home
RSS
Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age
January 10th, 2012
04:18 PM ET

Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

America’s Protestant pastors overwhelmingly reject the theory of evolution and are evenly split on whether the earth is 6,000 years old, according to a survey released Monday by the Southern Baptist Convention.

When asked if “God used evolution to create people," 73% of pastors disagreed - 64% said they strongly disagreed - compared to 12% who said they agree.

Asked whether the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, 46% agreed, compared to 43% who disagreed.

A movement called Young Earth creationism promotes the 6,000-year-old figure, arguing that it is rooted in the Bible. Scientists say the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

The Southern Baptist Convention survey, which queried 1,000 American Protestant pastors, also found that 74% believe the biblical Adam and Eve were literal people.

“Recently discussions have pointed to doubts about a literal Adam and Eve, the age of the earth and other origin issues," said Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, a division of the Southern Baptist Convention, in a report on LifeWay’s site. “But Protestant pastors are overwhelmingly Creationists and believe in a literal Adam and Eve.”

The phone survey was conducted in May 2011, sampling ministers from randomly selected Protestant churches. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent, LifeWay said.

A 2010 Gallup poll found that 40% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, versus 54% who said humans developed over millions of years.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Christianity • Science

« Previous entry
soundoff (6,504 Responses)
  1. God

    7 out of 10 pastors are too busy m0lesting young boys to study scientific facts

    January 13, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
  2. Ph.D. from M.I.T.

    And we wonder why the United States is falling behind the rest of the world in science and mathematics, that requires critical thinking. Let's leave evolution alone for the moment. Who in their right mind would think the world is 6000 years old? If you think this you basically are denying almost all of the science that makes the modern technology we all use (as in witness ourselves as working). I guess better to blindly believe what some biased non-scientist tell you than to believe your own experience what non-biased scientists and technologists design and build using the basic principals of science. Is there any hope for America?

    January 13, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Here in Indiana, we had yet another creationism bill introduced in the Senate. It says: amend the Indiana Code to provide that “[t]he governing body of aschool corporation may require the teaching of various theories
      concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within theschool corporation.”

      Even wackier is the companion bill requiring schools to recite the "Lord's Prayer" each morning.

      Sadly, you cannot make this bulll up.

      January 13, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  3. james

    DR. K.- didn't see your reply, sorry. You can't deny the intelligence involved. "Nothing you see now was always in place, Thats the whole IDEA. Whats the idea? and who came up with the idea? Idea is intelligence, this is my issue. What you've done is give "natural selection" a mind, without giving it a mind. You're giving a process intelligence. time- has no intelligence, evolution-has no intelligence. Yet you try and make the combination of the two, produce intelligence. Like I said before, functions that coexist perfectly is intelligence at work. time and evolution dont produce either.

    January 13, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      I most certainly can deny any evidence for intelligence behind evolution. Intelligence very much appears to be a product of evolution, not the other way around. There is a whole world of literature on the evolution of abstract thought, cultural transmission of information, development of language, decision making, optimal behavior etc etc. Unlike "God did it" it cannot be summarized in a single sentence or paragraph. It is complicated, but not impossible to understand. Maintain your questions as honest questions (ones you are open to investigating) rather than thinly veiled opinions in support of what you already think you know, and there is a whole fascinating universe out there to discover.

      January 13, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
    • WASP

      1)evolution doesn't involve intelligence. often mutations aka genetic mistakes either live or die based on their enviroment. if a gazelle is born with shorter legs then the others, it is often eaten and doesn't pass on it genetic traits due to the fact it's slower then the herd. 2) ideas come from imagination, not intelligence. intelligence is merely memory. the ability to retain information and teach it to your offspring. reasoning is the ability to figure out which of the stored information is needed to deal with a certain problem.

      January 23, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
  4. gtalum

    This is purely speculation. My question is...why does it have to be one or the other? Who says that creation and evolution couldn't have both, in some form, been correct? I don't feel like over-thinking this... I'm just suggesting that it's possible that we have a limited understanding to the length of a day 4.5 billion (or 6,000) years ago beyond what science tells us (which, arguably is a product of some form of creation...)

    Why is it so unbelievable that maybe God did create Adam and Eve as the first literal humans, but also to accept that maybe, just maybe, they didn't look just like people today...that over time human form has evolved, along with other species, etc? Partial evolution seems so logical, yet so hard for the extreme sides of this argument to even consider.

    This is just the perspective of a non-Baptist Christian... so take it for what it's worth.

