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. Bumper (In Spirit and Truth)

    Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. (James 1:17)

    January 28, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Since this fictional creator is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent etc and created everything, I hate to break it to you but all the bad things are "gifts" from him also.

      January 29, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
  2. Bumper

    For those of you still stuck on the 24 hour "Day" issue, I would encourage you to read the writings of Josephus. Josephus was a very prolific author that lived over 2000 years ago and understood the historical and cultural context of the Book of Genesis. In his writings, Josephus indicates that the author of Genesis is Moses. He states that in the creation account, Moses uses wisdom, enigma and allegory to convey his point. He also noted that Moses used the word "Day" in his account and stated, -"-the cause of which I am able to give even now; but because I have promised to give such reasons for all things in a treatise by itself, I shall put off exposition till that time".

    January 28, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Bumper

      By the way, if anyone knows where Josephus explains the usage of the word "Day" in the creation account, please point me to the reference. My take on his writing is that he is saying that it does NOT refer to a 24 hr. time period. It's almost as if he is saying, well, this is what Moses said, but let me write another book explaining what he really meant based on some ancient philosophy.

      January 28, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • Gadflie

      First, Josephus lived less than 2000 years ago. He was born in 37 AD or so. That puts him closer to us than to Moses in time. This means that anything he wrote is just as much supposition as what you think about Moses.

      January 29, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
  3. Bumper

    Momoya:

    Literal spiritual interpretation (here we are not reinterpreting Gods word, but this is an exposition of scripture) means first making sure that you understand the message and then letting the message go to your Heart. The examples I gave were modalities. The Bible was not written in codes, but it was written in the way the contemporary audience would understand the message. Biblical scribes and scholars have translated the message for us, but not the historical, cultural etc.... contexts too. If you interpret scripture in a literal fundamental way, you will most likely miss the message entirely. To further confound the issue, there are many instances in the Bible, when you can literally interpret the text as written with no changes.

    January 27, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    • momoya

      Bumper,

      I appreciate your forthright reply. To me your process sounds exactly like what most other christians do, most just don't think to give it a fancy name. You interpret the text to see what you want where you want for the purposes you want. It works for you, so you're alright, just not those you judge, amiright? :) Perhaps you should look into some of the various methods theologians use when attempting to come to the best possible meaning as validated by very concrete criteria.

      There are several key passages that the average christian interprets wrongly for lack of historical or contextual knowledge. Yet christians don't want to know about them because they really aren't concerned with "the truth," they're concerned about their IDEALS of what they already believe. Muslims are precisely the same.

      January 27, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
    • Bumper

      Yes, but you have to admit that there are differences between squabbling over differences in scriptural interpretation and missing the boat all together. I think almost irrespective of various interpretations, for those who love God and live a life that glorifies Him, will go to Heaven.

      January 28, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
  4. jon

    What a stupid article, must be written by a real moron. In order to follow evolution the clergy would first have to reject the whole basis of their faith...the bible.

    January 27, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @jon,
      Apparently, over 12,000 Christian Clergy disagree. http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/

      January 27, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • wayne

      No, they are just not stupid enough to take all of the bible literally. Unlike a few of our friends here.

      January 27, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
  5. Dr.K.

    Here are two deductive tests for "Darwinian" evolution that are provided by history, for Bumper and anyone else hung up on deductive reasoning. The answer to either of these could not hav been known in 1859:

    1) If all species are the result of descent with modification, then there must be some physical mechanism by which traits are systematically passed from parent to offspring.
    Conclusion: In 1953, James D. Watson and Francis Crick presented the first correct double-helix model of DNA.

    2) If all species are the result of descent with modification, then organisms that more recently shared a common ancestor should also share more DNA than those that are more distantly related.
    Conclusion: Since the 1970's the complete genomes of numerous organisms have been mapped out, and they all – without exception – reflect the relationships proposed by evolution.

    January 27, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • Dr. Gary Hurd

      Excellent points. I am sure that intellectually honest people will acknowledge this.

