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. PRISM 1234

    Hey,

    HAS ANYONE NOTICED that unless you name the person you're addressing , your posts will just float out there, and no one will know whom you're addressing!? CNN may not have sense enough to fix it, but there are some here on this blog who claim awfully lot of smarts! How about showing some?!

    April 11, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
  2. Frespech

    Anna2; Where exactly is that belief based on other than your own conscience?

    April 11, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
  3. Rowdy Hobrecht

    I call this article a load of total bull!!!!! But nice TRY! Archeologist are proving daily that evolution is hunk of junk science! All though I MIGHT be able to believe there are SOME GOONS in this world that are still apes, as is shown on this blog thread! But I suspect those arrived here from some alien planet rather than intelligent creation on this good Earth.

    April 11, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
  4. Shabba

    actually God does tap people on shoulders and give them revelations, its just that the media refuse to listen. There has been many faith stories but its just that people refuse to listen. You heard of coins sticking to the wall by faith? AIDS completely healed? The blind seeing? The deaf hearing? The dead becoming alive? Yeah, that right the same spirit that was inside Jesus is inside you hence you can do exactly the same as Jesus could when he was on Earth. PS. When people die get murdered its not from God. God brings life. Death if from Satan. So when family or friends die or people that you know its not from God. Its from Satan. And to those religious people out there, the only thing you have to do to get into heaven is believe Jesus Christ died for you and have faith. Jesus loves you!!

    April 11, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • Frespech

      If we are to die and go to heaven for our faith what is the Lords prayer about in Matthew."Thy Kingdom come" We are not leaving, his Kingdom is comming.

      April 11, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
  5. nilloc4

    He also said, "I am the life". He wouldn't need to 'believe' in evolution since he created everything anyway–and sustains it.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
  6. I have a theory about Laws

    The current consensus among philosophers of science seems to be this:

    Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.
    Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
  7. Jan

    The only reason any of you bible believers believe what you believe is because you were taught to believe what you believe. I was, too, but eventually I grew up and started asking questions and thinking rationally on my own. There is not a shred of evidence to support the notion of a "loving" God in the sky. Just look at the famine and AIDS epidemic amongst all those innocent children in Africa, and you can see that there is no loving God. And that argument of "we can't understand why God does what he does..." is just a major cop-out.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
    • Jonathan Martis

      Do you know that man is fallen? How can you say God is not loving because people have AIDS? Do you think you are good? Why...what makes you good? Adam and Eve ate the apple which took them out of favor with God. There was no sin but sin entered the world when they ate the apple. There's your answer why things happen in the world. This is not heaven. If you are a Christian, earth is the closest you will get to experiencing hell and if you are not a Christian, earth is the closest you will get to heaven. Seek God and you will find him.

      April 12, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
  8. jason

    I have one question for you.... Are you on crack?

    April 11, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
  9. Not a believer

    Believe what you want, but for everyone that relies on snippets of the bible to justify their arguments, I would ask you this. Go watch a baseball game tomorrow with a friend. In a year each of you should right a short story about the day. Then find a bilingual friend and have them translate it for you. Then find two more people to translate it into their language, and finally someone to bring it back to english. Now compare your version of the story to your friends version. You were both at the same game, but I'm willing to bet that your two stories are woefully different. You may have gotten the score right, and where you were sitting, but what color was the shirt on the guy sitting in front of you? Which batter hit a home run in which inning? The point is, that the bible is a book that was written not by the apostles, but by folks who lived in some cases 100 years later. They were not at the events and had no first hand experience. Throw in countless edits and translations, and revisions by the church over the years and you have a book that may still have truth, but I wouldn't count on it for specifics. Don't live your life trying to dissect the bible and find meaning in something that isn't there. The book has a lot of moral guidance and great ideas. Be a good person because that is what feels good inside. Quit worrying about what you had on your hot dog during the 7th inning stretch.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
  10. achipotle

    I'v studied this for years...I have a degree from Rutger's University in Applied Quntum Eco Sustainability...and I have come to the conclusion that Santa doesn't believe in String Theory. He thinks it is stupid.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
  11. m

    @ Bobby, then please tell me how the rock dating method is perfectly free of errors and how every assumption made is made on completely solid facts, not a single assumption.

