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. BoldGeorge

    @ momoya..."Aren't those people "misinterpreting" the Genesis account of creation?

    YES! Besides, the bible itself (not me) teaches that: Matthew 22:14 – "For many are called, but few are chosen.” .... Also...“ Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven..." Matthew 7:21

    Man has turned the Bible, God's word, into one complex, messy jigsaw puzzle, and with missing pieces at that...when in reality, God's word was intended to be simple for humans to understand. His creation may be complex, but not His message (the Bible). You could parallel this with this: If a simple uneducated man is given a dissected human corpse to study, he will most definitely NOT understand what he is viewing in front of him and eventually will be grossed out. But if this same man reads books, does research (and perhaps pays for courses), he will most definitely understand what he is viewing right in front of him.

    If you study the Hebrew of the Old Testament, which was mainly one the original languages the OT was written in, you'd see that there's nothing poetic, symbolic or allegoric about the Genesis account. When "And there was EVENING and there was MORNING, ONE DAY."....is stated in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31, this literally means morning/12hrs + evening/12hrs = 1 full day/24hours. There is no indication nor is there room for an evolutionary theory or any other theory or interpretation. It's not that I want to be stubborn. This is what the bible means. And here are other verses in the old & new testaments that affirm the Genesis account:
    > Genesis 1: 14 – Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for DAYS and years;
    > Deuteronomy 4:32 – “Indeed, ask now concerning the former days which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth..."
    > Genesis 5:2 – He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the DAY when they were created.
    > Ezekiel 28:13 – “You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared.

    And for those who love to site: 2 Peter 3:8 – ]But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.], Peter was ONLY referring to God's promise & that He is patient toward sinful man to come to his senses and turn away from sin. {HINT-HINT for some of you guys.}

    "How are they "missing" the truth you claim is so obvious?"

    Here are some bible verses to answer this question:

    – Romans 1:25...For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator...
    – 2 John 1:7...For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ...
    – 2 Timothy 3:13...But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
    – Obadiah 1:3...“The arrogance of your heart has deceived you..."
    – 1 John 5:19...We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
    – Romans 16:18...and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.
    – Jeremiah 9:5...“Everyone deceives his neighbor And does not speak the truth, They have taught their tongue to speak lies;"

    And the best advice the bible can give intelligent men of this world:

    1 Corinthians 3:18-19...Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS”; and again, “THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS.”

    In conclusion, this last verse sums up the world's outcome in turning God's word into one complete unintelligible mess:

    2 Corinthians 11:3 – But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the SIMPLICITY and purity of devotion to Christ.

    January 26, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
    • Wayne

      "you'd see that there's nothing poetic, symbolic or allegoric about the Genesis account."

      So it really did take 3 times longer for your god to create earth than 100 billion galaxies?

      January 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
    • Primewonk

      How do you have "evening" and "morning", nights and days, light and dark, with no sun?

      January 26, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • Bumper

      BoldGeorge,

      I think we are more or less on the same side here, but, why would God create a univese that according to science, appears to be billions of years old if it was created in only a matter of days? This kind of thought question gives way too much ammunition to atheists like Richard Dawkings who are spreading false ideas.

      January 26, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • momoya

      @Dumper,

      It'd be handy if the bible contained some sort of reliable, self-checking method by which to determine if a particular interpretation was right or wrong. Surely it would help in a situation such as this, but I guess denominations and sects must have their reasons.

      January 26, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      Bumper...

      You have to understand, better yet, know that God created everything with the appearance of age. In other words, God created things already aged. He created a full grown man, a full grown woman, full grown trees that if you were to have chopped one in half, you would see its growth rings inside, full grown grass and plants, full grown animals, full grown everything. He didn't start at the fetus level nor at the cellular level. He didn't make a cell and then said, "Let there be evolution" or "Let creation evolve into many things." Like I mentioned in my previous post, you either believe this or not. God's grandeur, God's greatness, God's majesty and holiness cannot be explained. God's mercy, grace and forgiveness cannot be explained either, nor does He need to do some explaining. What's beyond me as why people aren't just gracious enough to thank Him for His creation, His love, His mercy and grace and His salvation, which is through Jesus Christ.

      There is a real reason why the world has become blind and faithless and filled with unbelief. It actually starts off with the First and most important commandment: "Love God with all your heart, all your MIND (as not in ignorance) and thou shalt have no other gods before Me..." Failure to adhere to this commandment has brought humanity to unbelief and arrogance, depending in our own wisdom, which as we all know is extremely limited.

      And of course :

      1 Corinthians 2:14 – But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

      January 26, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
    • Callaghan

      BG-Great Post!

      January 26, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "God's grandeur, God's greatness, God's majesty and holiness cannot be explained. God's mercy, grace and forgiveness cannot be explained either, nor does He need to do some explaining. What's beyond me as why people aren't just gracious enough to thank Him for His creation, His love, His mercy and grace and His salvation, which is through Jesus Christ."

