home
RSS
My Take: Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you
The most compelling evidence for evolution comes from the study of genes.
April 10th, 2011
01:00 AM ET

My Take: Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you

Editor's Note: Karl W. Giberson, Ph.D., is vice president of The BioLogos Foundation and is the author or coauthor of seven books, including The Language of Science and Faith.

By Karl W. Giberson, Special to CNN

Jesus once famously said, “I am the Truth.”

Christianity at its best embodies this provocative idea and has long been committed to preserving, expanding and sharing truth. Most of the great universities of the world were founded by Christians committed to the truth—in all its forms—and to training new generations to carry it forward.

When science began in the 17th century, Christians eagerly applied the new knowledge to alleviate suffering and improve living conditions.

But when it comes to the truth of evolution, many Christians feel compelled to look the other way. They hold on to a particular interpretation of an ancient story in Genesis that they have fashioned into a modern account of origins - a story that began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews thousands of years ago.

This is the view on display in a $27 million dollar Creation Museum in Kentucky. It inspired the Institute for Creation Research, which purports to offer scientific support for creationism.

And it’s hardly a fringe view. A 2010 Gallup poll indicated that 4 in 10 Americans think that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx)

While Genesis contains wonderful insights into the relationship between God and the creation, it simply does not contain scientific ideas about the origin of the universe, the age of the earth or the development of life.

For more than two centuries, careful scientific research, much of it done by Christians, has demonstrated clearly that the earth is billions years old, not mere thousands, as many creationists argue. We now know that the human race began millions of years ago in Africa - not thousands of years ago in the Middle East, as the story in Genesis suggests.

And all life forms are related to each other though evolution. These are important truths that science has discovered through careful research. They are not “opinions” that can be set aside if you don’t like them.

Anyone who values truth must take these ideas seriously, for they have been established as true beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is much evidence for evolution. The most compelling comes from the study of genes, especially now that the Human Genome Project has been completed and the genomes of many other species being constantly mapped.

In particular, humans share an unfortunate “broken gene” with many other primates, including chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques. This gene, which works fine in most mammals, enables the production of Vitamin C. Species with broken versions of the gene can’t make Vitamin C and must get it from foods like oranges and lemons.

Thousands of hapless sailors died painful deaths scurvy during the age of exploration because their “Vitamin C” gene was broken.

How can different species have identical broken genes? The only reasonable explanation is that they inherited it from a common ancestor.

Not surprisingly, evolution since the time of Darwin has claimed that humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, and macaques evolved recently from a common ancestor. The new evidence from genetics corroborates this.

Such evidence proves common ancestry with a level of certainty comparable to the evidence that the earth goes around the sun.

This is but one of many, many evidences that support the truth of evolution - that make it a “sacred fact” that Christians must embrace in the name of truth. And they should embrace this truth with enthusiasm, for this is the world that God created.

Christians must come to welcome - rather than fear - the ideas of evolution. Truths about Nature are sacred, for they speak of our Creator. Such truths constitute “God’s second book” for Christians to read alongside the Bible.

In the 17th century, Galileo used the metaphor of the “two books” to help Christians of his generation understand the sacred truth that the earth moves about the sun. “The Bible,” he liked to say, “tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens ago.”

To understand how the heavens go we must read the book of Nature, not the Bible.

The Book of nature reveals the truth that God created the world through gradual processes over billions of years, rather than over the course of six days, as many creationists believe.

Evolution does not contradict the Bible unless you force an unreasonable interpretation on that ancient book.

To suppose, as the so-called young earth creationists do, that God dictated modern scientific ideas to ancient and uncomprehending scribes is to distort the biblical message beyond recognition. Modern science was not in the worldview of the biblical authors and it is not in the Bible.

Science is not a sinister enterprise aimed at destroying faith. It’s an honest exploration of the wonderful world that God created.

We are often asked to think about what Jesus would do, if he lived among us today. Who would Jesus vote for? What car would he drive?

To these questions we should add “What would Jesus believe about origins?”