      January 27, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Watson and Crick were outspoken atheists, which means that DNA analysis is a tool of Satan.
      The so-called double helix is a trick to deceive you into believing that you're made of something other than clay (or a rib, if you're female).
      The only reason the science of genetics is OK is becuase Mendel was a monk.

      January 27, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • WASP

      @doc v: huh? seriously? dna is a tool of satan? lmao ignorance at it's best.

      January 30, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
  6. Wayne

    @Bumper
    "Nothing has been proven to evolve according to Darwin's theory. Absolutely nothing Sir."

    What would you need to see to change your mind? Usually the only answer that is given to this question is something stupid like a dog giving birth to a rabbit or someting evolution would never permit in the first place. But i'm curious to know if there is anything within the actual defintion of evolution that you would need to see to change your mind.

    I know for a fact he will not give a straight answer to this question. They never do.

    January 27, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Bumper

      The onus was on Darwin to show that there were no counter examples to slow and gradual processes. This would have been the starting point for a reasonable theory. To be fair, a theory is unproven, but he could have at least showed some simple deductive argument about how his evolution could be applied with manifold force to all living systems. He didn't do that.

      January 27, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Bumper,
      I am unfamiliar with this, can you explain what "manifold force" is?

      January 27, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Good job, Wayne. Your prediction was right on – not a straight answer whatsoever.

      January 27, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Wayne

      @False Dichotomy

      It never fails. Notice he is still talking about Darwin what he thinks darwin didn't know, like TOE hasn't learned anything in the last 150 years. I think he knows a straight answer will result in being supplied with the infomation needed for him to change his mind. Intellectual dishonesty is almost a requirement for anyone with his beliefs.

      January 27, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
  7. Bumper

    BoldGeorge and Momoya:

    Literal Spiritual interpretation involves understanding the diverse modalities and contextual cues in the Biblical text to expose God's word. Examples include historical narratives, poems, songs of praise, worship, object lessons, parables, hyperbole, etc... In many instances, if you interpret the text in a literal fundamental way, you miss the boat on the message.
    For example, in paraphrasing Jesus, when he tells us to remove our eye if it has committed an offense, for it is better to enter into Heaven with one bad eye instead of going to hell with two good eyes. He is obviously using hyperbole here. He does not literally want us to rip our eyeball out of our head.
    Also, BG, I appreciate your explanation of women and the Apostle Paul. My point was that if the text were to be taken in a literal fundamentalist way, then all women would be required to cover their heads. But, as you point out, there are other historical and cultural factors to consider. By analogy, we have to understand the historical and cultural context for the book of Genesis too. In Genesis, the author is primarily trying to convey that God created the Heavens and the Universe and it took place over some period of time.

    January 27, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Wayne

      "and it took place over some period of time."

      And it took 3 times longer for earth to be created out of nothing with materials that didn't exist than the rest of the universe.

      January 27, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • Bumper

      No. It likely took place according to the Big Bang Theory. One interesting point to consider is that according to physical science, all of the energy and rules required to create the planets, human beings, etc... was in place, "fully formed" at the point of expansion out from the singularity.

      January 27, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • momoya

      Again, WHAT is "literal spiritual interpretation"? You say it includes "diverse modalities" and "contextual clues," and then you say examples are..... The examples you proved are examples of what? diverse modalities? or contextual clues?

      Every christian decides which parts of the bible he thinks are literal and which are figurative and decides how to "use" the scripture for himself. Of course you do what all christians do. What is "literal spiritual interpretation"? Is it a word you just made up to mean your own interpretation?

      January 27, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      Hear me out (read rather)...there is no such thing as the so-called "Bible Codes", no such thing as biblical enigmas nor does the bible need to be deciphered in any way. Salvation is of the utmost importance to every single human being. Wouldn't you think God would be crystal clear with His message? It is true that Salvation is through Jesus Christ and Him only, but the topic of our origins, the fall of man, the Great Flood, a chosen people, the exodus, and most other biblical accounts all point to Jesus Christ. It is crucial for us to get His message accurate. He DID NOT want us to be IGNORANT of His message. 1 John 5:13 – "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know..."