      It's so hysterical to read the crap people will make up to explain a god that doesn't exist, it truly shows the human imagination is alive and well. What's even more hysterical is that this all powerful being need a small minded person to speak for it. Oh, that's right it's just that dam chemical reaction in your brain again, I hope they develop a drug soon to get rid of it.

      January 26, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • Bumper

      BoldGeorge:

      According the scripture, anything is possible with God. I believe that God created the Heavens and the Universe. For me, Genesis has never been about literal interpretation, but whether or not it was properly understood in its context. I will stand by my argument that the author was referring to indefinite periods of time and not literal 24 hr periods.
      Question: In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul states that women are to be submissive to their husbands and cover their heads. If this scripture is to be taken literally, why are no Christian women in this country covering their heads?

      January 26, 2012 at 8:55 pm |
    • Primewonk

      " You have to understand, better yet, know that God created everything with the appearance of age."

      This is an excellent example of how your god is ignorant about science. The only way to make a 6000 year old rock appear 3.5 billion years old is to drastically alter the weak nuclear force – by several orders of magnitude.

      Now, can you tell us what would have happened if the weak nuclear force had been changed that much?

      January 27, 2012 at 9:28 am |
    • Nonimus

      @BoldGeorge,
      "...God created everything with the appearance of age. In other words, God created things already aged."
      Many people have a problem with this due to the necessity, in this scenario, of God being deceptive. Why would God create a universe that appears to have been around for billions of years when it really hasn't? Why would God create fossils of organisms that never lived or starlight from stars that never burned?

      Is that not a form of lying?

      January 27, 2012 at 10:22 am |
  2. Wayne

    @BoldGeorge "I believe what it says and what it means by what it says. "

    So you believe it took 3 days to create earth, but 1 day to create the rest of the 100 billion galaxies? You do know that the sun is 1 million times bigger than earth right? You do know the sun is considered just a average size star right? How do you explain it taking God 3 times longer to create earth than the rest of the universe?

    I mean an 8 year old could see that makes no sense, how did you miss it? I know because you are not allowed to ever question anything for the fear of a fate worse than death. So you look at something like that and have to ignore the obvious stupidity of the assertion and believe it anyway.

    January 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • Bumper

      Science indicates that the universe has developed over many billions of years. There is nothing in the Biblical text that is inconsistent with this statement. Moses was likely employing numerology to an ancient audience that understood the literal numerological signficance of the 6th or 7th day. I think this meaning has been lost over time. I think 7 has something to do with divine order or perfection and 6 is related to humans and sin (hence, the number of the beast, etc...) A literal 24 hr period scenario highly unlikely both in the realm of theology and science.

      January 26, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @Bumper: You're likely making up what you think Moses likely did.

      It's much more likely, and when I say "much" I mean "a lote more than a little," that it's all a bunch of hooey. I can't understand how that makes sense inside your own head, let alone when you have to think about it while typing it.

      January 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
    • Wayne

      @Bumper, i'm not going to dispute that. What you might want to do is tell that to Bold George. He and many like him believe it as literal. That's who i was addressing. And looks like he just typed up another bible tyring to prove it.

      January 26, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
  3. Bumper

    Furthermore, part of my baseline argument is that if the system is reducible in a fundamental and complex way, that implies that it is NOT evolving. Therefore, Darwin fails in either direction.

    January 26, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Perhaps I'm missing something, but what is "reducible in a fundamental and complex way"?

      January 26, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • Primewonk

      I thought it was just me that couldn't understand him!

      January 26, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • Bumper

      I'm talking about reduction of a complex system (eye, flagellum, appendix, or whatever), down to fundamental elements.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Sarah Palin

      He is speaking in tongues. I understand him completely... and I would not refudiate him.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Given that your other fundamental argument has been easily debunked for decades such that creationists and ID'ers don't even use it anymore, I wouldn't really expect any of your other arguments to be much better.

      @primewonk – it isn't really possible to understand someone who so clearly doesn't know themselves what they're talking about.

      January 26, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • Nonimus

      "fundamental elements", as in atoms?

      January 26, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • Bumper

      @Sarah Palin: Good one. That's funny.

      @Nominus: No, it is possible to have chemical and physical evolutions. Fundamental as in quarks and electrons and rules.

      January 26, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • Primewonk

      So are you trying to say that if you "break" the eye down to quarks and strings, that means it can't have evolved?

      January 26, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Bumper,
      Thanks for responding. Let me see if I have this right:
      If a complex biological system is reducible to, i.e. comprised of, it's quantum particles and rules, then that implies that it is not evolving.

      Is that what you are saying?

      January 26, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • Bumper

      At the most fundamental level, the elements of the system are neither the product of evolution or evolving.

      January 26, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • Primewonk

      " At the most fundamental level, the elements of the system are neither the product of evolution or evolving."

      So, if quarks don't "evolve", then the eye can't evolve?

      January 26, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • Bumper

      Fundamentally, yes. However, the onus on Darwin was to form a legitimate theory and show that with manifold force there were no counterexamples to the slow gradual evolution of a "living" biological system. The theory really should have started with this demonstration.

