible scientist. I continue to be concerned that so many gullible citizens believe celebrities like Jenny McCarthy, Tom Cruise, and Mr. Cameron as they spout off on subjects they know nothing about. The Intelligent Design movement has been unequivocally identified as thinly veiled Creationism in the courts and is nothing less than an all out attack to redefine science itself to substitute supernatural explanations of natural phenomenon in place of rational scientific investigations of cause and effect. Mr. Cameron, we are all are free to believe what we choose about the origins of life, but please do not force my children and grandchildren to abandon science in favor of your religion-science and religion are different things..
Frank in Charlotte
I have never encountered an evolution debunker who was not a religious fundamentalist. All the ones I know of have only 1 quarrel with evolution: It cannot be reconciled with a literal interpretation of Scipture. Their alternative, Creationism, is not taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of scientists. The arguments about the legitimacy of Creationism are conducted at high school boards of education, not in the halls of academia. They say that evolution is just a theory. They are right. Creationism supports the Biblical account of the creation of the world. Therefore, for them, it is much more than a theory. Evolution is only as good as the facts that support it. Creationism must be upheld by its supporters no matter the facts because it supports God's holy word. Evolution is science. Science claims to have the latest word, never the last word. Creationism claims to be the last word. Creationism is not science.
while the evidence is clear that we have evolved over time through gene mutations,much as viruses do.who is to say that wasnt the design?God is a forever being and time is not an issue with him. We must be open to a God who is larger and more complex in his actions than we could ever imagine.
I am a Christian and a scientist. I happen to believe both sides of the story. I believe that God created us in his own image. I also believe that organisms on Earth do evolve over time. I have yet to see evidence linking Homo sapians to apes directly (ever heard of the missing link). However, seeing evidence of animals that have had to adapt to their environment, does support that evolution does occur. I believe that both can occur.
Man has yet to create life from scratch. He has had to use life to create life. (that is a fact!)
Although the Theory or evolution has much evidence to support it, it is still a theory.
On the comment that we (Christians) "choose to live in Caves" because we believe in Creation- Well that is very closed minded thinking that Christians cannot believe in scientific thinking.
Sorry, George – but if you are a "real" believer, you do believe what Kirk Cameron is saying.
You can't just pick and choose what parts of the bible are true, what are allegory, what parts you should subscribe to, and which parts are inconvenient for your life.
The fundamental problem of religion is that it is based on faith and belief in explanations whose only proof is passed down through oral and written tradition. When facts are learned and our understanding and appreciation for existence come more into focus, it often reinforces people's beliefs. But more often than that, these new facts stand in stark contrast to what the bible says.
So, people either adapt their understanding of religion so they don't have a cognitive dissonance between what they know as fact and what they believe, or they act rationally and realize their presuppositions and beliefs were based on fallacy.
Among an endless list of examples are when Galileo proposed the heliocentric model of our solar system. He was outcast and forced to denounce the ideas he knew were accurate by the Catholic church.
The church, eventually, adapted and realized their understanding of the universe as explained in the bible was inaccurate. Rather than these new facts dismantling the fabric of religion, the "believers" simply augmented their understanding of the bible to fit these new facts.
This is dangerous. Picking in choosing what parts of the bible you subscribe to or altering your interpretation of passages to fit what you know is the truth simply means that you're not operating with logic or reason. You are brainwashed and don't want to admit the truth because it is too hard for you to believe some supernatural force didn't craft our existence and isn't looking out for you.
When you adapt religion to fit reality, you're just trying to maintain millenias' old conventions that are outdated and no longer applicable to modern life. Kirk Cameron and his group are trying to send human understanding of reality back 500 years. How ridiculous. To say that a "real" believer doesn't subscribe to this means you are NOT a "real" believer. You are, in fact, someone who refuses to let the facts speak for themselves. You would rather let the brainwashed part of your brain dictate your perception of reality. He is doing what any good Christian would do, according to the bible. It's not that Kirk Cameron is wrong – the religion is wrong.
He's actually acting exactly as the religious doctrine he subscribes to dictates. People like you, George, are living in some midway fantasy land where you won't let your perception of reality be elucidated by fact. Rather, when you can't win an argument because the facts are so strongly stacked against you, you say things like "people who still believe that aren't real believers."