    January 13, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Primewonk

      A single breeding pair (of any species) does not contain enough genetic diversity to prevent extinction within a couple generations. You need 500 – 1000 breeding pairs of any species to ensure survival. That's why you can't have a literal Adam & Eve, or a literal Noah's flood.

      January 13, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  5. Phid

    Those who believe in an "Old Aged Earth" and those who believe in a "Young Aged Earth" have something very much in common, I.E. "Faith" Neither have the information needed to Prove their point. Old Earth proponents base their faith in man's ability to study, evaluate and test their ideas. Young Earth proponents base their faith in information given to them by One who was there when it all began. The real difference is that one seems based on the concept that God really had little or nothing to do with who we humans are while the other is based on what God has to say about it.

    January 13, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      I could not disagree more. Faith is belief regardless of evidence, knowledge is belief because of evidence. Even ones "faith" in the ability of people to study, evaluate, and test ideas is not really faith, it is based on the bewildering abundance of evidence that it works that surrounds us in the form of technology, medicine, communication, etc. This computer does not work because I have faith in it, nor is my expectation that this comment will post based on faith, it is based on the evidence I have experienced.

      January 13, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Phid – In science we don't "prove" things, we explain things. Proofs are for maths and ethanol. There is no faith required or allowed in science. We have valid confirmed scientific evidence for the age of the earth. If you have evidence that refutes this data, this would be the time to post it.

      January 13, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
  6. Dr.K.

    James, I provided an answer to your question about reproduction below, but it was apparently not the answer you were fishing for. You seem to have ignored it and simply posted the question again.

    I will reiterate my plea: Many of you have valid and interesting questions. So, why not pursue them and find out what is actually known, rather than using them as shields to deflect learning? Valid information is out there to be had, but you have to look beyond the creationist websites. Even wikipedia has some passable information. Allow the questions to open doors, not hold them shut.

    January 13, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
  7. sunpacific

    This is really disturbing. While other nations are streaming ahead in science education, the far-right-wing-religious zealots put us in a position where we actually have to fight to teach science in science class. You can believe whatever you want in your place of worship: but keep your religious beliefs out of the class room. Evolution exists, plain and clear and the evidence is in our very DNA.

    January 13, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
  8. Charlie

    This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of facts. Christians reject facts. It's that simple.

    January 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
  9. Just Saying

    And here we see the difference between faith and blind faith as well as the difference between religion and science.

    Faith is the maintenance of belief in the absence of evidence.

    Blind faith is the maintenance of belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Religions are focused on providing answers to questions of Why? – as in "Why do we exist?" and on morality/good vs. evil. But note that religion, Christian or otherwise, does not have a monopoly on trying to provide acceptable answers to these questions.

    Science, on the other hand, is focused on providing answers to questions of How? – as in "How did we come to be as we are?" Arguably, science does have a monopoly on providing valid answers to these questions.

    Faith and science can be reconciled but a religion that demands blind faith acceptance of answers to questions which religion has no business even trying to answer is, by definition, a fraud.

    January 13, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Primewonk

      If we didn't have a single solitary fossil, it would't matter. The best evidence for evolution and especially common ancestory is DNA.

      Frank – you still show that you don't comprehend the scientific definition of theory. And by the way, in 150 years the theory of evolution has never been falsified. Never. Ever. Not even close. You also still claim it takes faith to believe in evolution. Yet time after time we explain that faith is not needed or required in science.

      Many creationists post over and over that evolution has been "proven wrong". Yet when asked for the scientific "proof", they refuse to post it.

      January 13, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Frank

      Learn what a scientific theory is before putting it in quotes again, it only shows how much you clearly still need to learn before making any intelligent comment on the matter. This isn't supposed to be insulting, but you have clearly shown that you still have a fair amount to learn. Challenges (not sure how you can get a loophole in this case, but ok....) could exist in the theory because of lack of data but (again!) doesn't tear down evolution, it only leaves more for us to find and reevalutate if need be.

      Next, we do have a questioning mind as mankind, but part of being an adult is knowing that some questions will never have answers, but that doesn't mean you should stop trying

      As to your last question, boy I've never asked that question before (Sarcasm alert!). The where did it all come from part – easy. The sun, we're star stuff. If you want to go back further than that you'll have to get into cosmology and that's a whole other can of words I have an inkling you know very little about.