      January 26, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • Primewonk

      I'm sorry, but there is no way to read what you wrote so that it makes any sense. You are confounding multiple fields that are not related. You are now demonstrating your ignorance in multiple fields.

      Perhaps instead of wasting (everyone's) time here, you should sign up for a remedial biology class at your local community college.

      January 27, 2012 at 9:24 am |
  4. Bumper

    Not Dr. Gary:

    You missed my point all together. I said that the human eye is complex irreducible within the context of Darwin's theory. Your insults will get you nowhere and I hope you degree or medical license is revoked ASAP.

    January 26, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Primewonk

      You can repeat it all you want Bumper. It's still a lie. You don't even understand the lexicon here.

      January 26, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • momoya

      Bumper, setting aside the fact that most of what you claim doesn't even make enough sense to be wrong–much less carry some degree of reason towards an argument, when and where will you publish your research? If you even succeeded to demonstrate even half of what you claim to have already proved, you'd be one of the most famous scientists on the globe. At what university will you publish your work, and on what approximate date might we expect it?

      January 26, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • Bumper

      It is interesting that the self proclaimed "doctors" on here are making the most ignorant and inaccurate statements.

      Momoya: look for my upcoming publications in the literature. I think a few people on here might lose their jobs.

      January 26, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • momoya

      Really? At what university and on what approximate date? If you are planning to publish such watershed conclusions, you must have already published your work in several scientific journals; where might we find articles on which you have contributed?

      thanks

      @ Dr. K. It's amazing what sorts of things evolution-denying christians will say! I hope you don't get fired. ha

      January 26, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • Bumper

      Momoya, my sense of decorum prohibits me from releasing the information in the context of this blog environment. Just look and see.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @Bumper: So we can expect nothing anytime soon. Got it.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Over It

      Bumper – "look for my upcoming publications in the literature."

      "The literature" - what the heck is that?

      Have you written it under the name, "Bumper"?

      Nevermind, I guess we'll recognize you by your incessant reference to the theory of evolution as, "Darwin".

      January 26, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • Primewonk

      What referred journals have you submitted to? How is peer-reviewed going?

      I think we are all waiting on hearing what your PhD is in, and what university granted it. I assume you are doing a postdoc fellowship?

      January 26, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • Bumper

      My sense of decorum...........

      January 26, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
  5. BoldGeorge

    @ Wayne

    There is no meeting halfway with me, but thanks for your effort. The Genesis account is a matter of: you believe it or you don't. I believe what it says and what it means by what it says. Meeting halfway with the Genesis account would be parallel to meeting halfway with Jesus Christ's account, like saying, "I believe in Jesus Christ but not that He resurrected or that He is truly God." There is no way to misinterpret the Genesis account in Chapter 1 and 2 or any other book in the bible for that matter. The old testament is clear on the origins dilemma and the new testament saints (along with Jesus Christ) affirm the Genesis account without any hint of evolution. So, we are back to the beginning of my comment: You either believe it or you don't.

    January 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Well George, I guess you know better than 12,000 professional theologians in the US.

      January 26, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      So you believe that:
      God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day .
      Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes.
      "I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat."
      Since many plants have evolved poisons to protect against animals that would like to eat them, God's advice is more than a little reckless.
      The first men ilved to be almost 1000 years old.
      Noah is called a "just man and perfect," but he didn't seem so perfect when he was drunk and naked in front of his sons .
      Noah is told to make an ark that is 450 feet long. 6:14-15
      God tells Noah to make one small window (18 inches square) in the 450 foot ark for ventilation.
      etc ad nauseum.

      January 26, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • momoya

      You say that there is "no way to misinterpret the genesis account" in the first two chapters; however, millions upon millions of christians (such as Dumper, above) disagree with a literal translation of Genesis 1 & 2, and millions and millions of christians believe in the fact of evolution. Aren't those people "misinterpreting" the Genesis account of creation? How are they "missing" the truth you claim is so obvious?

      January 26, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
    • Bumper

      Momoya, not quite. What I've said previously is that the ancient author (probably Moses) was speaking in literal terms to an ancient audience that understood the message in literal terms, but perhaps the literal meaning itself has been lost through the ages. Therefore, a literal modern interpretation of the text, could in principle be incorrect. If the author meant to say a 24 hr period, that disagrees with scientific findings. I conjectured that he is using numerology to convey an indefinite time.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Wayne

      Thanks for confirming, your God is a book and dogma.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      @ momoya (and anyone else) – "Aren't those people "misinterpreting" the Genesis account of creation?

      YES! Besides, the bible itself (not me) teaches that: Matthew 22:14 – "For many are called, but few are chosen.” .... Also...“ Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven..." Matthew 7:21

      Man has turned the Bible, God's word, into one complex, messy jigsaw puzzle, and with missing pieces at that...when in reality, God's word was intended to be simple for humans to understand. His creation may be complex, but not His message (the Bible). You could parallel this with this: If a simple uneducated man is given a dissected human corpse to study, he will most definitely NOT understand what he is viewing in front of him and eventually will be grossed out. But if this same man reads books, does research (and perhaps pays for courses), he will most definitely understand what he is viewing right in front of him.