And the answer? Jesus would believe evolution, of course. He cares for the Truth.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Karl W. Giberson.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Culture & Science • Culture wars • Opinion • Science

soundoff (3,562 Responses)
  1. Joe

    What a completely unknowable hypothetical question whose only power will be to cause controversy.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
  2. marie

    Actually reading the bible and taking everything in it literally would make anyone an atheist! something written by barbarians, and re written again and again does not make it very credible. Is any one certain Jesus even existed? the bible is merely a book of fairy tales to comfort the masses.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
    • Tony

      I am sad that you and others like you do not know God. It is a very sad day when I read of so many anti-christians in the world today. Who will YOU call on in your hour of need? I pray for all of you non-christians that one day you will awaken to the truth.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:43 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      Tony, some people have hardened their hearts to the point of crossing God's line, and He has turned them over to satan for the destruction which is to come. However we still need to pray for them.
      But God has His people, and they will be strong in the times to come, shining as bright stars in darkest night. There are comming the days of Great Tribulation which the world has never seen before. What we are seeing is satans army in the making....That's why we see the demonic forces at work like never before, and they are the ones fueling this hatred we are seeing even here on this blog....
      God bless you, adn keep youm, my brother!

      April 10, 2011 at 9:01 pm |
  3. m

    Travis, where would you like me to begin? Should I begin with how the various dating methods are inaccurate? What about Information Theory? Or there is issue of mutations. It's rather a large spectrum of material to cover, so a starting point is great.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
    • travis

      @m inaccurate dating methods? really? explain

      April 10, 2011 at 9:01 pm |
    • Julie in Austin

      You're confusing ACCURACY and PRECISION. The types of dating methods used are very accurate. They aren't very precise.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
  4. facepalm

    Seriously? You to have absolutely no knowledge of the Gospels to believe what this article is saying. Jesus most certainly did believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and that the first chapters of Genesis were literal. – (Matthew 19:4-5 says, "And he (Jesus) answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh?" That is a direct quote of Genesis 2. Why would Jesus quote Genesis 2 if he really didn't believe the rest of it literally? Listen Mr. Author, if you want to express your opinions about evolution, fine, but don't try to ram Jesus into whatever mold you create. It is intellectually dishonest.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
  5. Dave in SC

    Jesus claimed to be God incarnate. If that's true, then it's absurd to suggest that Jesus 'believes in evolution.' He would KNOW the truth about creation. If he was lying about being God, then who cares what he believes about anything.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
  6. Oh please

    Jesus would not believe in fairy tales. Evolutionists believe that given time nothing can evolve into something. Evolutionists believe humans evolved over millions of years but we only have proof that humans have been around since, oh, the past few thousand years. Scientists think if they make up some ridiculous story and just add more and more years to it the story will seem more plausible. It doesn't. I guess if you put your faith in evolution then maybe you don't think you have to love your neighbor and you're justified by the survival of the fittest. Sadly, a lot of religious people think the same thing. Jesus would believe the same things he taught and he'd still be against religious conformity whether in the church or the scientific community.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:19 pm |
  7. kishore

    order cannot come about in chaos.

    too bad they didn't teach darwinists basic reasoning before force feeding balderdash as facts.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:19 pm |
    • Religious Sects

      As your posts have proven.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
    • daviddavid

      the very fact that you can read an article on a screen is evidence of order being born from chaos. it's called the 2nd law of thermodynamics

      April 10, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
    • Julie in Austin

      I haven't the slightest idea why people think this is true, but it isn't.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
  8. Patrick

    If we evolved from primates then why is there no fossil history. We've discovered more species of dinosaur than we've found links between man and ape. If human evolution is fact we would've discovered millions of fossils that link humans and apes together before ever finding one dinosaur. The simple fact is we haven't. Evolution is like a rumor, repeat it enough and it becomes gospel.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Religious Sects

      OK, this lesson needs to be repeated again... Humans did not evolve from apes we evolved from common ancestors & we have thousands of "links" between this commonality & current primates (which include humans). But it is ironic (funny) you say "repeat it enough & it becomes gospel".. now that IS funny!

      April 10, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
    • Tony

      Evolutionists believes that we evolved from rocks, explains the thick skulls I guess.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
  9. Tony

    I find it funny how when something like this gets published all of the pro-evolution people get all defensive of their beliefs, but provide no facts that prove evolution. Evolution is not fact. It is a theory. Despite what you have been taught in your public schools, evolution is not a fact.

    I am very sad for the evolutionist of the world who refuse to acknowledge God for who he is. For those of you wish to enlighten yourself to the truth about the origins of the earth and man, I suggest that you consider viewing some of the creation evidence before you get so defensive.

    I just love how the author of this article states basically that you would have to be stupid to not believe in evolution. I think you have to be willfully ignorant to believe in evolution.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
    • Shaun W

      If YOU would like to see the proof for evolution, feel free to read through the evidence Dawkins presents in "The Greatest Show on Earth". I imagine you might not care for Dawkins, but the evidence is there, and, ignoring his biased prose, you can read the cited evidence for yourself.