      Second, it's not chance or random occurance how we formed, everything in the human system is there for a reason and was formed due to environmental change. Not everything is perfect and some traits that formed have a negative effect, but I as.sure you Frank, there is no theory (no serious theory anyway) that holds that human beings just randomly formed by chance or luck or random occurance. Your church or pastor might want you to believe otherwise, but no one who seriously understands evolution will tell you that we just luckily stood up one down, willed away our tails and started talking and being human.

      January 13, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
  10. cooper

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZIHsqpRXvA&w=640&h=390]

    January 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • Antony

      This video demonstrates just how ignorant christians are of rational examination of scientific evidence. Evolution, It's so much sillier than someone walking on water 2000 years ago, isn't it?

      January 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Sam

      tony-u've got the evidence? where were you hiding all these decades and making those evolutionary biologists wandering around looking for evidence? for crying out loud atheists pretend they understand science don't they?

      January 13, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Antony

      Sam: Go to your local community college and take a course in critical thinking. It will do you a world of good.

      January 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Sam

      Is that how you evolved?ie., from your local comm. college? amazing! after learning those skills what was the next step?

      January 13, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Antony

      Sam: You're not very smart are you?

      January 13, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Sam

      Apparently not as smart as you ;)
      cut the chase and going back to the original question where is the evidence you claim ?

      January 13, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Sammy,

      Buddy, it's dinosaurs bro, dinosaurs. Oh yeah, and fossils, dna sequencing, the appendix, lactose intolerance, etc....

      Take Anthony's advice, educate yourself.

      January 13, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • Frank

      Chucky-and your credentials to defend Evolution? if you have the evidence then why are you still dancing around this? did you also go to the same community college to get educated?

      January 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Frank

      I forgot, I'm not allowed to accept evolution or defend it if I don't have a degree in biology, or chemistry, or archeology. Guess I better start brushing off the dust from my bible and start learning about creation, because any idiot with a basic understanding of english can agree to that right? Or do I need to have a doctorate in theology in order to undertand and defend creationism?

      As for your question, there is the evidence, no dancing. This isn't a debate because of lack of evidence, it's lack of understanding mixed with cognitive dissonance (shoot I used a psychology word without a doctorate! Please don't call the police!) by believers who can't get over that life has existed for quite a while on earth and has changed over years and years to become what we know presently and all of these happened without any help from God or a god or gods.

      January 13, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Frank

      Ok chucky fair enough that you are not an expert on Evolution 'theory'. But your claims of evidence are not without major challenges and loopholes that will establish the evolutionary 'theory' as a given.Having said that,

      It simply boils down to Faith as belows
      a) you have your faith in a "theory" and theories come and go with time and minds that work on those.
      b) others have faith in GOD.(whom you will never be able to challenge)

      January 13, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Frank

      There's that cognitive dissonance thing I'm talking about rearing its ugly head. I'm not taking evolution theory (putting theory in quotes by the way doesn't help your case) on faith. Faith is believing in something without any evidence or evidence to the contrary. I accept evolution because the evidence supports it. I'm not saying there aren't issues with it, but the issues do not tear down the entire theory nor is it damning to evolution as a whole. Parts of evolution can and probably will be reshaped after new evidence comes to light, but one thing is pretty clear, god (as described in the bible at least) was not involved and didn't need to be.

      January 13, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
    • Frank

      btw., I absolutely believe in evolution, the variation part -Yes.

      That by chance a complex system evolved over time magically-NO(somehow a tornado blew through a junkyard and assembled a jumbo jet?) No

      January 13, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Frank

      To accept evolution and then say you don't accept that a complext organism can form over millions of years means that you a) just lied b) don't understand evolution at all or c) misunderstand what exactly is posed to have happened.

      There's nothing "magical" about it, except if you are using the term as prose and to mean something special and extraordinary. Evolution is beautiful specificallly because complex organisms did in fact evolve from single celled organisms over millions and millions of years. Now, how long it took, what shape they took, these are questions that I can not answer with firm details because although we have mountains of evidence, it's only a drop of a drop in the bucket of the amount of information to go into the depth that evolution doubters demand (as if the proof needed to show god doesn't demand the same amount at all!).

      Frank, you and your friend Sam should really go and make a concerted effort in understanding evolution and the beauty that comes from it, I promise you won't be disappointed.

      January 13, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • Frank

      Like I said before the 'theory' of evolution for which you seem to think there is evidence(complex cell systems and structures) has not been without major challenges and loopholes.

      I would think man would have a very questioning mind and without knowing where it all came from how can one find peace within oneself?

