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. Bob S.

    The Bible is clear when it refers to Jesus and creation:

    Colossians 1: 15-17
    He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
    For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him.
    He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

    The article asks; "Would Jesus believe evolution" In the light of God's word, it's a ridiculous question. Jesus was there, He made all things, all things through Him exist. He doesn't just "believe" anything about creation, He "knows by experience" because he made all things. God created everything by His word. He spoke the world into existence.

    So to suggest otherwise is to believe a lie. Either Karl Giberson is telling the truth or the bible is.

    I know which one I have faith in

    Let God be true and every man a liar... Romans 3:4

    April 11, 2011 at 8:05 am |
  2. joel palmer

    Religion is myth, fairytale and gossamer webs of lies. Evolution is hard solid scientific fact. The reasons Americans are so stupid and are a laughing stock to the rest of the civilized world is that they are held in sway by unbelievebal bunk and base policy decisions on a book that is nothing but lies and myth.

    April 11, 2011 at 8:01 am |
  3. Tha_Truth

    Jesus brought back the dead with his father's help (God). Yet, evolution (Scientists) can't even fix the common cold. I don't know what's the argument here. Jesus would turn his back on this stupid 'philosophy' of man that leads people no-where and just waste time arguing on pointless debates.

    April 11, 2011 at 7:57 am |
  4. Sarducar

    Yo people stop smoking this stuff...it makes your brain small..Gerald you hear...that thing with the God revealed himself makes me concerned..

    April 11, 2011 at 7:54 am |
  5. Sarducar

    HeavenSent
    Obviously Bilbo, you've never read the Bible.
    Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH." Isaiah knew in 700 B.C. the earth is round?

    NO he thought the Earth is a flat circle...as you know the circle is not a globe..and he did not say upon the GLOBE of the Earht

    April 11, 2011 at 7:51 am |
  6. windycitybill

    Christians should believe in Micro Evolution not Macro. I propose that living things can not come from dead gue...and to suggest that a species can make a leep and change kind (fish to a human) for example is just plain silly. At the end of the day, it comes down to faith – if you have faith in GOD, you will take GODs word for it, if you do not....you will have to accepts the "flavor" of the day from other humans that are most likely wrong about everything, unless they were there at the begining.....

    April 11, 2011 at 7:48 am |
  7. Boka, Philly, PA

    There is no evidence that there was a Jesus. And if he did exist he was insane.

    April 11, 2011 at 7:47 am |
  8. Bill Q

    Guy, there's room for both. Think about it. The bible was written for ideological teachings. Yes, from God; but not written as a step-by-step "literal" manual. Learn from Christ's teachings, and not as an argument of convenience. Science is empirical truth discovered by man to enrich life, not to eliminate religion. In the end, the hard core science folks will die empty with no purpose or soul (why do u care anyways, when ur dead ur dead and gone). And the hard core bible pushers, u will die blind and stupid, never having used the brain God gave you. Bottom line, u can be a good Christian and a smart one at the same time.

    April 11, 2011 at 7:39 am |
  9. The most compelling evidence for creation comes from the study of genes.

    Actually its the other way round!!

    Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) indicates that all women have descended from a single woman, called mitochondrial Eve. This does not prove that she was the only woman alive at the time, but is consistent with it. High mutation rates indicate that this ancestor lived at about the time of the biblical Eve as well.

    A critic has tried to discredit this creationist case. However, he has nothing more than special pleading to explain away data that contradict his materialist paradigm. And he misrepresents the logic of the case—creationists have always used this as evidence consistent with the Bible, while he misrepresents them as using it as proof

    April 11, 2011 at 7:39 am |
  10. Stacy

    Karl, more power to you -for trying, ONCE AGAIN, to get through the massively thick crania of the ignorant masses who do not have the tools in their brain case to discern between myth and the scientific process (by which they are able to surf the net, among other things). Frankly, I gave up a long time ago, they just are not worth it. People of such fear and distrust are a downer on life.