      The first definition of "theory" in the Oxford English Dictionary:
      A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

      REPEATEDLY TESTED OR WIDELY ACCEPTED AND CAN BE USED TO MAKE PREDICTIONS ABOUT NATURAL PHENOMENA.

      People often misinterpret the meaning of "theory"

      April 10, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
    • Tony

      I have read and seen almost all of the evolutionists have to offer, and it is all smoke and mirrors. Creationists offer facts that evolutionists will not answer to. They just throw it back that evolution is true... because it is.

      There is no proof for evolution... in fact, the evidence proves the evolution is full of inconsistencies that they refuse to explain. Evolutionists are blindly ignorant to the facts and this is why there will always be a divide... Creationist are promoters of the truth... Evolutionists are deceivers.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      "the evidence proves the evolution is full of inconsistencies that they refuse to explain.'

      You said it, Tony! They REFUSE, becasue they want to believe a lie!

      April 10, 2011 at 9:06 pm |
  10. Rationalist

    Isn't it interesting how CNN, that great bastion of objectivity, can always find a liberal theologian to support any variation of evolution – even so called "biblical evolution" This time, they've found someone who even thinks that Jesus would support it. If he had stayed awake in Theology 101, Dr. Giberson would have been taught, assuming that the professor was teaching Biblically, that Jesus as the eternal Son of God and being the second Person of the Trinity, was involved in the very creative process in the first place. Methinks Dr. Giberson's spiritual ignorance takes God WAY too lackadaisically – along with a lot of posters on this page.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
    • Pentashagon

      There is direct Biblical evidence that Jesus participated in theistic evolution when he cursed the fig tree saying it would no longer bear fruit. There's one specific genetic line stamped out so that other fig trees would have a better chance. If he was a creationist he would have just thrown a fireball at it or something. There's further evidence that evolution was at work when God promised Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the sands on the sea shore. Nature is God's handiwork. Therefore natural selection is simply divine selection.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:41 pm |
  11. Sean

    The author's assertion that Jesus would believe in evolution is comical since Jesus is God. In other words, he's basically saying that God would deny himself. We are truly living in a very sad time. And the day of judgment approaches for those that have denied the creator. It will be horrible.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:13 pm |
  12. Billcody

    What would Jesus say? He would say that evolution is his Father's work. Only extremist Christians believe that creationism is the be-all-end-all. Most Christian see no contradiction between evolution and creationism. The changes that happen during evolution are simply God's hand at work.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:13 pm |
    • Shaun W

      The argument here is not necessarily at Christians. The 2010 gallup poll cited in the article says that 40% of Americans believe we were created in the past 10,000 years. I'm sure those 40% couldn't have all been extremist Christians.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
  13. Dennis

    Mr Giberson,
    Unfortunately, you've destroyed your credibility by mis-quoting Jesus in the first paragraph. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except by me."
    If you manipulate the words of Jesus, what else are you willing to manipulate to cause others to agree with you?

    April 10, 2011 at 8:13 pm |
  14. Lila

    To purport that Jesus would "believe in evolution" shows a serious lapse in critical thinking. Jesus upheld the teachings of the Old Testament and made the claim to be the very God who has always existed, by whom all things were created. The Scriptures he honored tell of God's place in the beginning of our universe. You simply cannot believe in God and wholly accept the "origin" of evolution – the big bang theory. Whether you are a Theistic Evolutionists (God started the evolutionary process) to a literal Six-day Creationist, you must still believe that God was involved. To claim that Jesus would believe in this is absurd.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • Tom

      I believe in Jesus, my lord and savior. If evolution is or has any validity, wouldn't God be the one who invented it? Existence and all that is within it was begotten by God or have I missed something here...

      People amaze me with their circular thinking......Lol

      April 10, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
    • Julie in Austin

      Sure you can. The verb "to create" in the Hebrew text is the verb that means "to create from nothingness". What existed before the Big Bang? Nothing. Did Time exist before Space existed? No - see Einstein. When does the Bible say this happened? In The Beginning. What's before "the beginning"? No-time.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
  15. Susan

    This article contains misinformation. There is no "proof" that mankind is millions of years old. Even scientists don't agree on the accuracy of dating methods. In fact, all of archeological evidence shows that humans are approx 5,000 years old, plus or minus, but not millions of years old. Yes, the earth is very old, but we know that the "creative" days described in the bible book of Genesis were not 24 hour periods because day and night did not yet exist. The physical earth is very, very old and that does not contradict the bible for those who understand its message. Mankind is 6,000 years old according to the bible account and that matches archaeology.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • gabe