      I leave you with this to ponder upon –
      Where did it all come from?
      How can chance randomly create complex structures as that found in human beings?

      January 13, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Frank

      Learn what a scientific theory is before putting it in quotes again, it only shows how much you clearly still need to learn before making any intelligent comment on the matter. This isn't supposed to be insulting, but you have clearly shown that you still have a fair amount to learn. Challenges (not sure how you can get a loophole in this case, but ok....) could exist in the theory because of lack of data but (again!) doesn't tear down evolution, it only leaves more for us to find and reevalutate if need be.

      Next, we do have a questioning mind as mankind, but part of being an adult is knowing that some questions will never have answers, but that doesn't mean you should stop trying

      As to your last question, boy I've never asked that question before (Sarcasm alert!). The where did it all come from part – easy. The sun, we're star stuff. If you want to go back further than that you'll have to get into cosmology and that's a whole other can of words I have an inkling you know very little about.

      Second, it's not chance or random occurance how we formed, everything in the human system is there for a reason and was formed due to environmental change. Not everything is perfect and some traits that formed have a negative effect, but I as.sure you Frank, there is no theory (no serious theory anyway) that holds that human beings just randomly formed by chance or luck or random occurance. Your church or pastor might want you to believe otherwise, but no one who seriously understands evolution will tell you that we just luckily stood up one down, willed away our tails and started talking and being human.

      January 13, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
    • Frank

      Ok chucks, like I said before

      It is your Faith in a theory Vs. my Faith in God.

      January 13, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • Frank

      Forgot to wish you happy weekend ;)

      PS:Don't forget to ponder anew!

      January 13, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Frank

      And like I said, it's cognitive dissoance and miscomprehension. I have 0 faith in this theory, I accept the facts presented and that's all there is too it. Secondly, my "faith" in evolution in no way qualifies or should qualify that you should have equal respect for faith in creationism/god or whatever you understand creation to be. Faith in this instance means two completely different things. Add Etymology to your list of things you should learn.

      January 13, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
    • Dr. Gary Hurd

      The first thing I noticed was that the fish supposedly living in a "jungle pond" were tuna, a deep sea – pelagic – group.

      Then there was the "jungle" a photograph of a coral gravel island which rarely have any ponds, particularly the small ones similar to the photo. After that the lies, and misrepresentations were to many, and too fast to bother tracking.

      Why do creationists find it necessary to lie? I think it is because they know they are basing their entire religion on a lie.

      January 14, 2012 at 12:09 am |
  11. james

    Here's the problem: evolution has no intelligence, you have intelligence. How is that even possible? I believe in things changing and adapting over time, BUT not in the way the science community tries to present it. That everything is branched off single cell organisms over billion of years. How do you explain the functions between male and female to reproduce? If everything is branched off single cell organisms, these functions werent always in place, So how does something with no intellgence(evolution), come up with such intelligent design? It's just modern day idol worship, without the worship. No dif than worshipping the sun and acrediting the sun for everyting that happens.

    January 13, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Then post the citations to peer-reviewed scientific research that supports your contentions.

      January 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Sam

      @Prime-James above is asking questions on evolution.
      Answer the questions or cower away!

      January 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Sorry for the copypasta, but here's a brief response (from http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/seREMOVExual-reproduction-and-the-evolution-of-seREMOVEx-824):

      "The first eukaryotes to engage in se.x were single-celled protists that appeared approximately 2 billion years ago,...
      These bacteria (as well as their modern counterparts) engaged in genetic exchange via processes such as conjugation, transformation, and transduction, all of which fall under the umbrella of parase.xuality. "

      One argument for why se.xual reproduction was successful is that "... se.x generates variable offspring upon which natural selection can act."

      January 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      Sam – James' questions have been answered numerous times. Like many creationists he doesn't seem to actually be interested in exploring the answers, he just thinks posing the questions is some sort of evidence in his favor. Also like many creationists he believes that if he doesn't understand something then it must be wrong.

      January 13, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • J.W

      A eukaryote mutates and formed a female eukaryote, and the male eukaryote thought the female eukaryote was hot.

      January 13, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • Primewonk

      @ Sam – I'm not cowering. James' "questions" have been asked and answered numerous times. He chooses to ignore those answers, and instead, simply repost the same inane drivel. This is no way isolated to James. Time after time the creationists ask the same inane questions, ignoring the answers. These folks are not interested in the answers. Heck, sadly they have trouble understanding the answers.