      If you study the Hebrew of the Old Testament, which was mainly one the original languages the OT was written in, you'd see that there's nothing poetic, symbolic or allegoric about the Genesis account. When "And there was EVENING and there was MORNING, ONE DAY."....is stated in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31, this literally means morning/12hrs + evening/12hrs = 1 full day/24hours. There is no indication nor is there room for an evolutionary theory or any other theory or interpretation. It's not that I want to be stubborn. This is what the bible means. And here are other verses in the old & new testaments that affirm the Genesis account:
      > Genesis 1: 14 – Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for DAYS and years;
      > Deuteronomy 4:32 – “Indeed, ask now concerning the former days which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth..."
      > Genesis 5:2 – He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the DAY when they were created.
      > Ezekiel 28:13 – “You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared.

      And for those who love to site: 2 Peter 3:8 – ]But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.], Peter was ONLY referring to God's promise & that He is patient toward sinful man to come to his senses and turn away from sin. {HINT-HINT for some of you guys.}

      "How are they "missing" the truth you claim is so obvious?"

      Here are some bible verses to answer this question:

      – Romans 1:25...For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator...
      – 2 John 1:7...For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ...
      – 2 Timothy 3:13...But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
      – Obadiah 1:3...“The arrogance of your heart has deceived you..."
      – 1 John 5:19...We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
      – Romans 16:18...and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.
      – Jeremiah 9:5...“Everyone deceives his neighbor And does not speak the truth, They have taught their tongue to speak lies;"

      And the best advice the bible can give intelligent men of this world:

      1 Corinthians 3:18-19...Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS”; and again, “THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS.”

      In conclusion, this last verse sums up the world's outcome in turning God's word into one complete unintelligible mess:

      2 Corinthians 11:3 – But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the SIMPLICITY and purity of devotion to Christ.

      January 26, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
  6. Primewonk

    George wrote, " And by the way, Christians don't fight science. Who ever told you that?"

    Then explain Kitzmiller v. Dover?

    January 26, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      Primewonk...

      I know about this Kitzmiller v. Dover. That still doesn't mean Christians fight science. What this is about is teaching science from a balanced viewpoint involving intelligent design and evolution. Many people do not believe and cannot accept evolution as fact, a theory that has no proof whatsoever. So this case was a form of balance between the two belief systems. There are honest legitimate scientists out there that truly believe that there is an intelligent design and purpose to our existence. This is what this case was about, not solely about Christians vs science.

      January 26, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • momoya

      BoldGeorge, "Intelligent Design" is not science, it's a statement. I, for one, have no problem with it being MENTIONED in science class. Something like "Some people believe that some things in the physical world are so nifty that there must have been some magic involved in their appearance on this planet."

      If you think "Intelligent Design" is a science, can you explain HOW it is a science? What are its principles? What are its predictions and hypothesis? What are the proposed biological tools will intelligent design study provide? Is it falsifiable? What must a scientist do to prove it mostly correct? By what processes might ID be proved incorrect and to what degree?

      January 26, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • Primewonk

      I'm sorry >George, but that's a load of BULLSHlT. We teach science from a science viewpoint. ID is nothing more than christian creationism. We don't teach science from a religious viewpoint. You are being dishonest. You are lying. Your god must be so proud of you.

      January 26, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
  7. Oldslacker

    So if God created man after his own form but there was no female God around, why did he give his creation genitals? Obviously God had no need for such an organ.

    January 26, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • Primewonk

      Does god have a belly button?

      Why would god need digestive system?

      Does he need lungs?

      Does god have nuclear DNA? Is his chromosome 2 also a fusion of simian chromosomes 2a and 2b? Does his DNA also have ERVs that we humans share with chimps?

      Where did the cells in god's body get mtDNA? Mitochondrial DNA is separate from nuclear DNA. And in humans, we get our mtDNA via the maternal line. So did god have a mommy?

      Hell, where did Adam get mtDNA? And just where did Eve get an X chromosome? She was cloned from Adam's rib. So she would have had an XY chromosome pattern. In fact, Eve would have been another Adam. In essence, Adam was boinking himself.

      January 26, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      "In essence, Adam was boinking himself."

      Genesis really does take incest to a whole separate level.

      January 26, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • I_get_it

      Why do males have ni.pples?

      January 26, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Why do men have nip ples?

      The early embryo follows a female template initially. It is after the homeobox sequence for breast development starts that the Y chromosome kicks in and an embryo becomes male.

      January 26, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • Nonimus

      "Why do men have nip ples?"
      It's to make up for male pattern baldness... wait... that can't be right.