      That is why I can't stress enough that the bible should not taken lightly. You have to approach God's word (and anything of God) with a sincere heart, not just to find out something in history. God does not talk to historians, He talks to followers, disciples and people He has imputed His righteousness through Christ.

      For good reason He has said in, John 14:6 – Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." This literally means that no one can know the Father, no one can pray to the Father and no one can have a relationship with the Father if it's not through Jesus Christ. Perhaps it's the reason why people don't understand the bible??? Maybe they should trust Christ first??? And maybe because of this: Ephesians 4:18 – "being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart..."

      By the way, I think I may have to take heed to the below verse:

      2 Timothy 2:23 – But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.

      January 27, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • UncleBenny

      Wayne: "And it took 3 times longer for earth to be created out of nothing with materials that didn't exist than the rest of the universe."

      Say what? According to current theory, the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, the Universe about 13.7. Where did you learn to do long division?

      January 29, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  8. momoya

    Bumper, what is "literal Spiritual interpretation"?

    January 27, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • *facepalm*

      They are words that bumper puts together in an attempt to sounds smart. But they don't really mean anything. It's a common theme of his.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • Nonimus

      @momoya,
      As it appears to be the case with most believers, their own interpretation of the Bible is not really an "interpretation", but the literal meaning.
      Unfortunately, any written word is always interpreted, there is no other way to read.

      January 27, 2012 at 11:02 am |
  9. Kenrick Benjamin

    Bumper- That's true, however it also states in all your getting get Understanding, as for the book of REVELATION its a Beginning. It's what will happen before we can get to a righteous world.

    January 27, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Primewonk- i don't have to spin anything, you can read it for yourself. I didn't write the Bible, if I am not mistaken you said it was lies, so far where have I lied.

      January 30, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
  10. Wayne

    @Bumper

    "Nope. You cannot and will not ever incorporate a false scientific theory into the Biblical text. Ever!!"

    Funny Bumper the only method you use to determine what is a "false scientific theory" is if matches what's in the bible. Which is why i'm curious that none of you oppose photosynethis. You should it states basically that plants need sunlight to grow, but in genesis the sun was created AFTER photosynthetic plants. How could you allow schools to teach such satanic non sense?

    January 27, 2012 at 8:31 am |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Wayne- The Universe including the Earth was created before the 7 days of creation that took place on the EARTH. The simicolon that is used after void in the Bible telles you that the statement proceeding after that is an independent statement whose correlation to the 7 days of creation, is that GOD created everything. Directly proceeding the simicolon it tells you that the EARTH was in darkness. So all that GOD had to do was cause the sun to shine at day and the moon and stars by night. THE Universe was already in existence and GOD just created the things within the Earth in 7 days.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • *facepalm*

      @Ken – I didn't realize that the Hebrew language included semicolons. hmmm.....

      January 27, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Facepalm-It's interpret as such by the scholars.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • Wayne

      @Kenrick Benjamin, you guys will make up ANYTHING to avoid accepting what your book actually says.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • Primewonk

      " cause the sun to shine at day "

      Because we all know the sun turns off at night.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • Primewonk

      Kendrick – ancient Hebrew (and Greek) had NO punctuation marks. Rather, the folks who are interpreting those texts are guessing.

      January 27, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • Bumper

      I dismantled Darwin's evolution within the context of science without referencing anything related to the Bible. The Bible is inerrant in its Spiritual purposes.

      January 27, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • Wayne

      @Bumper
      "I dismantled Darwin's evolution within the context of science without referencing anything related to the Bible. "

      You convinced yourself that evoution is false. Which isn't hard to do.

      January 27, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Bumper wrote, " I dismantled Darwin's evolution within the context of science without referencing anything related to the Bible. The Bible is inerrant in its Spiritual purposes"

      Darwin didn't evolve. Evolution occurs at the population level, not the individual level.