    @ Trap, It's called recent eruptions that create brand new rock. Scientists have attempted to date them and have gotten ages into the millions of years, pure and simple. In addition, there isn't a single rock on this planet that has been dated to into the billions of years old. The best that can be done is millions of years, and even that is erroneous. The earth and universe are less than ten thousand years old.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
  12. Richard

    Christians...don't get caught up in the evolution debate. It's just a distraction. Christ didn't die and rise again to win debates, but to save souls. To satisfy God's justice on you, through belief in Christ (Jn 3.16). That's the only TRUTH you as Christians are mandated to share. It's up to those who hear it to believe it or not.

    (Gen1.1) "God created the heavens and the earth"...who knows when that was, and who knows how long it existed before mankind as we know it began to exist on it.

    Keep you eyes on the prize!

    April 11, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
    • Anna2

      Richard, what prize? Do you really think you will be rewarded for your faith? Don't you see that if there is a God he doesn't favor the good and punishes the bad at all. If he exist, he is unfair and cruel. What makes you think he will be different to you after your death?

      April 11, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
    • Richard

      Anna2...yes, I do believe that salvation is achieved through faith. As a matter of fact it's the ONLY way to gain salvation. Not by how good or bad you are, and it's nothing you can earn(Eph2.8),. It's given to you through HIS grace, and all you have to do is accept it.
      Yes the world is cruel, but that's b/c man is inherently evil, and God leaves your decisions up to you. If you decide to Murder a "good" person, is that God's fault? We're responsible for our own actions.
      However, God isn't just love, he is also Just. He protects His children, but He also disciplines them just as any parent would their child. Yes, good people suffer and bad people prosper. But God does bless those who suffer for Him, and for those who are bad, they will pay.
      Christ's 1st advent wasn't to bring peace to the world, but to bring peace between you and God by satisfying His justice toward you...B/c God judges sin, b/c He's Just, but His Love has provided a way through Christ to make you righteous in God's eyes...and it's simply by faith...That's the prize, that's the gift, that's the good news, and you can take it, or leave it...it's entirely your choice.
      I don't wish eternal condemnation on anyone, but as a Christian, all I can do is present the truth in a loving way, and hope the listener makes the right decision.

      April 11, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
    • Richard

      Anna2...and to briefly answer your last question...the reason "God will treat us differently in death" is b/c we'll be w/o sin. There will be no need for judgement.
      ALL of mankind is a sinner. Show me different, and I'll show you a liar (which is a sin). Until the end of human history, sin will be continued to be judged

      April 11, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  13. stephen

    Christians have a variety of beliefs regarding the origins of the earth, universe and life. Some believe new earth and young humanity, some believe in old earth old humanity, some a combination. The big idea is God created man in his image and likeness distinct from all other creation. Evolution is a possible means, but not terribly reasonable to any orthodox Christian who believes in the inerrency of scripture.

    Macro evolution has never been observed. Life forming from non-life has never been observed or reproduced in a lab.

    A 'broken gene' can imply a common creator just as much as a common ancestor and without the a 'working' example to compare to it hardly demand scientific to call it broken... but I'm not a scientist so maybe I'm just confused.

    A good resource is "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by trek and geisler.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @stephen,
      "...without the a 'working' example to compare to it hardly demand scientific to call it broken..."
      If I understand what you are saying, the article specifies that, "this gene, which works fine in most mammals, enables the production of Vitamin C," but not in the close primate relatives of man. In other words the 'working' example of this gene is found in most mammals, not closely related to man.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
    • CharlesA

      "Macro evolution has never been observed. Life forming from non-life has never been observed or reproduced in a lab."

      Uh yes it has:
      http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

      While the conditions present in these experiments may not have precisely replicated the conditions that existed in the primordial stages of the earth, it still proves that your god isn't the only thing that can create life from non-living matter.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
    • NL

      stephen-
      "Macro evolution has never been observed."
      'Macro' evolution is only the accu.mulated effect of all that 'micro' evolution creationists cannot deny is happening even as we debate.

      "but I'm not a scientist so maybe I'm just confused."
      Don't feel bad, the average person plateaus at a certain level in every complicated field. You may not be an expert mathematician, for example, but you wouldn't deny that the answers they come up with to equations that are way beyond you are accurate, right? The scientists who work in evolution are experts. You may be an expert in a technical field like tax law which is simply beyond the understanding of many people, maybe even a few evolutionary scientists. What would you say to them if they expressed doubt in your work?

      "A good resource is "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by trek and geisler."
      Not faith, but confidence that there isn't enough evidence to justify belief in any god being real, just as you probably have confidence that vampires aren't a real threat, right?