      January 26, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
  8. Bumper

    BoldGeorge:

    I understand what you are saying, but I don't really like religious and denominational labels. However, I've lived most of my life calling myself a "Christian" to the extent that it is possible to accurately reflect Biblical teaching, but most important the teachings of Christ, but not religion. If following the teachings of Christ makes one a "Christian", then I'm a "Christian". I think it's probably fair to say that I am a non-denominational "Christian" with some acceptance of Protestant reformation. In particular, I admire Martin Luther the Reformer, but mostly shun the Catholic belief system as a religion with heavy pagan influences. So, no, I'm not really throwing organized religion under the bus completely. The Church does have an important place in our lives.

    January 26, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • Wayne

      Teaching of christ but not religion? Is that like not liking dairy products but loving cheese?

      January 26, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • Bumper

      Wayne,

      Essentially, yes, but not quite (I actually don't like most dairy products, save some select cheeses). During the life of Christ, He spent perhaps 20% of his short three year ministry teaching against religion and religious hypocrisy. However, Jesus did not reject the Law or any of the teaching of the minor/major prophesies, or perhaps any part of the OT for that matter. He rejected the way that the people were practicing the law in honoring the letter, but not the Spirit.

      January 26, 2012 at 11:58 am |
  9. Wayne

    @BoldGeorge
    "I once heard a preacher accurately putting it this way: "Nobody x Nothing = Everything ??"

    What you heard is called a strawman argument, a logical fallacy which makes the preacher point invalid.

    Evolution does not claim that the world sprang into existance from nothing. Let me make it easy for you.

    About 3.5 billion years ago, God created the first living cells on earth. From that point on, what changes about the theory of evolution because God created life? See, even if yourGod exists, evolution is still true in it's current form no matter what. Sucks doesn't it?

    January 26, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • LinCA

      @Wayne

      You said, "About 3.5 billion years ago, God created the first living cells on earth."
      Got anything to support that assertion?

      January 26, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • Wayne

      Lin, i'm an athiest. I'm trying to meet george halfway.Do you explain things to your kids the same way you do to adults?

      My point is even if god magically created the first living organisms, it still does nothing to invalidate the current theory of evolution.

      January 26, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • Amused

      LinCA – There simply isn't ANY evidence that God created the first simple one cell organisms. It is much more likely that they slowly evolved from basic amino acids. Now tell me which is more likely, that "God" created man in his own image or that MAN created the concept of "God" in man's own image? It is pretty obvious that a "god" would not need a physical body like human beings have! Why in the world would a "god" need reproductive organs or a digestive system??? Think about it... Duh!

      January 26, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • LinCA

      @Wayne

      You said, "Lin, i'm an athiest. I'm trying to meet george halfway.Do you explain things to your kids the same way you do to adults?"
      There really is no need to try to meet George halfway. Any attempt to compromise his distorted beliefs will be met with fierce resistance.

      When I explaining things to kids, I do that without lying. If there is a question that I don't know the answer to, I'll say so. I will not insert a mythical being simply to provide an "answer".

      You said, "My point is even if god magically created the first living organisms, it still does nothing to invalidate the current theory of evolution."
      I get your point. But all you do is move the goal posts. The current theory of evolution doesn't need mythical intervention. Even if it is incomplete, inserting a god in it does nothing but muddy the waters.

      Until there is evidence there are any gods, we should keep them out of scientific theories.

      January 26, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
  10. Primewonk

    George wrote, "I once heard a preacher accurately putting it this way: "Nobody x Nothing = Everything ??"

    What does that have to do with evolution? I thought you just posted that you understand evolution? Apparently you are unable/unwilling to comprehend that cosmologyabiogenesisevolution.

    Actually, your post is a perfect example of what happens when you choose to get your science information from the "Pastor Dave's" of the world. The problem is that "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as his minions.

    January 26, 2012 at 10:10 am |
  11. Wayne

    Christians that don't accept evolution are calling Christian scientists like Francis Collins (former head of the human genome project) a liar.

    DNA is how we've confirmred that humans share an ancestry with the other great apes. It's obvious to me, that if you believe God created DNA, and DNA confims our relationship with other animals, then evolution is the way God went about creating the diversity of life on earth. Creationists have chosen to worship a man made compliation of books over the actual creation (DNA) and what it tells us. Creationists are nothing but idol worshipers.

    January 26, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • Nonimus

      How refreshing. Thanks Wayne.

      January 26, 2012 at 10:14 am |
  12. Primewonk

    Bumper (again) wrote, " Darwin's evolution is a false scientific theory".

    For the thousandth time, post the citations to the peer-reviewed scientific research that falsifies ToE.

    January 26, 2012 at 8:48 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      "Darwin's evolution is a false scientific theory."

      Bumper has made it clear that he doesn't understand the meaning of the terms "scientific" or "false" as they apply to "theory". I seriously doubt he has a clear understanding of Darwin's work or evolution itself, so that leaves "is" and "a" as the only words in his repeated assertion that he uses correctly. Good work with "is" and "a", Bumper.

      January 26, 2012 at 9:42 am |
  13. jon

    Geez are liberals really this stupid? You can't be a Christian minister and believe in evolution..