    April 11, 2011 at 7:31 am |
  11. Free Man

    In the beginning God
    created the heavens
    and the earth.
    Genesis 1:1

    God created man in His own image,
    in the image of God He created him;
    male and female He created them.
    Genesis 1:27

    Jesus Said:
    I and the Father
    are one.
    John 10:30

    Jesus Said:
    Everyone on the side of
    truth
    listens to Me.
    John 18:37

    Jesus Said:
    I am
    the way
    and
    the truth
    and
    the life.
    No one comes
    to the Father
    except through Me.
    John 14:6

    April 11, 2011 at 7:28 am |
  12. Gerald

    @Sarducar

    The reason I believe in the Creator and the Bible is because He revealed Himself to me, and revealed His Word to be true. Take the Bible for example: I have learned it would have been impossible for man to author the Bible based on it's content. The accurate history, predictive prophecy, the science and other concepts far beyond the comprehension of men, and recently using computers we are able to test the research of those that discovered unbelievable patterns in the Bible that would take supercomputers literally thousands of years to generate and check for accuracy. I am suggesting to you there are many fingerprints the Creator left for us to find. These things I have spoke of are physical in nature, and most interesting, but our God is a spirit, and when He reveals Himself to us, it is on a spiritual level which is greater by far, and more reliable than the mechanics of this body we are presently occupy, those mechanics being sight, sound, and touch.

    April 11, 2011 at 7:25 am |
  13. Travis

    I think the reason that Christians do not like the idea of evolutionary theory is the way that it "takes the place" of Christianity in society. The Bible says that the universe was created in six days, but that days can equal years, etc, etc. If evolutionary theory was a supplement to Christianity, then it would be much easier to accept some of its principles. However, it is and has been used a REPLACEMENT for God, which is the reason that we try as Christians to avoid adding it into our concept of creationism.

    I absolutely do not believe that the universe was just a ball of gas that then exploded and eventually created single-cell organisms and then animals and then people, that is ridiculous. But if the creationist period took longer than six 24-hour days like we are used to thinking then I am ok with that fact. I am not ok with evolution being used a reason why God does not exist. Instead of being used in conjunction with religion, Satan has used the idea of "science vs. religion" to deceive many people into believing that "God does not exist, and science proves it and the Bible wrong." He has also made it a stove-pipe war between Christians and Scientists.

    As Christians, we must stand strong in our beliefs that above all GOD created the world, and the heavens, and the animals, and the trees, and the humans that walk on it today. How he got there is much less important at this point and we will have an eternity with Him to find out the Truth as to how we were created. God Bless!

    April 11, 2011 at 7:24 am |
    • sean

      Evolution is not a replacement. The fundies fear evolution because it takes the human out of the center of the universe. And for most people to get the true effects from religion, they need to be the focal point of a god. Religion is the Ego's oldest tradition.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:34 am |
    • Dmitri

      Science can not prove nor disprove the existence of God. Anyone claiming that it can is mistaken. I'm a biology major, a believer in evolution, and also a strong believer in God. I see no conflict between science and religion. In fact, deepening my understanding of how the world works deepens my understanding of God's creation. Jesus himself used stories and metaphors to teach, why can Genesis not be the same thing? Would that really change anything, if humans were in fact derived from apes? If we are all derived from a common ancestor, then that means we share an even closer relationship to the living world around us than we originally thought. We're all related, we're all in this together.

      That's my take on it, at least.

      April 11, 2011 at 8:04 am |
  14. Jean

    A book written by man, taken up by the masses, continually being "proven" and even improved upon, written at a time when scientific knowledge was MUCH more primitive than it is now, now shown to be unsubstantiated on many points...this book continues to shape classrooms, political thought, and moral and ethical dilemmas the world over. It's kinda disturbing.
    And I'm not talking about the Bible...