      Susan, you are a complete moron. I hope you don't have kids.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
    • Shaun W

      I'd like to know your sources beside what the church may say or creationist websites. Cite me a valid research article that corresponds to your view that the oldest humans were thousands of years old as opposed to millions.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
  16. gabe

    These religious nuts are ruining our country. It really gives me very little hope that America will ever recover from our current funk. Unfortunately, I think this message board proves that we are way too unintelligent to ever make it back. I makes me miserable every day to think that I have to share this great country with you brainless, thoughtless feeble minded morons.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:10 pm |
    • kishore

      that's because you are darwin nut slobber who swallowed everything he fed you in your mouth, down to the last drop.

      listen, things don't happen spontaneously. you need to have intelligence to make stuff that you see around. don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:16 pm |
    • gabe

      Anybody who possesses intelligence doesn't believe in fairy tales.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • gabe

      Also, what are your scientific credentials?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
    • kishore

      no tale is bigger than "natural selection". no tale is bigger than "stuff happens spontaneously given enough time".

      you want proof? here, let me try to create this tiny bacterium cell for you using SUPER COMPUTERS! wait. i can't do it all by myself. can i use yeast?

      rofl.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
    • gabe

      You are really a nutbag. What the hell are you talking about? You seem either insane or just very stupid.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:26 pm |
    • kishore

      lo. gabe what i am saying is, you seem to accept that everything came about spontaneously, and yet, even in a controlled environment such as a lab, even using super computers like craig venter did, without using yeast, you couldn't create the simplest of the bacterium cells.

      epic fail.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
    • gabe

      That has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with believing in evolution. Nothing at all. That's why I said what the hell are you talking about. The core of evolution deals with life adapting to its surrounding environment over millions of years to promote its survival. Not about spontaneity. It has nothing to do with creating something in a lab.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
    • kishore

      didn't you guys replace "survival of the fittest" with "natural selection"? i thought using the word survival is taboo for darwinists.

      of course spontaneity is liberally used throughout the discussion of evolution. doesn't natural selection talk about spontaneous mutation? and doesn't abiogenesis (supported by evolutionists) talk about life spontaneously getting created in a prebiotic soup billions of years ago?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
  17. kishore

    Here, take the following formula and create a life. No? Then STFU.

    Element Percent by mass Atomic percent (calc.)
    Oxygen 65 25.6
    Carbon 18 9.5
    Hydrogen 10 63
    Nitrogen 3 1.3
    Calcium 1.5 0.24
    Phosphorus 1.2 0.24
    Potassium 0.2 0.03
    Sulfur 0.2 0.04
    Chlorine 0.2 0.04
    Sodium 0.1 0.03
    Magnesium 0.05 0.01
    Iron 3.8g in men, 2.3g in women
    Cobalt, Copper, Zinc, Iodine < 0.05 each
    Selenium, Fluorine < 0.01 each

    April 10, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
    • Serenade

      Because obviously you take take all of those chemicals and synthesize a human being out of it. I think that's the reason people don't agree with creation. You can take amino acids ( Can easily be made in a system with energy) proceed to form bind those and form more complicated systems.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:14 pm |
    • Religious Sects

      kishore, OK, I'll take your challenge. I've put them together, now just check back in about 1.3 billion years ...

      April 10, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
  18. kishore

    evolutionist argument: "uh, is gravity a fact? uh, so is evolution. that's because gravity is a fact. see, if gravity is a fact then so is evolution. because one is a fact, then the second one's got to be a fact. i mean, how can one be a fact and naother not? yeah. uh, duh"

    April 10, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
    • Religious Sects

      Are you talking to yourself? Asking & answering as though you know what you're talking about?! lol

      April 10, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Serenade

      Gravity is a theory. We know almost nothing about it with the exception of knowing that it is there. That is why it is not a mathematical law ( Of which is an airtight system which frankly cannot be achieved in biology as biological systems are constantly changing and thus calling it a law would be pretty much fallacious).

      April 10, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
  19. Lee

    There are plenty of scientists who are atheists who don't believe in evolution as explained by Darwinian scientists. Just read the interview in March (might have been April) 2011 Discover magazine of the scientist who talks about the evidence for bacteria driving change, and not genetic mutation.