    January 25, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Complete nonsense. You can be an educated minister and accept evolution. The Catholic church accepts evolution. Only those who take the bible literally, word for word, are going to have trouble as new truths discovered outside the book begin to appear.

      Simple test: If you believe there really was a guy named "Adam", and there really was a woman named "Eve", then evolution is not for you.

      January 25, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
    • Bumper

      Darwin's evolution is a false scientific theory and catholic belief system is a false denomination within Christianity. In fact, the veneration of Saints didn't start until the middle ages. That should be a huge red flag to you sir.

      January 25, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Many "liberals" understand evolution. Many conservatives understand evolution. Many theists understand evolution. Many atheists understand evolution.

      As for pastors – why don't you interntz over to the Clergy Letter Project, hosted bu Butler University. 12,000+ professional theologians in the US who wxplain why you can have a faith in your god, and understand that evolution is a fact.

      January 26, 2012 at 8:44 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      I'm a Christian and I understand evolution. And because I understand it 'tis why I reject it. Evolution does not make any sense any which way you slice it. I once heard a preacher accurately putting it this way: "Nobody x Nothing = Everything ?? This is not even true as a mathematical equation, let alone in science, which by the way is not how Darwin summed up his theory.

      January 26, 2012 at 9:29 am |
    • Primewonk

      George wrote, " I'm a Christian and I understand evolution. And because I understand it 'tis why I reject it"

      I don't question if you are a Christian or not. But I can guarantee that you don't inderstand evolution.

      By the way, still eagerly awaiting for one of you fundiots to post the science that falsifies ToE.

      January 26, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Nonimus

      @BoldGeorge,
      "I'm a Christian and I understand evolution."
      Obviously not, with "Nobody x Nothing = Everything". The Theory of Evolution will not apply and will not work without biological life; without reproduction evolution is impossible.

      January 26, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • *facepalm*

      @BG:

      You understand the theory of evolution so well that you use mathematics to attempt to disprove .... the big bang.

      Also, our current mathematics is insufficient to handle certain phenomena – like singularities. So, attempting to use mathematics to disprove the big bang is a false line of reasoning.

      Epic Fail.

      January 26, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • Dr. Gary Hurd

      @jon, that is is very poorly informed claim;

      Ayala, Francisco
      2007 "Darwin’s Gift: To Science and Religion" (Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press- National Academies Press)

      Frye, Roland Mushat (editor)
      1983 "Is God a Creationist?: The Religious Case Against Creation-Science" New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Inc.

      Hyers, Conrad
      1984 “The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science” Atlanta: John Knox Pres

      Miller, Keith B. (editor)
      2003 “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing

      These are all books written by clergy for Christians. (Ayala has left the priesthood, but is still a practicing Christian). The edited words have contributions by a dozen or so clergy.

      January 26, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Amused

      Bumper – If Catholicism is a "false denomination" and since Catholicism is THE ORIGINAL christian form of religion, then every christian denomination that originated with Catholicism is ALSO FALSE! Catholicism existed before ANY OTHER formal christian denomination and as a result, EVERY other christian form of religion originated either directly or indirectly from Catholicism! If Catholicism is False then so is ALL OF CHRISTIANITY! You obviously need to do some serious theologic study into the origins of modern religion as you seem completely clueless...

      January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
  14. Bumper

    Jesus understood the principle that if most human beings are shown ostensible proof of something, they won't believe anyway. This was demonstrated through His interaction with the disciples in the New Testament. Even though He showed them great healing and miracles, they still didn't get it. I notice this is an issue on the blog discussions too.

    January 25, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Just curious, did you intend to use "ostensible"?

      os·ten·si·ble/äˈstensəbəl/
      Adjective:
      Stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so.
      Synonyms:
      seeming – apparent – sham

      January 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
    • Duh

      "Jesus understood the principle that if most human beings are shown ostensible proof of something, they won't believe anyway"

      It's been centuries and there is still no proof of your God.

      January 25, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • Bumper

      Incorrect word choice on my part. I meant to say "definitive proof"!!!!

      January 25, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
  15. Bumper

    I don't care what it says on a creationist website. The eye is an example of complex irreducibility. Bacterial flagellum and the appendix are examples too.

    In principle, aliens could exist, but have not been proven. If they do exist, I'm sure they wouldn't believe in a theory like evolution.

    January 25, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • Robert

      "I don't care what it says on a creationist website. The eye is an example of complex irreducibility. Bacterial flagellum and the appendix are examples too."

      Even other Christians disagree with you and show you're taking everything out of context yet you continue to go on lying. You sir are NOT a christian.

      January 25, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Bumper

      I never said anything about any religious affiliation. Furthermore, to be completely honest, most creationists have about 1/10 of my IQ. This has been noted by other blog posters.

      January 25, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • Bumper

      Also, although Jesus is the founder of the Christian religion, technically speaking, He was not a Christian or Jew.

      I'm a follower of Jesus' teaching, but not the later (100 of years after Christ) development of the religion, denominations, etc...