    April 11, 2011 at 7:09 am |
    • Gerald

      Jean,

      See my post below concerning the Bible.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:27 am |
    • Jean

      Gerald,
      I agree with what you have been saying. The book I'm talking about is "Origin of the Species". I'm trying to point out the fallacies of "the Bible is wrong because it's written by man" argument. Science is conducted by people and people are notoriously subject to error. The science of Darwin's day was vastly different than today. When people scoff at belief in an ancient book that must be full of error as it was written long ago, I think it's fitting to point out that the scientific text books of even my childhood have had to all be rewritten because they contained so many "facts" that have since been disproven.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:48 am |
  15. craig holm

    The monk that used the Bible to calculate the age of the Earth using hints from the Bible did so with righteous intent, but the Bible does not, and need not, be a comprehensive history of life on Earth. Its messages are clearly made by use of parable, metaphore and allegory. The Gensis story was created and promulgated by people who didn't know where the Sun went at night. BTW – the question, "Do you believe in Evolution," is generally stated incorrectly. I believe in evolution the same way I believe in gravity, thermodynamics, and the operation of my ballpeen hammer. Evolution is an explanation for what we see and experience in our world. For me there is no spiritual component to evolution.

    April 11, 2011 at 7:08 am |
  16. Dessad

    Jesus "believes" in Evolution now? Isn't it convenient how Christians will adjust their beliefs to suit the science of the day–especially when that science continues to show them up at every turn. Of course Jesus believes in evolution now. Christians don't have a choice but to advance this claim (the science-conscious ones, anyway). Christians have been rewriting the bible to suit their needs for centuries, and misguidedly calling it "truth". Evolution stands outside of the silliness of religion, and to make it stand with jesus and the bible is an insult–to evolution, the scientific method, and everything else that questions the actual origin of life. Misguided Christians are everywhere these days–but this new breed of want-to-be-scientific christians are truly scary. You want to do an experiment? Find the original text of the old testament, the text that shows 'heroes' like jesus, moses, etc. extolling human atrocities that even Saddman Hussein would blush at.

    April 11, 2011 at 7:05 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Dessad, true science and the Bible are in total agreement. You need to catch up on His truth to have eyes to see, ears to hear.

      Amen.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:57 am |
  17. The truth will set you free!

    God establishes the time frame in which he created things. Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    April 11, 2011 at 7:01 am |
    • T. Storm

      No,... I disagree. Time is a man made referrence, God has not time. He was, is & ever will be. God has no use for time.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:35 am |
  18. Andrea

    science is NOT a belief system, it and its truths exist whether or not you "believe" in it.

    April 11, 2011 at 6:54 am |
    • Gerald

      That would only be true if scientists and the conclusions drawn were always right lol. Of course that is not the case which is why we are always finding out how wrong we were about something. Science is a learning process and a reasonable amount of assumptions and guessing is in there as well based on the latest accepted data. Sometimes we find out conclusions made earlier were wrong because we didn't have all the data.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:39 am |
  19. Gerald

    What do we really know? How much do you think we knew from a scientific point of view, say...500 years ago? How much were we right about? What about 100 years ago? 500 years from now, I wonder what we would say about the science of today, and how much of what we think is fact is in fact, folly.

    Didn't we just recently discover we were completely wrong about rogues waves? Didn't scientist say they were not possible? What about giant squids? Heck, it wasn't that long ago that Doctors told pregnant women that drinking alcohol or smoking was ok. I have serious doubt about our attempts to date objects. There are too many unknown variables we just ignore or insert a guess. What about the recent discoveries within dinosaur fossils? Remember in 1990 when Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue including blood vessels in what was supposed to be a 65 million year old fossil? Then, in 1995 Joe Taylor took a hip bone from a T. Rex discovered in 1916 to Azusa Pacific College in California and had it scanned with an electron microscope by Professor Mark Annitage, who found that the bone had collagen filaments intact inside the bone. The presence of collagen suggests that this supposedly 65 million year old fossil was not completely fossilized. Annitage states, "It can't be but a few thousand years old."

    Again I ask, what do we know? I doubt we have any clue how old things are. I won't get into the dating methods we use but they are nothing close to real science. I'll never forget hearing professor at Princeton admit that dating tests are performed repeatedly until the desired result you were looking for before hand was attained. (I can't remember his name, but Kent Hovind published a live debate with him which I saw).

    Before you put too much "faith" in evolution as fact, I would suggest utilizing a little more wisdom.