      Or if you mean you dismantled Darwin's theory of evolution – you didn't do that either. You bizarrely tried to state that if quarks didn't evolve, the eye is to complex to evolve. This is simply gibberish, with no grounding in any area of science.

      As for inerrancy in your bible – yopur god screwed up in the first couple verses. The earth was not formed before any stars. When your god gets the very first thing wrong, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the story.

      January 27, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Wayne and PrimeWonk – it's whats written, God Could have left the Earth in darkness, that is why I stated he case the sun to shine, as for Hebrew, that is why I stated it's interpreted by scholars that way..

      January 27, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Kendrick – the universe began expanding 13.7 billion years ago. The first stars formed and began fusion 100 million years after that. However, the earth did not form until 9 billion years later. Your god was wrong Kendrick. Or your god lied. Or the nomadic bronze-age shepherds who wrote your bible got it all wrong.

      If your god was wrong, what else did he get wrong? If he's wrong, there isn't much reason to worship him, is there?

      If your god lied, what else did he lie about? If your god lies, there isn't much of a reason to worship him, is there?

      If the nomadic bronze-age shepherds got it all wrong, why are you worshipping this guy?

      January 27, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Primewonk- Where in the Bible does it states how old the Universe or the Earth is, Science determined that the Universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old and the Earth to be approximately 4 billion years old. The Bible make no reference to the age of the Universe or Earth, just that it was created by God.

      January 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Kendrick – again, YOUR god stated that he created the earth before he created any stars, including our sun. We know this is either wrong, or a lie. The first stars formed 13.6 billion years ago. The earth did not form until 9 billion years later. Unless, of course, you have peer-reviewed scientific evidence that the earth was created before any stars.

      I can't make it any clearer. Either your god was wrong, or he lied.

      January 27, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      PrimeWonk- I don't know what book you are reading, however the Bible Clearly States that In the beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth. The Bible may have made reference to the Earth being older than stars because as you and I and all of science know that stars are being created to this day. So it is possible for the Earth to be older than some Stars.

      January 27, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Kendrick – Your god says that he first created the heavens and the earth. He then says that he finally gets around to creating stars on day 4. It's your bible dude. It's your god that screws it all up.

      January 27, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Primewonk-Apparently you haven't read what I have stated previously, the EARTH was in darkness and God remove the darkness causing the sun to shine by day and the moon and stars by night. The heavens and Earth was already created when God did the 7 days of creation. That is why there is a semicolon after void in the Bible, its to indicate that the are two separate and independent statements that correlate, the correlation between the two statements is that God created everything. The problem is that most people read it as one sentence disregarding the punctuation.

      January 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • Kenrick Benjamin

      Primewonk- when the 7 days of creation mention that the sun, moon and stars are being created, that's because, for the Earth it is such, because the earth was in darkness. God did not make it difficult for anyone to comprehend, it's just an over site on most people's part. All that I am telling you has been written way before me and you ever existed.

      January 28, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Kendrick – you're spinning your bible in order to try and justify this glaring error/lie from your god.

      Your god said he first created the earth. He didn't make the stars until day 4. Your god messed up.

      January 30, 2012 at 8:39 am |
  11. BoldGeorge

    One cannot and must not reconcile creation with evolution, because biblically creation as an INSTANT MIRACLE just like Christ turning water into wine with no waiting process; just like Christ spontaneously multiplied a handful of fish to feed thousands without waiting for fish eggs to mature. Creation, as the bible describes it, was an instant miracle performed by our all powerful Creator.

    January 26, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • Bumper

      BoldGeorge:

      I believe in the literal Spiritual interpretation of the Bible. Please explain to me why you believe in the fundamentalist literal interpretation of everything in the Bible? For example, did the Apostle Paul literally expect women to be inferior to men, cover their heads and serve their husbands or not? You didn't answer this question. Is true fundamentalism a tenable position?