      A lot of stuff that was done in the name of Christianity (crusades, catholic, pope, etc...) is Not consistent with the teachings of Christ.

      January 25, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      Bumper...

      You are absolutely right. Many horrendous things have been done in the name Christianity, but in all reality they have been done AGAINST Christianity, not in favor of it, much less in accurate representation. Christians do, however, have to biblically represent Christianity, not from their own thoughts and feelings. The key to being a true C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n can be found in the first six letters of that word. To say you are not affiliated or don't belong to any organized religion or denomination is really a cop out. To be a Christian is to belong and to be part of the body of Christ. I believe in teaching about God, Christ His Son, about creation and most importantly God's punishment for those who reject Him, but also God's love and redemption for those who are willing to turn to Him, trust Him, and embrace Him. Because we can't just have wrath and punishment without offering the Way out (or better put, the Way in).

      January 26, 2012 at 10:08 am |
  16. Evolution is a myth

    All these comments by the evolution worshippers goes on to prove they need not pretend they have the IQ of chimps, they indeed have the IQ of an Ape!.

    Let's give a round of applause for all those chimps that made a brave attempt to defend their religion!

    We know you gave it you best shot given your level of intelligence and with no proof to back it up.

    January 25, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
    • One creature does not evolve into a new creature

      To the apes, we taped you as you ponced around.
      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmMSBn7gtiU&w=640&h=390]

      January 25, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Gravity is a myth

      Please don't ever get a flu shot, use an antibiotic or fill up with E85. All of these things were developed based upon myths.

      January 25, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • Actually

      "We know you gave it you best shot given your level of intelligence and with no proof to back it up."

      What proof did you provide your God exists?

      January 25, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • Alas a myth that is blatantly obvious to the wise!

      huh? are you moving over from science to faith? why did you lose faith in your science?

      January 25, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
    • Nonimus

      I don't know about anyone else, but I see it as a point of pride that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes and chimps. Just look how well we've done.

      January 25, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • WASP

      1a) evolution isn't a religion. it is science, no a : the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity capitalized : god 1, supreme being
      2: a god or goddess
      3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

      2a) evolution is a process of adaptation. if evolution were a staircase adaptation would be the steps. you can see adaptation in the micro/macro world by looking around you.
      3a) without religious texts there wouldn't be religion. no religious person can defend their position of faith wtihout using scripture.
      4a) evolution is a theory based on scientific definiton: As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

      January 26, 2012 at 8:16 am |
    • Twain

      The theory that all creatures can evolve over time into totally different creatures is a religion as it is based on a set of beliefs.If this were true then marvellous transformations of creatures that develop complex structures suddenly should be observable and it is not.
      Hiding behind a scientific theory to disprove God is futile and you will never ever win this one.

      January 26, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • Q

      Twain – You betray no understanding of the science you wish to denigrate and conflate religion so erroneously with science that "religion" has no distinct meaning. You exhibit that perfect combination of arrogance founded in blatant ignorance, but what's worse, is you're too arrogant/ignorant to even begin to appreciate the depths of your own ignorance.

      January 26, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Answer

      The above post is what is called as the atheist tripolar shift-Stage I.
      Atheists are so predicatable indeed!

      January 26, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Twain wrote, " The theory that all creatures can evolve over time into totally different creatures is a religion as it is based on a set of beliefs.If this were true then marvellous transformations of creatures that develop complex structures suddenly should be observable and it is not.
      Hiding behind a scientific theory to disprove God is futile and you will never ever win this one."

      I don't know what theory you are talking about. It certainly isn't evolution.

      Science does not attempt to "prove" or "disprove" any gods.

      Perhaps you are confused about science in general, and evolution in specific, because you are not getting your science information from real science sources.

      January 26, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • WASP

      @twain: re-stating my previous post......read it slowly. don't want you to hurt yourself.

      1a) evolution isn't a religion. it is science, not a : the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity capitalized : god 1, supreme being
      2: a god or goddess
      3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

      2a) evolution is a process of adaptation. if evolution were a staircase adaptation would be the steps. you can see adaptation in the micro/macro world by looking around you.
      3a) without religious texts there wouldn't be religion. no religious person can defend their position of faith wtihout using religious texts.
      4a) evolution is a theory based on scientific definiton: As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

      see where your thoughts fail twain? read the definition of religion, educate yourself. and yes evolution is real,need examples you can see i will surely give them to you.........one final thing. without using scripture from your bible prove god;and only your god exists.

      January 27, 2012 at 7:21 am |
  17. Bumper (in Spirit and Truth)

    Electromagnetism is a very solid theory. Maxwell and Gauss were smart blokes, unlike Darwin.

    January 25, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
    • Bumper translator

      Electromagnetism, built upon the same principles as evolution and having nearly the science expert acceptance as evolution, is a valid theory because it doesn't contradict my mythology.

      January 25, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • Bumper

      Nope, and don't use my moniker. That is against the blog rules.