    April 11, 2011 at 6:52 am |
    • Sarducar

      ..so I guess you dont believe in Santa Claus and unicorns ? Did you read the gospel of Jesus..o right there is no such thing..just John, Mathew, Luke....just people like me and you telling fairy tales...hey I think you may even think that Little Red Riding Hood is actually true..and why is your book better than mine..or the Koran..or anyother...

      April 11, 2011 at 7:43 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Sarducar, read and learn.

      Genesis 2:7: "And the Lord God formed man of the DUST OF THE GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul." Surely, you don't take Genesis 2:7 seriously? Do you?

      Psalm 8:8: ". . . whatsoever passeth through the PATHS OF THE SEAS." How did David (the writer of Psalms) know, over 2,000 years ago, there were "paths in the seas"? David probably never even saw an ocean!

      Ecclesiastes 1:7: "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." How did the writer of Ecclesiastes know the water cycle of condensation and evaporation in 1000 B.C.?

      Job 38:19: "Where is THE WAY where light dwelleth?" How come Job didn't say where is THE PLACE where light dwelleth? Because light is always moving. How did Job know something in 1500 B.C. ?

      Ecclesiastes 1:6: "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again ACCORDING TO HIS CIRCUITS." How did the writer of Ecclesiastes know the wind traveled within circuits? How did he know with their so-called limited knowledge thousands of years ago?

      Leviticus 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood. What Moses wrote in 1490 B.C. written thousands of years ago, by men with such limited knowledge?

      Amen.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:53 am |
    • Sausage Mahoney

      Why do people always quote bible verses as fact to get someone to believe in creationism? What makes the bible the only authority on that? Maybe I should counter with a Navajo creation myth and state that as fact? Notice that these creation myths rely on belief, and are only true to the believers. The theory of evolution (yes, read above for definitions of a scientific theory) at least has various scientific data backing it up, rather than a single book or collection of stories that vary depending on the readers’ religious beliefs and geographical location.

      April 11, 2011 at 8:29 am |
    • Farmer Dave

      Harold wrote:

      "What do we really know? How much do you think we knew from a scientific point of view, say...500 years ago? How much were we right about? What about 100 years ago? 500 years from now, I wonder what we would say about the science of today, and how much of what we think is fact is in fact, folly."

      A more relevant question would be how often the Christian world was wrong as compared to Science. We (Christians) were wrong about a whole lot back then because we relied much too heavily on tradition and the churches interpretation of the bible.

      I think we all realize now that the earth is not the center of the universe. But 400 years ago, Galileo was punished for teaching the truth.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

      What’s happening today is not a whole lot different except we no longer have the inquisition to stifle progress.

      I am not ashamed of being a Christian, but I am often ashamed at what some people preach in the name of Christianity.

      The article was well written IMHO.

      There is nothing wrong with questioning science. That is how science progresses. But simply putting the blinders on is rather ignorant. Jesus does not want us to be ignorant, yet some people insist on it in the name of Jesus.

      April 11, 2011 at 8:49 am |
    • Farmer Dave

      HeavenSent wrote

      Sarducar, read and learn.

      "Genesis 2:7: "And the Lord God formed man of the DUST OF THE GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul." Surely, you don't take Genesis 2:7 seriously? Do you?"

      Do you mean the basic concept, or the literal story?

      "Psalm 8:8: ". . . whatsoever passeth through the PATHS OF THE SEAS." How did David (the writer of Psalms) know, over 2,000 years ago, there were "paths in the seas"? David probably never even saw an ocean!"

      Huh? I thought he said "seas" and not "oceans." The seas and rivers were the primary form of transportation back then besides walking. Figure it out.

      "Ecclesiastes 1:7: "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." How did the writer of Ecclesiastes know the water cycle of condensation and evaporation in 1000 B.C.?"

      You apparently thing the people back then, the ones who wrote the bible, were too ignorant to understand evaporation, and where fog, clouds, and rain comes from. Yet you prefer to "believe" their words on a literal basis.

      "Job 38:19: "Where is THE WAY where light dwelleth?" How come Job didn't say where is THE PLACE where light dwelleth? Because light is always moving. How did Job know something in 1500 B.C. ?"