      April 11, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
    • Wayne317

      Why would a creator designed a faulty gene on purpose?

      April 11, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • stephen

      The thing I notice with most of these threads is that most everyone's basic understandings rest heavily on predispositions to believe or not believe in a creator. I'm not a scientist or a theologian or an apologist. I'm a Christian who likes to learn how nature works, but from the presupposition that created and directs nature. You may assume that's ignorance if you like, but based the understanding I do have from reading ideas of theists and atheists, it seems more reasonable to me that a God exists, than not.

      @Ninomus & Wayne: I can't explain why a gene does or doesn't do something. I cannot disprove evolution of man from a primitive species, but can only believe that if that's how God decided to make man, that He intended for man to be different from the start. But my point was that without this original version, it seems presumptive to call it broken, when perhaps it just wasn't meant to function as we understand it to.

      @Charles: I stand corrected. I am aware of that particular experiment, and hadn't really considered it because 1) the factors of the experiment weren't accurate based on the understanding of that early atmosphere and 2) because it required intelligent forces designing the experiment to result in the outcome... which seems to point toward intelligence being behind the creation of life.

      @NL: I've always, since grade school, understood macroevolution to be a spontaneous event that sends the offspring of a creature down a whole new path as a whole new species. Micro evolution certainly happens on a daily basis, but it's never been observed to result in new species, just new adaptations.

      I don't feel bad at all. There are plenty of scientists with PhDs and everything who, for a number of reasons, don't believe in macro evolution and accept the signs throughout science that point to a creator. And so, if they came to me and refuted what I say based on other experts in my field who disagree with me, I'd explain why I think those experts are wrong. But like I said before, some of it just comes down to preconceived notions.

      I have faith that Christ is my savior and try to live in light of that. I have confidence that God created existence because His fingerprints are all over science.

      April 11, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • NL

      stephen-
      So, you believe that 'microevolution' over a short period of time can result adaptations to a species, but don't you think that after all the adaptations of millions of years of microevolution you would not have a huge difference between the original population and it's distant ancestors? Even tiny changes add up to huge differences over time. People who live near rivers can tell you how their banks are different in tiny ways from one spring to the next, but not one of them ever imagines that the river will return to a past state. That must be what you're suggesting, that sparrows simply flip-flop in the color of their plumage, or something, like it's a fashion choice. Sorry, but that's just silly.

      "I don't feel bad at all. There are plenty of scientists with PhDs and everything who, for a number of reasons, don't believe in macro evolution and accept the signs throughout science that point to a creator."
      I suspect that these PhDs, if they were biologists, could prove, or at least logically argue scientific reasons why they've chosen not to accept evolution then their work would stand firmly against the other experts, but no such work exists. I would suspect that their convictions are only personal religious ones, and aren't actual valid criticisms of the theory.

      "I have confidence that God created existence because His fingerprints are all over science."
      Where? If this were CSI the team wouldn't find a single piece of evidence suggesting that anything but a natural cause brought about the universe and the diversity of life on this planet.

      April 11, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Stephen,
      "...my point was that without this original version, it seems presumptive to call it broken, when perhaps it just wasn't meant to function as we understand it to."
      If you are just disagreeing with the term "broken," then I won't debate it with you, as I suspect the proper term would be something like non-expressing gene, but it's not really important what it's called.

      You do seem genuinely interested, perhaps you might like to look at Berkeley's Understanding Evolution site, it's pretty useful, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_40, and might clear up some misconceptions like, "I've... understood macroevolution to be a spontaneous event that sends the offspring of a creature down a whole new path as a whole new species."

      April 11, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  14. Anna2

    I think religious people who are trying to believe both, creationism and evolutionism are afraid of losing the cozy feeling of having a father figure.
    I am saying, try to live without crutches, forget about God and you will see that nothing bad will happen to you. Actually, you will be freed of the burden of thinking somebody is watching you. You can be a decent human without faith, actually, having faith without following God is a lot better, because it is based on your will, not on your fear.

    Don't die before you experience the joy of self-reliance and the feeling of being a free thinker. Doesn't mean you have to believe in Evolutionism, you don't have to believe in anything.
    Just open up your eyes and watch the miracle around you. You don't need a 2000 year old dogma for that.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
  15. Pat

    The Bible was inspired by God...Each of you can come up with your own ideals, You can not change the fact that God made the world and all that is in it...God does blind those who do not believe so many of you have no ideal what a relationship with God is...He has blinded you from any belief that you can not understand how God made the world and set it up to be perfect for man but as we see, man has destroyed it with our sin...