      January 25, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      The terms of service prohibit the impersonation of a real person. Is "Bumper" your real name? If not, then how can one impersonate someone who is not even using their own name?

      What if I use the name "Hank", because that's my first name? Is no one else allowed to use "Hank", even if that is also their first name?

      January 25, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
  18. momoya

    Ok, time for a quiz: Who is more hilarious? BoldGeorge or Bumper?

    January 25, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • Bumper

      Here is the typical Momoya AKA atheist version of Sarah Palin response to questions posed to her:

      ARE YOU ASKING ME TO THINK??? HOW DARE YOU??!!??
      :-)

      January 25, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
  19. Bumper

    The eye could be complex irreducible, but NOT within the context of Darwin's theory. In fact, scientists still do not have a reasonable working model for the human vision process within the realm of more fundamental physical and computational disciplines. We do know that human vision takes up an enormous chunk of the brain processing bandwidth compared to other organs, but don't know exactly how it works. Therefore, complex irreducibility for the eye as well as many other living systems such as bacterial flagellum is out of the question for now.

    January 25, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Bumper,
      What exactly do you mean by "complex irreducible"? Because, the ID term is 'irreducible complexity,' if that is what you are trying to say.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • Actually

      "The eye could be complex irreducible, but NOT within the context of Darwin's theory."

      Again, here we meet one of the most commonly used quote mines in the creation-evolution controversy, also from The Origin of the Species. So much so, in fact, that Answers in Genesis, a well-known creationist website, advises its readers not to use this quote. As usual, it is taken here utterly out of context. Darwin's intended meaning is "yes, this seems weird, but it happened", and he goes on to describe how it could be possible for light-sensitive cells to progressively become eyes.

      January 25, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • Dr. Gary Hurd

      Goodness Bumper, you are either stupid, or an atheist trying to make Christians appear stupid.

      Regarding you repeted falsehoods about the evolution of eyes;

      Nilsson and Pelger,
      1994 "A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve" Proceedings of the Royal Society 256: 53-58.

      Dan-E. Nilsson, Lars Gislén, Melissa M. Coates, Charlotta Skogh & Anders Garm
      2005 “Advanced optics in a jellyfish eye” Nature 435, 201-205 (12 May)

      Ivan R Schwab
      2011 “Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved” Oxford University Press

      Go away and read them, and then stay away.

      January 26, 2012 at 11:55 am |
  20. False Dichotomy

    At the same time that the ignorant masses jump up and down with their fingers in their ears yelling "evolution is a false theory!" thousands of researchers are working under that theory to develop treatments that will save their lives. It's a little frustrating that the people who fight science education have access to the same medical care as everyone else when they get sick. Then they are treated (often claiming it was a miracle because they don't understand) and they can go back to fighting science education. I would never argue to withhold medical care from anyone, but it's frustrating.

    January 25, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • Bumper

      Medicine and vaccines standalone on their own scientific merit without having to prove or fit under the false inductive theory and paradigm espoused by Charles Darwin. In some sense, Darwin has already gone extinct under the operating principles of his own theory.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @Bumper, that's like saying that computer standalone on their own merit, but electromagnetism is not a valid theory. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      If scientists/researchers are working on new medicine and cures based on the evolutionary theory, we're definitely in trouble. But I'm sure that insurance companies/healthcare industry will be more than happy to embrace, support and promote such scientific findings. It'll be easy money for them, much easier and cost-effective than what it currently is.

      And by the way, Christians don't fight science. Who ever told you that? What we reject are the theories so-called scientists (Darwin wasn't a scientist himself) come up with...all in the name of rejecting God's commandments.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @BoldGeorge,
      "...Christians don't fight science. Who ever told you that?"
      I think you did, when you said, "If scientists/researchers are working on new medicine and cures based on the evolutionary theory, we're definitely in trouble." Or, at least you implied it.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      If there's one thing I don't do (or try not to do) is imply anything. I prefer to say it like it is, whether you believe it or not...hence the moniker "BoldGeorge"

      January 25, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @BoldGeorge,
      I'm sorry for inferring anything from you statement. Please tell me what was your intent was in *Georgely* saying that you are worried about medicine coming from the Theory of Evolution being dangerous, e.g. "we're definitely in trouble"?

      (Or were you implying by the name BoldGeorge, that you speak boldly?)

      January 25, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Christians don't fight science?! That's just as ridiculous and deluded as claiming, I don't know, that evolution is a myth. Oh......wait..................

      January 25, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • WASP

      @boldgeorge: "Christians don't fight science." christians have attempted again and again to fight science through out history, from murdering them or placing them under house arrest for speeking against their idea of god. most of modern invention is thanks to leonardo di vinci who had to conduct most of his studies in secret under threat of heresy and possible death. now days they try forcing creationism into school to battle evolution, or stuff their definition of life in the abortion arguement. which by the way i stand in support of womens choice. religion hasn't ever liked science and i'm glad science is winning otherwise my premature son would have died, if not for great minds telling the church bugger off.

      January 26, 2012 at 11:48 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 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.