"Experts more recently have found that changes in life forms are often abrupt, dramatic and even violent. "
So if changes occur suddenly, then that 's not slow and gradual naturalistic "evolution". That's "dramatic violent changes."
What Mr. Cameron and many credible institutes of science underscore is that the concept of "puncutated equilibrium" erodes evidence for long time scales.
So much in evolutionary thought still hangs on what could have been possible in those long time scales. Without them, and the study of geology erodes them in increasing measure, alternative explanations are in demand.
Please visit the Institute for Creation Research at ICR.org.
By attacking Evolution and push Intelligent Design, these people are actually attacking the scientific process. By attacking the scientific process, these people are directly impacting how we teach and treat science in our schools. When American power and economic strength depend so much on science and technology, we need American scientists and engineers. These intelligent design people are actually working hard to dumb down American minds. Eventually, we will lose our edge in Science and Technology and so we shall lose our military might, economic strength and our ability to innovate and create.
Many of these Intelligent Designer consider themselves conservative and they consider Patriotism their private domain. How patriotic is someone who actively tries to dumb down American minds so that we lose our ability to compete against rising power such as India, China and Iran?
How patriotic are people who destroy the scientific process so that we risk losing our technological advancements so crucial to our national security and national identity?
Are they American First? or are they Christian First and Conservative first?
This actor is not educated enough to give his sheepish view on evolution. Blind faith is good for making people feel better.... that said it has NOTHING to do with science at all. Evolution is a theory that is constantly challenged and updated. Kirk Cameron's views are told to him from some other person without basis. As a part of the scientific community I urge people to listen to professors and text rather than actors.
in my small catholic elementary school of the 1950's and then even much more so in my Jesuit highschool training of the early 60's there was never ever a question about Evolution...it is fact..it is undeniable...so match your religious faith to somehow live with what we as educated people know is the truth.....or go back to the dark ages..which some uneducated folks would like us to do....in the end..truth does win out..it may take hundreds of years but eventually the truth does win out...
a scientific theory has weight. just because the word theory is used, people like to equate it with a casual opinion or idea. but a scientific theory is a very specific thing, it has to undergo rigorous debate and examination and yes evolution! i don't understand why this silly debate continues. nor why it has to be such an either or thing. what are they afraid of really?
We all know the Great Spaghetti Monster created all ife.
"disavow" not disavoy....
Good Luck Kirk, you'd have a better chance of debunking Gravity.
As a Christian I find it interesting that people, like Cameron, insist on an either/or understanding of life. Believing in evolution DOES NOT negate nor disavoy the idea of Christ and God the Father. God created the world in 7 days, theoretically, but there is no definitive understanding of what 1 day represents. I know that I know what I know and I'm content with my God being the Supreme Being.
Not only that; but scientists look at the evidence and then draw conclusions from it. They can change their conclusions as new evidence arises. Creationists, on the other hans, start with a conclusion - which they are intrinsically unable to abandon or change - and then look for evidence which seems to discredit evolution, which they then take as "evidence" in favor of Creation.
No Creationist has EVER come up with ONE affirmative piece of evidence in favor of Creation. Creationist theory can be summed up in two sentences: "either life was Created or it evolved. Thus, evidence which attacks evolution is evidence which supports Creation."
Three cheers for Kirk and his group. Ask any Darwinian evolutionist to give you a solid example of macroevolution among higher species of animals and they are not able to do it.
Kirk Cameron is an idiot.
The more I studied evolution, the more absured it became to me. The universe screams of design and if design, then of a Designer, and purpose. It is willfully absured to think that nothing created everything,
Kirk = Epic Fail
How is he qualified to tell anyone anything related to religion or science? Seems that, for scientific info, we should turn to SCIENTISTS.
Why is it that the "in your face" christians never seem to grasp the fact that evolution and social darwinism are not related? That in fact it could be noted that evolution has selected against the social darwinists of the last century.
Another thing is that statements of faith , no mater how eloquent or well meaning , are not science. I thank God that I'm an athiest!
Sounds like a ploy by a washed up actor to try and make himself relevant. If he is truly a "born again christian", he would realize that his God created him to become a living, breathing, LEARNING, EVOLVING SEEKER OF KNOWLEDGE put here to learn and discover the world around him, and this does not involve crawling under a rock to proclaim science as "bunk".