    April 11, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
    • gogogopher

      yes and god/jesus/spirit killed 42 children with bears..... 2nd kings..... you never hear a sermon on this, lol...

      April 11, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
    • Richie Cunningham

      gogogopher... you're quite hung up on the story of God allowing bears to kill the children for mocking the prophet. Oh you left that last part out, right. God (or as you say "our Jesus") didn't just decide to randomly kill children as you imply. And yes, we have had sermons on this. I'm sure you have not heard sermons on this since you obviously don't go to church based on your comments.
      But let's look further into this... do you have a problem with God killing children? Is this a moral issue for you? So you must believe in God. Otherwise, why would it be morally wrong for children to be killed by bears?

      April 11, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
  16. Peter Washburn

    While modern science might have begun in the 17th century, the origins of science (the ancient Greek word for 'knowlege') goes back many centuries before the Christian era. The conclusions of modern science such as evolution are the result of questions asked by the philosphers living in the classical world. Jesus probably knew of these people and their questions about the world around them. But, his message was not philosophical or scientific, it was spiritual. He was a man of God.

    April 11, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
  17. mamasaum

    Sir, you err greatly. Jesus was there when He and the Father God CREATED earth and all life on it. He is our creator, so to tell others that Jesus, OUR CREATOR would believe in the THEORY (not truth, theory, never proven, it's still a theory folks) of evolution is a great LIE.

    April 11, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
    • Darren

      For everyone who says Evolution is just a theory, please learn what a scientific theory is.

      April 11, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @mamasaum,
      *If* Jesus is the creator, then He must have used evolution as the method of creation when He created all life; the evidence is overwhelming. Would you deny that Jesus used gravity in creating the world? or nuclear reactions to light the stars? Why question what He has put in front of you face?

      April 11, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
    • SimonQ

      Nonimus,you say: "He does believe in evolution because He created it; we know because He left huge amounts of evidence that evolution happened." However, I have yet to see ANY evidence proving evolution. You cannot use fossils: fossils only show that the creature lived and died, not how it lived or where it came from. No one has ever witnessed any creature giving birth to anything other than the same creature.. a dog birthed a dog.. a cat birthed a cat... etc. If evolution is each creature getting better to survive, then why are living things getting smaller/weaker than the fossils of their ancestors? The "evidence" you speak of does not exist.

      April 11, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
    • joaquindemancha

      No no sir, YOU got it all wrong! Isis was there at the beginning. She made love with Krishna during the Kali Yuga and gave birth to Quetzalcoatl. Jesus and Quetz' were best friends and they even chilled with Buddha every once in awhile.

      April 11, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @SimonQ,
      Science doesn't really prove things, that's mathematics. But as I said there is a huge amount of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution (TOE) and I am not aware of any scientific evidence supporting any other explanation of the diversity of life on this planet.

      As for evidence supporting TOE, besides fossils, which I'll get to below, there's biochemical evidence, exampled by the cytochrome-c proteins, genetic evidence, exampled by Human Chromosome 2, and biogeographical evidence, exampled by marsupials in Austrailia, just to name a few.

      As for fossils, they actually do provide evidence for evolution. In other words, if evolution were not true and God or some other mechanism simple created an individual species when and where it liked, how would we ever know before-hand where to expect fossils of a certain type? For example, say you wanted to find a fossil of a transitional species between fish and tetrapods (four-limbed animals: reptiles, mammals, amphibians), where would you look? Well, if you follow the TOE, you would figure out when that species was likely to have existed, sometime after fish existed but just before tetrapods existed. But, given that time frame, you would also want to know where rock from that time was exposed on the surface of the Earth (otherwise you'ld have to dig a lot.) But having figured both of those out, based on TOE you would expect that area to be the most likely place to find the fossils you are looking for.
      Now, if you believe in a 'special creation' scenario how would you begin to find any particular type of fossil? I don't think you could as you would have any idea where or when each species was created as it was completely arbitrary, in that God or whatever agent did the creating didn't need to created the tetrapod after the fish or in the area where fish previous were, He could create them in any order at any location. Alternatively, if you are working from the 'Eden' model you would expect all species to show up in one general area, say the middle east between the tigrus and euphrates river's and at the same time. But that definitely hasn't been then case. Or maybe, they all should show up in the mountains of Ararat all at once due to the great flood. But that also hasn't been the case.
      What has been the case is that a group of scientists did use the TOE, among other scientific theories, to narrow down the likliest place to find the fish-to-tetrapod transitional species and it was Devonian rock in northern Canada. And after a lot of searching, in 2004 they found Tiktaalik, as fossil that had features of both fish and tetrapods. The Theory of Evolution actually makes predictions that can be tested in the real world. How else would they have ever even thought to look in northern Canada for a transitional "fishapod" fossil?