    As much as some scientists would like people to think that Darwinian evolution is true, it is still only a theory with many, MANY unsolved problems and unproven hypotheses.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
    • Serenade

      Evolution has 5 mechanisms. Mutation and natural selection are only two of the five. Those scientists I'm afraid are just as 'Darwinian" as the others.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
    • Joe from CT, not Lieberman

      Uh, Lee, Darwin favored the theory of natural selection, not genetic mutation. His theory was that certain traits caused us to develop in certain ways while the chimpanzees and Bononos developed differently. They are the closest match to us genetically, but our adaptations to certain external stimuli caused our genetics to develop in a different manner, not by mutation but by adaptation and evolution.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
    • NOVANative

      Agreed. I believe in evolution. I don't believe in strict Darwinian evolution. And my disagreement with it is scientific, not religious. But to voice that is to be labeled a scientific heretic. Darwinian evolution is as a much a religion as Christianity or Islam, or any other. If you voice disagreement, even as a scientist, you are shunned.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Lee

      You would have to read the article. I have misplaced it, otherwise I would do a better job of explaining that scientist's position. Here position was that there is evidence that does not support evolution, thus evolution can't be the final truth.

      Frankly, being so egotistical as to think we have already figured out the truth that we need to know is the very failing of scientists for the entire history of humanity. So why would Jesus believe the truth of evolution, when he would know the truth of human scientific history?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:19 pm |
    • runswithbeer

      am I the only person on the planet who thinks that God created Evolution????? Not that I have any more idea what/who God is. It's my opinion that no one has a clue why God made the Big Bang and no one has a clue or any special insight WHATSOEVER as to how the Creator operates. I don't look at material written by man for answers, I look to Science and the wonders unfolding there. Look up at the stars, look at the rocks and the animals. You'll find the fingerprints of the Creator everywhere you look.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
    • Lee

      Joe, modern Darwinian evolutionists have broadened the theory to include genetic mutation as the driver of genetic differences.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • Serenade

      @Nova, science doesn't shun new theories or alternatives. They throw you into the ring and demand your theory fight to stay alive.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
    • Lee

      Serenade, Darwin's evolution came to the forefront due to popularity and stays there due to the inertia of textbook publishers and scientists who fear having their careers destroyed if they dare question it, just as it has been throughout all of scientific history. Darwin's evolution no longer has to fight to maintain its position because of this inertia. If you could burn all of the textbooks and publications and require Darwinian evolution to have to prove itself valid again today, it would fail in the light of a lot of modern evidence.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
  20. Joe

    I believe in Jesus because I'm terrified of everything. Math scares me. Biology scares me. My stupidity is my weakness, and Jesus is the cure.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
    • kishore

      Evolution has nothing to do with math. Nice try.

      What else you want to drag into this to support your crappy far-fetched "theory" called evolution? Nanotechnology?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:14 pm |
    • Serenade

      Most people are pretty afraid. Except you fail to see the irony that lurks beneath your computers exterior. Under that all you have thousands of mathematical logical mechanisms which make your computer function.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:16 pm |
    • Serenade

      Kishore actually evolution is actually pretty statistics heavy. It requires a strong grasp of calculus based statistics to properly understand evolutionary systems.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • rationality wins

      Joe, do you know what a flagellum motor is without googling it? Stick to the sarcasm, because the science is on the side of intelligent design.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Serenade

      So I'm not particularly sure where flagellum motors ( Kineases ATP systems) come into play here. They are beautiful little things, and their evolution is quite incrediably if you look at lower order things and see transition from pseudo-podia to cilliia and over time elongation into flagelite systems.
      Intelligent design is a pseudoscience, nothing more.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
    • axle

      Joe is a classic example of stupidity that he is accusing those who disagree with him of.
      Joe is nothing but an atheist version of a TALIBAN, ignorant, hateful and pathetic.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
    • kishore

      micro evolustion is plausible.

      macro evolution is B.S.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
    • Here Be Dragons

      The flagellum motor and the "irreducible complexity" prediction made by intelligent design has been disproven. Intelligent design did not hold up in court as "science".

      April 10, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
    • rationality wins

      disproven by whom? where's the source? Someone may want to tell Behe.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
    • Lee

      Oh great. Let's let the courts decide what is scientific truth. After all, they do such a great job at death penalty cases.

      Really folks, science and truth are oxymorons, because the very premise of science is that we know we have not discovered the whole truth yet. Science grows and prospers on never fully knowing the truth yet, no matter how great the human failing of a scientist wanting to be able to definitively state the truth and get all of the worldly accolades for his/her brilliance.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:49 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
Advertisement
About this blog

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