      January 13, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
  12. max

    those who believe in a 6000 year old ignore proven science. carbon dating is based on the same concept as the atomic clock.

    January 13, 2012 at 10:51 am |
  13. Bumper

    The purpose of life is to glorify God.
    The purpose of evolution was for Darwin to win the respect of his mates at University.
    It is a false theory and is going extinct. Nice try though.
    God created complex adaptation. At the micro science level, this is how systems change.

    January 13, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • Mo Pasta

      All your points are rather obviously wrong.

      Now, explain why your big all-powerful guy in the sky needs us to "glorify" him? Narcistic, weak-minded fellow, is he? Bit of an egomaniac?

      January 13, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • Nonimus

      @Bumper,
      "It is a false theory and is going extinct. Nice try though."
      The Theory of Evolution is a well substantiated scientific theory that is accepted by a vast majority of scientists today. It has been researched and test for 150+ years and has not been invalidated. Additionally, there is no competing scientific explanation of how the diversity of life came about.

      Please go to the following site for more information:

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

      http://humanorigins.si.edu/ (Smithsonian Insti.tute)
      http://ncse.com/ (National Center for Science Education)

      January 13, 2012 at 11:04 am |
    • fred

      Mo Pasta
      God does not need us to glorify Him. It is in looking up to the highest that man finds wonder, joy and peace. This is the position of humility that is opposite of pride which causes man to fall. When we honor, respect and love something greater than ourselves we are a different people, a great people. God wants us to reflect his Glory because we were made in His image. Life is about position (humble) and perspective get it wrong and things go bad.

      January 13, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • Primewonk

      Bumper – you have posted numerous times that evolution is false. And numerous times you have been asked to supply the citations to the peer-reviewed scientific journals where this falsification was published.

      I've queried my subscriptions to Science and Nature and can't find it. I queried the NLM via PubMed – thousands of scientific journals going back a hundred years – nothing.

      If it is your research that has falsified ToE, let me know and I can help put you in touch with an editor at Science. If your research passes peer-review – congratulations! You just won the Nobel Prize in biology!

      January 13, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • Dr. Gary Hurd

      @bumper, You wrote, "The purpose of evolution was for Darwin to win the respect of his mates at University." and "It is a false theory and is going extinct."

      These are two lies easily refuted.

      The first I have dealt with in "Notes on Charles Darwin’s Education."

      http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2011/06/notes-on-charles-darwins-education.html

      Basically, Darwin was already a published, and respected scientist in his early 30s. His masterful "Origin of Species" was published 20 years later.

      The second is known as "The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism"

      http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

      Let me remind you of James 3:1, Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

      You should be very concerned.

      January 14, 2012 at 12:33 am |
  14. imaginenoreligion

    This is a prime example of what religions have done for society. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16543091

    January 13, 2012 at 9:47 am |
  15. vahjayjayaddict

    evolutionary biology overwhelmingly confirms through RNA that there was one one female progenitor, whom we name Eve. the Creator of every atom and every ray of light that ever penetrated the deepest realm of space needs no explanation for why the creation of human life had a definite beginning. the purpose of life is to glorify God and is therefore completely absent from random events. the most basic cell of life is far too complex to have occurred through random event, even if given 3,500 million years. the Creator is under no obligation to give each individual a detailed explanation for why time and space exist. far before there was time, matter, or units there was God. human life is a gift even to the most degenerate. whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 3.5 billion years old is not dependent on the math of a southern baptist in Eufala, AL. time and space only exist for the glorification of God's will.

    January 13, 2012 at 1:33 am |
    • Kevin

      Have you always been able to pull 'facts' out of your a$$ or is that a skill you had to learn someplace?

      January 13, 2012 at 1:42 am |
    • clearfog

      Who did Adam and Eve's children marry?

      January 13, 2012 at 4:08 am |
    • rick

      "...for the glorification of God's will"?

      Sounds like an out of control ego

      January 13, 2012 at 7:24 am |
    • imaginenoreligion

      It's this sort of childish nonsense, that has held humanity back from being a truly enlightened creature. Oh, by the way, the Earth is not flat nor is it the center of the solar system. And, I have seen the Easter bunny and it's not a real bunny. It's a pedophile catholic priest, a radical homicidal muslim and a arrogant conceited jew all rolled into one repulsive icon.

      January 13, 2012 at 7:44 am |
    • Primewonk

      Mitochondrial Eve is NOT biblical Eve. Perhaps if you would get your science from scientific sources insteas of creationist sources you would have known this.