      Because he meant "the way," and not "the place." Had nothing to do with the speed of light.

      "Ecclesiastes 1:6: "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again ACCORDING TO HIS CIRCUITS." How did the writer of Ecclesiastes know the wind traveled within circuits? How did he know with their so-called limited knowledge thousands of years ago?"

      Actually they don't. Winds blow from high pressure towards low pressure. But you argument seems to be going in "circuits."

      "Leviticus 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood. What Moses wrote in 1490 B.C. written thousands of years ago, by men with such limited knowledge?"

      the Jews had a thing about blood, and still do, as do some Christians. Besides, I'm sure Moses was smart enough to know that if you drain all the blood, the flesh dies. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

      "Amen."

      Which means "So be it."

      And why only talk Old testament?

      God gave you a brain. He also gave you free will to use it. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

      April 11, 2011 at 9:08 am |
  20. Creature (one that is created)

    Evolution IS a theory. There have been MANY theory's about many things. Please do no MISINFORM the world that evolution is indeed fact. It is not a scientific FACT.

    Your own statement "How can different species have identical broken genes? The only reasonable explanation is that they inherited it from a common ancestor.", shows conjecture on your part and not scientific fact.

    Since your are you referring to evolution based on Charles Darwin's Theory, Charles Darwin wrote a book call "The origin of Species", not the "Origin of EVERYTHING". While there are parts of Darwin's observations that are indeed based upon fact, there is much of his research based upon unfounded speculation (similar to your own speculation). Even the master of denial, David Dawkins, was at a loss for explanation when posed a simple question of how life came to the earth.

    As far as the educational debate on Evolution Vs. Creationism, My personal view is that NEITHER (or both) should be taught in our PUBLIC schools. Why should we propagate unsubstantiated theory's? Properly state that science has not yet determined the origin and then let each person decide for themselves what they choose to believe in.

    April 11, 2011 at 6:51 am |
    • richunix

      Dude, it is the THEROY of Religion, for they religion has always distorted facts in order to support weak theories. However it is the Science of Evolution...Get your facts right and maybe you will do better...You’re the one that is mis-informed and, mis-guided, you’re willing to believe in anything. Hey did you see JESUS in on your frig today?

      April 11, 2011 at 7:11 am |
    • bilboYEAAAA

      1000 years ago the thought of a round Earth was considered at best crazy, and at worst, an offense punishable by death. Believe what you want, but the Earth is still round, and in 1000 years, what you think today isn't going to matter.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:30 am |
    • jamie

      When someone says "evolution is just a theory," they are exposed as someone who does not understand what a scientific theory is and should not be participating in such discussions.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:31 am |
    • Dan

      Most creationists misunderstand the meaning of the word "Theory". In layman terms, "theory" means hypothesis or educated guess. Think, untested, unsubstantiated explanation. In Science, the word "Theory" means something completely different. It means the scientifically tested and accepted explanation. Other examples are Atomic Theory, Theory of Relativity and Germ Theory. Why don't we hear people screaming that Germs are not a fact, they are only a "theory". In science, an accepted theory is WHY the facts are the way they are. Facts are simply single data points that add up to a total picture of what is happening. That total picture is the scientific theory.

      Science is the best method ever devised to unlock the mysteries of the cosmos. Science does not bow to mythology of religion and politics. It strives to unlock how the cosmos works through observation, testing, measurement, verification, peer review and acceptance through consensus. Creationism is simply a modern version of science denial that the catholic church employed to deny the earth revolving around the sun. Believers are threatened by knowledge that contradicts cherished beliefs. The ability of the human mind to deny facts in favor of a cherished belief system is truly astounding.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:34 am |
    • Conall

      Gravity is a theory as well. Perhaps we should take that out of high school physics classes?!?