      January 27, 2012 at 12:05 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      Besides, evolution states that things died before man appeared (survival of the fittest), and some living things evolve through time and mutate to become superior life forms; and some living things are naturally selected to die out/become extinct. There's TWO things in the bible that crushes evolutionary science:

      1) SIN WAS FIRST – THEN CAME DEATH :
      Romans 5:12 – Therefore, just as through ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and DEATH through sin, and so DEATH spread to all men

      2) EACH LIVING SPECIES PRODUCES ITS OWN KIND (as opposed to becoming other species) :
      – Genesis 1:11, fruits, plants, trees after their own kind (bearing other fruits, plants, and trees)
      – Genesis 1: 21, sea creatures each after their own kind
      – Genesis 1: 25, the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind...
      AND THE BEST ONE OF ALL:
      – Genesis 1:26, Then God said, “Let Us MAKE man (not evolve man) in Our image, according to Our likeness...(does this imply that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were once a one celled organism?)

      *Mutation, which is what the concept of the evolutionary process, is known to degrade in time, never upgrade into a superior life form. Mutation is a degeneration of cells/organisms and in most cases mutation is fatal. If mutation is the basis for evolution, then all living things would have died out (as in extinguished) eons ago. There's two kinds of mutations: Natural/Spontaneous mutation is a duplication and/or a a mal-formation of DNA, almost like saying that a DNA strand has short-circuited...this is a bad thing, never a good thing. Induced mutation, usually by radiation or other chemicals, usually makes living cells degrade in time. For the survival of the species (any species), evolution doesn't hold up.

      And besides, man is God's greatest creation. What better life form can man evolve into...especially if we are made in His image?

      January 27, 2012 at 12:15 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      Bumper...

      The bible never teaches (and neither did Paul) that women are less than men. As a matter of fact, he taught that men ought to love their wives as Christ loved His church and gave His life for her. Man and his wife are a direct representation of Christ and His church (His body of believers). In 1 Corinthians 7, which talks about marriage, Paul states neither man nor woman are to deny themselves to each other. What Paul does teach is that women shall not go over their husband's authority (especially in a public setting), and women were not ordered to be silent in a negative way, but to not ask questions in public but at home to her husband. Back then, women who questioned or argued in public were seen as gossipers and slanderers and as harlots. Paul wanted to make distinctions between thos types of women and respectful women. God is perfect and this also represents the order of creation. God made man first, man is the protector, the bread-winner (obviously things have changed, those days are long gone) and the stronger gender both physically and emotionally (or they should be). Men have extra responsibility in protecting the home, his wife, kids, house, etc, because he is more physically fit to do so. Women are more sensitive, caring and the organizer of the home so to speak. God made us that way and we have to respect and embrace how and why He made us that way. We, however, have twisted all that as well.

      Now, as far as why women in Paul's times covered their heads, it was the culture and it was a sign of respect toward man and society. When you study the bible, you also have respect its time and culture. But you would never see in those days pros-t-i-t-u-t-e-s or trouble-some women covering their heads. It was a way of distinguishing who was who...puritan or not. Let me tell you, a man that a-b-u-s-e-s his authority over his wife (by beating her, not protecting her as a husband should, not providing for the home, not being a godly male role model for his kids) is sinning against her and against God. End of story.

      Again, the bible teaches women to respect and submit (in a godly way) to their husbands and men to love their wives to the fullest. If we truly had more of this nowadays, you can be sure that divorce rates would be significantly lower.

      January 27, 2012 at 1:10 am |
    • WASP

      @BG: quit chopping up the bible to fit your interpatation of what it saids. without your bible you can't prove god or that only your god exists. i imagine your not a literary major. do you understand the term: "Anthropomorphism"
      -Anthropomorphism is used with God or gods. The act of attributing human forms or qualities to an enti.ties which are not human. Specifically, anthropomorphism is the describing of gods or goddesses in human forms and possessing human characteristics such as jealousy, hatred, or love.

      Mythologies of ancient peoples were almost entirely concerned with anthropomorphic gods.The Greek gods such as Zeus and Apollo often were depicted in anthropomorphic forms. The avatars of the Hindu god Vishnu possessed human forms and qualities.