      January 13, 2012 at 8:35 am |
    • Nonimus

      If you use the science of mitochondrial Eve to make a point, then what about the science used to discover mitochondrial Eve such as, genetics, which supports the concept of a single common ancestor.

      January 13, 2012 at 10:47 am |
  16. John

    You can take human cells and put them in the cold for years and check on them later and find they have slightly adapted to the cold, this is evolution at its most simplistic form. We have been able to carbon date bones, dirt and other things which clearly proves the earth is over than 6000 years old. I find it sad that we are still at a point where there are so many people that don't believe the proof right in front of them. Scientists don't "make up" carbon dating.

    January 13, 2012 at 12:58 am |
    • james

      The problem is the very beginning. How does something with no intelligence(evolution), do such intelligent design? For instance, the functions between a man and a women to be able to reproduce. IF everything is branched off a single cell organisms these functions weren't always in place. This is obviously intelligence at work, adaptation and intelligence is two totally dif. things. This is why I can take u guys seriously.

      January 13, 2012 at 1:04 am |
    • Dr.K.

      Nothing you see now was always in place, that is the whole idea. Natural selection is the force that makes evolution non-random and selects for variants that are better suited to current conditions. Under many conditions, increased variation within generations may be selected for. Se.xual reproduction evolved under those conditions.

      As.exual reproduction is not only possible, many organisms exist today that reproduce ase.xually. Others, such as some plants, reproduce semi-se.xually with male (pollen) and female (stamen) organs on the same individual. I encourage you to be willing to actually explore what is known about your questions, which are legitimate, rather than wield them as shields against learning.

      January 13, 2012 at 1:44 am |
    • Nonimus

      @James,
      "This is obviously intelligence at work, adaptation and intelligence is two totally dif. things. This is why I [can't] take u guys seriously."
      Not to be mean but, just because you don't understand how evolution works doesn't mean that it doesn't work, especially if you aren't willing to do the research.

      January 13, 2012 at 10:53 am |
  17. james

    post my comment cnn

    January 13, 2012 at 12:50 am |
    • CNN

      No

      January 13, 2012 at 10:50 am |
  18. engineer

    As a scientist and Christian who believes in both evolution and adam and eve, I'm really sad to see how few people there are who agree.

    January 13, 2012 at 12:05 am |
    • clearfog

      Who did Adam an Eve's children marry?

      January 13, 2012 at 4:11 am |
    • Antony

      clearfog: I believe it is called incest, something the so-called "word of god" condoned in the early days of humanity.

      January 13, 2012 at 10:05 am |
  19. Reality

    " DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

    "Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

    Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

    It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

    January 13, 2012 at 12:05 am |
    • Reality

      As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
      nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

      January 13, 2012 at 12:06 am |
    • John

      Actually DNA testing shows more common ancestry for the German race than any other. I'm not German but over 74% of people have a Germanic ancestry, while less than 50% have African genes.

      January 13, 2012 at 1:01 am |
    • Dr.K.

      John, I think you are mistaken. All modern humans carry genetic markers that can be traced back to an original African population, at about 200,000 years ago through mitochondrial DNA (the maternal lineage) and about 60,000 years ago through Y chromosomes (the paternal lineage). In other words, every modern human shares a common male ancestor that existed about 60k years ago and a common female ancestor about 200k years ago, both in what is now Africa.

      January 13, 2012 at 1:53 am |
    • Dr. Gary Hurd

      @john (following the comment by "reality") "DNA testing shows more common ancestry for the German race than any other."

      That is utter nonsense. 100% of humanity has "African genes." For some facts, go to the "AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race" American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 101, pp 569-570, 1996

      http://www.physanth.org/association/position-statements/biological-aspects-of-race

      Also look at the "American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (May 17, 1998)"

      http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

      Between the two, give greater attention to the Physical Anthropologists.

      January 14, 2012 at 12:48 am |
  20. Michael

    To the psuedo-scientists: It is possible to be a Christian and a scientist. I take it that a belief in order helps one be a good scientist. To the narrow Christians: I used to keep a lot of people out of heaven, but I am letting more in as I get old. Really, try not to sound so much like you know more than God. Were you there when he created the heavens and the earth? Were you there when Moses summarized what occurred? Are you sure Paul was writing a science text when he spoke about death entering the world?

    January 12, 2012 at 11:50 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 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
« Previous entry
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.