      April 11, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • Nonimus

      P.S. Sorry for all the typos and bad spelling. I hope it is still reasonably clear.

      April 11, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
  18. LJ O

    Jesus was present at creation. He created everything. Without Him nothing was made that has been made. He does NOT believe in evolution. HE IS THE CREATOR!!!!!!!!!

    April 11, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
    • gogogopher

      and you know he helped kill 42 children with bears by answering a prayer? Your Jesus did that.

      April 11, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
    • Nonimus

      *If* He is the creator, then He does believe in evolution because He created it; we know because He left huge amounts of evidence that evolution happened. If not, why all the evidence.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
  19. CW

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I realize that there are a lot of comments about how a lot of you don't believe God or in the Bible. Unfortunately that is your choice...not a good one but still your own choice. I have to disagree with those that always try to discredit the Bible. If you don't believe then its okay....its just your eternity that is at stake. I encourage all of you that don't believe to rethink your stance.

    April 11, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
    • gogogopher

      You do know Jesus sent many ANGELS to have boom boom with girls and women..... and 9 months later... GIANTS were born.
      Then God/Jesus/Allah/Spirit flooded the world to kill off the GIANTS.... but oddly enough, they re-appear in the Bible later...

      April 11, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
    • NL

      gogogopher-
      " they re-appear in the Bible later..."
      And still appear around the Pacific Northwest. Bigfoot, right?

      April 11, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
    • Don

      You are obviously a victim of Stockholm Syndrome. Your belief is based on cowardice and fear.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • Drew

      Wow. Didn't you people ever play the game telephone when you were kids? Someone creates a short story and whispers it to the next person and then that person whispers it to the next until everyone hears the story. By the time it gets to the 11th or 12th person, the story has totally changed from what the 1st kid invented.

      Now take a bunch of stories, have them told to other people over 1000 years at different locations until someone finally writes it down. Think the stories changed much from the original? You bet they did! They changed to the ridiculous concoction that is known as the bible.

      You base your eternal soul on warped stories. I'm sure that will work out real well for you. :^)

      April 11, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • NL

      Drew-
      'Telephone' is also a fairly good analogy for evolution where incremental, small changes over time can result in a huge change from the original being copied. We could do something similar with a simple photocopier by running a sheet of something through it and then taking the copy and running that through again, and then taking the copy and running that through again, and so on thousands of times. After a few thousand recopies would wouldn't be able to recognize the the last copy from the original, but it would be very similar to the copy that produced it. In a way we are all just copies of copies.

      April 11, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  20. Brian

    Here's an idea: you're God. You've got to create a world. Do you reinvent the wheel between fish and mammals, or do you develop a genetic system that handles everything from hogs to humans? The truth is in the genetics; scientists eliminate God using Occam's Razor: it's simpler to attribute shared genes to chance and natural selection. But there's nothing to prove that God didn't master and follow the laws of nature while creating the universe.

    April 11, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Why would God use genetics at all? It seems like such an inefficient and error-prone way of doing things, if you start with the optimal design in the first place.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
    • Richie Cunningham

      Here's your first problem with your scenario. You say you have to worry about reinventing the wheel while creating the universe. It wouldn't be reinventing since you're creating the universe for the first time.
      It's simpler to chalk it up to shared genes and chance? Really? If we're here by chance, then there's a chance we wouldn't have been here. If God wanted to create humans, he would get it right the first time and create humans as opposed to creating a random chance system and hope for the best.
      God didn't "learn" things as he went along creating the universe. He created everything in six days and rested on teh seventh day. He did this by example (7 day week), not because that's the shortest possible time to create a universe. He could have created everything in six seconds or in an instant. Don't limit our God with fallible ideas please.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • Anna2

      I love it when people talk about God like he was their buddy. "God did this", "God wants that". It's like bragging about having a famous friend.
      How on earth do you want to know what he did exactly or what he wants? Delusional a little?

      April 11, 2011 at 2:30 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.