Kirk Cameron, grow up and SHUT UP!
So why is this east end of a horse going west getting attention? Oh, yeah, he's another stupid, uneducated American.
You are right, George. And unfortunately extremist such as these give legitimate ones a bad name in any context. Beware of zealots!
Kirk Cameron is living proof that there is, in fact, no god.
What kind of deity would tolerate a representative like Cameron?
Why in the world would you have an idiot like Kirk Cameron on? What does this say about your intelligence and taste. Will you be bringing flat earth folks on too?
TV needs to lift and elevate; you have done neither by putting a religious wacko on.
Kirk looks like he`s down and out looking for some publicity! One is an idiot to believe that evolution does not exist! My problem with religion is how you shouldnt worry about facts and things one can prove but how much you believe! I believe what I see and know, not what I want to see and know! People of the world put entirely too much emphasis on believing instead of knowing! Why does our money have on it in God we Trust?, as if that makes our money legit! Religion was set up back a long time ago to control the masses with fear, now it has no relevance. All it is now is a business that only looks at the profit margin, now thats not what God would want I have to believe!
I was very disappointed in how CNN has reported this story. They describe it as Cameron being engaged in an effort to ‘debunk’ Darwin’s ‘manifesto’. The choice of words is telling. ‘Debunk’ is defined as “to expose as a sham or falseness”. A more correct choice of words would have been ‘discredit: to refuse to accept as true or accurate; to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of’.
Does this choice of words mean that CNN staff and producers regard the keystone of modern biology as a fraud? Or should I take it as an indication that CNN is more afraid of offending potential viewers who are vocal and absolute in their refusal to accept fundamental scientific knowledge? The only other alternative that comes to mind is ignorance on the part of CNN as to either basic English vocabulary, basic science, or both. Since I have already pointed out the difference between the meaning of ‘debunk’ and ‘discredit’, allow me to provide a similar clarification regarding the term ‘evolution’.
Evolution is defined as the change in the characteristics of a population from one
generation to the next. This is not a theory but, like gravity, is an observed phenomenon. Darwin’s contribution was to come up with a theory explaining how evolution works: natural selection. It is a ‘theory’, rather than a ‘law’, because it is an explanation of why nature behaves in a certain way (e.g., why a book falls when you drop it), rather than a mathematical prediction of what will happen in a given situation (e.g., how long it takes the book to reach the ground from a height of 6 feet).
It is unfortunate that CNN reports on this issue in such a way that furthers the credibility of a group of people who are, in many ways, the modern equivalent of ‘flat earthers’. Given the amount of reporting on the issue of job creation and the poor state of the U.S. economy, I think it might be worth considering the correlation between a country's economic health and the quality of the inhabitants’ understanding of basic math and science. CNN’s reporting this morning was part of the problem, rather than the solution.
Ignorance can still be bliss for many. He should try to actually read a book, and study soime science prior to hypocritically suggst that students are being brainwashed....while it is he that has been completely brainwashed by extremists using no facts. There will be a lot of those books in the trash barrels.
Those people who do not believe in God and Adam and Eve, are going to believe that we evolved from apes, as this is so much easier for them to believe, than in a Supreme Being. Sad, sad, sad!
Let me be the first to say that all Christians are not Kirk Cameron or any of the other over the top talking heads that claim to be the voice of "real" believers.
Thank You
What Mr. Cameron and his Creationist or "intelligent Design" brethren fail to recognize is that Darwin was the starting point, not the final conclusion, of how life came to be what it is now. New evidence – real evidence – arises every day that adds nuance and new understanding to life as we know it now and how it was thousands and, yes, millions of years ago.
For instance, evolution was once widely believed to occur in small, incremental steps. Experts more recently have found that changes in life forms are often abrupt, dramatic and even violent. That is science: examining facts and using this knowledge to shape our understanding of the world, not using facts only when the facts conveniently reinforce our beliefs.
If we did not apply science to our civlizations, we'd still be pounding messages on stone tablets or painting murals in caves and fighting saber-tooth tigers (or modern-day grizzly bears) with spears and rocks.
Science is not static. It constantly evolves. So do we, when we choose not to live in caves.