      April 11, 2011 at 7:36 am |
    • yianni

      In science theory has a different meaning from how we use this word in everyday talking. Thus the excuse that the evolution is a just a theory, one of many, is ridicules. The Theory of Evolution is considered the most well formed scientific theory. From wikipedia you can see the definition of a scientific theory :

      "A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

      Anything that does not oblige to the scientific method, such as genesis,should be disregarded from been a fact. It is just a matter of believe. It is also funny that people how doubt science, go to the doctor, take medication, get into a plane. Why? It seems that you believe in what ever is convenient for you.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:39 am |
    • yianni

      Let just add that by many the Theory of Evolution is considered a more complete and much better formed than Gravitational Theory

      April 11, 2011 at 7:42 am |
    • Monte Willis

      Evolution is a very arrogant and simple minded little reaction to mankind being upset at the creator for not being in their view, more active in human affairs. Evolution requires that we ignore billions impossibilities. Simply put, virtually everything, from DNA, to the organization of our universe, could not, and would not be possible without a designer. PERIOD. PERIOD.
      To think that we are the "highest" form of creation, is grasshopper like in thought.

      And to be clear, the earth DID NOT come about in just seven days, fake Bible friends have pushed that for many years, but with a little effort, you can see the Bible does support that thought at all.

      Why, has God then left his creation in such a state? I have a suggestion for you, pray to get the answer, think of it as research, you may be surprised by what happens.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:43 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Obviously Bilbo, you've never read the Bible.

      Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH."

      Isaiah knew in 700 B.C. the earth is round?

      Amen.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:46 am |
    • windycitybill

      Evolution is a Theory...anyone who thinks that it is something more needs to climb out from under the rock that they live under.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:51 am |
    • Monte

      Impossible. That is a word that could be debated as well. But for the sake of argument, lets agree it means that something could not happen.
      DNA, no words, no argument. Impossible that it came about by accident. The ear, the eye, the brain, the immune system, the skeletal system, procreation, impossible.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:57 am |
    • LetoAtreides

      Unfortunately, evolution, which has many valid points and admirable contributions to science, has become the "world-is-flat" mentality of the modern era. Mr. Giberson makes many falicious assumptions. He assumes that evolution's most key points are proven which they are not. Evolutionary theory has not proven a genetic evolutionary link between man and animal. Evolution has not been able to prove that anything is much more than 6000 years old. Radio carbon dating is the closest we get to measuring the age of geological formations and fossils. Paleontologists are making huge guesses about such ages. To say that something is "millions" of years old is a guess at best with no substantiation. Mr. Giberson does not address in his article the growing cadre of both Christian and non-Christian scientists who now stand behind intelligent design and other alternative theories to evolution. Let evolutionary THEORIES help us learn, but don't promote evolution as assumed fact. That is just poor scientific practice.

      April 11, 2011 at 8:04 am |
    • mensign01

      @HeavenSent

      A circle is not the same as a sphere

      April 11, 2011 at 8:08 am |
    • Marshall Addington

      I am a Christian and I say this. It is God who created the heavens and the earth. I do not believe that any man has the knowledge or wisdom to understand God. If Evolution is true, than who created evolution? Ok so you say that man did not come from God as in the way the Bible says, and you claim to have proof. What about the proof the Christian claims to have that the Bible is true? You claim to have scientific proof from educated men and women. The Holy Ghost Christian Claims to have divine proof from the almighty God. Well you say no one can see this god the Christian claims, and this God is only in his mind, but evolution is there for everyone to see. There are reports in the Church throughout the world of miracles that even the doctors cannot explain. Tumors inside of people that doctors can see and feel are suddenly gone without an operation. Cancers are dried up and gone without treatment, and the person who has had no treatment says the healing comes from God. Evolution cannot explain this. Yet man evolved from a monkey, but the monkey still exists? If this so called monkey gradually turned into a man than how do we still have the monkey? Why has man not evolved into something else yet? Here is something that Christians do not know: How a God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever should believe in him should not Perish, but have everlasting Life. Why he loved the world like that, we do not know. Now let’s say that evolution can explain where man comes from, but can it explain where the breath of life comes from? Can it explain where the life goes when the body dies? Evolution cannot. Do not deny life as a spiritual being just because you cannot explain it. Also you shouldn’t write articles in the main stream as if you have all the facts to life and creation when you do not.

      April 11, 2011 at 8:39 am |
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.