      Current religious holds that is not logical to describe the Christian God, who is believed to be omnipotent and omnipresent, as human. However, it is extremely difficult for the average person to picture or discuss God or the gods without an anthropomorphic framework.

      In art and literature, anthropomorphism frequently depicts deities in human or animal forms possessing the qualities of sentiment, speech and reasoning. A.G.H.

      Reminds me of the old Mark Twain quotation "God created man in his image, and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment."

      January 27, 2012 at 7:45 am |
    • WASP

      @BG: one major problem, now before man was created god was singluar, while he was creating humans, he became plural? why is that? "AND THE BEST ONE OF ALL:
      – Genesis 1:26, Then God said, “Let US make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."
      see i can hack and piece together also. lmao.
      ok and on these what else would two plants,animals of the same geneius create?
      – Genesis 1:11, fruits, plants, trees after their own kind (bearing other fruits, plants, and trees)
      – Genesis 1: 21, sea creatures each after their own kind
      – Genesis 1: 25, the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind...
      i doubt two frogs make a horse seeing frogs are amphibians and a horse is a mammal so that point you were making was duh.......oh and where in those passages does it say they couldn't change?
      next thing if the multi-god made us in their imagine then which race is this multi-god? evolution......you know the process of adaptation explains race rather well. more exposure to UV rays your pigment darkens i think it's called a tan lmao, so let's say your family lived in one of these hot, sun baked areas for i don't know a few million years wouldn't it be more beneficial to grow a defense toward that harmful UV radiation? maybe a darker pigmentation to prevent skin cancer from killing you? or explain to my why europeans have such tightly closed noses and lack pigmentation, shouldn't the multi-god have created all of us the same? i mean they did create all this from one man and one woman.

      January 27, 2012 at 8:08 am |
    • Primewonk

      So if each "stage of creation" was instantaneous, why did your god need 6 days?

      January 27, 2012 at 9:35 am |
    • Primewonk

      BoldGeorge wrote, " The bible never teaches (and neither did Paul) that women are less than men."

      Surprizingly, just a few sentences later he writes, " What Paul does teach is that women shall not go over their husband's authority".

      What the heck are you smoking?

      It's like saying, "the sky is not blue", and then 30 seconds later saying, "the sky is blue".

      January 27, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      God sets a pattern not just to suit Himself, but to also suit us. He labored six days and rested on the 7th. He, in all intent and purposes, set a weekly pattern for us to follow, which we follow to this very day. It's not that he couldn't do it all in one day, or one hour or one minute or a fraction of a second. He did however, multiply a handful of fish into thousands in a fraction of a second.

      By the way, someone here previously asked me why, if I'm a Christian, "act" with arrogance as if I know all the answers? I want to take this opportunity to answer this question. I never said I have all the answers; and I will admit...I don't have any answer at all. The BIBLE does! I study the bible and I ponder it everyday. I go to bible studies and seminars and go church regularly...not that it means much because others go to church just as much as I do, but they do not know their bible. They are not reading nor willing to take time to read God's word. If I want to become a good doctor, what do I need to do? I need to read books, take courses in college, do research, etc. And that's with anything life. If you want to be a good anything, you have to work at it and take in the knowledge from the source.

      I once was a church bench-warmer, just going to church to socialize and be "accepted" as a Christian, and listen to the pastor's sermon. Then one day I said to myself, "Who am I kidding?" "I have to either be a true biblical Christian or get out of it altogether. I decided to be true to God, to others and to myself. But hey, I still have a loooong way to go. God's not done with me yet. And I'm not done with His bible. And by the way, whatever I don't know, I dig in deeper into the bible. That is why I study the bible along with the Hebrew and Greek translations, a bible dictionary and commentary, etc. And if there is something the bible is truly not showing me, like when was God born, who made God, is there life on other planets...I just don't touch. Going beyond our curiosity is just plain disobedience.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      Primewonk...

      This is no shape or form means that women are inferior to men or men are superior. You are 'interpreting' it that way because of your blindness and failure to understand what it really means and why God has set man to have authority over his wife. You are blind to this truth (and to many other biblical truths) mainly because of the system of this world.

      2 Corinthians 4:3,4 – And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving...

      The bible never implies or insinuates directly nor indirectly that women are inferior to men. It's not a matter of inferiority, but it is a matter of protection, labor, strength (both physical and emotional). Besides, it also follows the pattern of creation, as God made man and woman second. But God did not make Eve out of Adam's feet (as to be stepped on) nor did He make her out of some part of his head (so to not go over him), but our perfect God made her right from the middle...his ribs, so to be beside him and help him. If you ask me, I find it pretty romantic.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • *facepalm*

      @BG – so what you're saying is that they're equal, but that men are just more equal. Okay.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • tgif

      BG-Great posts!!!

      January 27, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • Nonimus

      @BoldGeorge,
      This seems like a great example of doublethink to me, but guess I'm missing something.

      "This is no shape or form means that women are inferior to men or men are superior...
      God has set man to have authority over his wife."

      January 27, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • Primewonk

      Bold George wrote, " But God did not make Eve out of Adam's feet (as to be stepped on) nor did He make her out of some part of his head (so to not go over him), but our perfect God made her right from the middle...his ribs, so to be beside him and help him. If you ask me, I find it pretty romantic."

      Eve was a dude, dude. Where did Eve's mtDNA come from? How do you go from Adam's XY chromosomes in that rib, to Eve's XX pattern?

      January 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • UncleBenny

      BoldGeorge "And besides, man is God's greatest creation. What better life form can man evolve into...especially if we are made in His image?"

      Aside from the total silliness of the whole idea that the Bible trumps science, if man is God's greatest creation, then God really screwed up.

      January 29, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
  12. Bumper

    My scientific viewpoints are not represented by creationism. You are prejudice Sir. As it stands now, intelligent design is a statement and not a science.

    January 26, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      Okay, fair enough. But if so, your attack on evolution by natural selection would be the first one that I'm aware of in nearly a century that is not related to a religious belief in some form of creation.

      January 26, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
  13. Dr.K.

    Mandarax:

    True, but the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling directly addresses your repeated posts that evolution by natural selection is not good science, and that some version of creationism (which you consistently fail to specify) is good science.

    More specifically, many of the arguments put forth in these comments proceed from "Well, what about ____. How do explain that? You can't, therefore evolution is false!" The relevant phrase in the ruling is as follows: "the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion."

    (and that, after hearing the full argument, is the ruling from a judge who was originally recommended by Rick Santorum!)

    January 26, 2012 at 9:50 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      That was directed to Bumper. Apologies to Mandarax for the slander.

      January 26, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
  14. creepycoolpriest

    for those of you who don't know scientific terms. Theory does not = hypothesis. It is not the hypothesis of evolution.

    January 26, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
  15. Bumper

    To Amused:

    This one is too easy. The Catholic belief system did not represent the original Christians. The original Christians were in the modern day Middle East. Technically, they would have been called Judaic Christians.

    Martin Luther tore apart the later developed false paganistic Catholic belief system to more accurately represent the early Christian community.

    January 26, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
    • True Christian

      You won't have to wait until after your death to be sent to hell to burn. You'll do it while alive, like any heretic.

      January 26, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
    • Bumper

      To Not True Christian:

      If you are Catholic, you are not a true Christian and as I stated before, Catholics were not the original Christians. You don't have to make intercession in prayer. You pray directly to God the Father and not Saints. Also, there is no purgatory, you either go to Heaven or Hell and no second chances after you die.

      January 26, 2012 at 11:56 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      You guys are some sick freaks – both smugly looking forward to the other being tortured.

      January 27, 2012 at 12:32 am |
  16. creepycoolpriest

    I'm sorry, what degrees do these pastors hold? What is their education level, accomplishments within academia?

    January 26, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
  17. Bumper

    Mr. 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 8:57 pm |
    • wayne

      So it took god three indefinite periods of time longer to create earth than the rest of the universe? Do you even have any clue how big stars are?

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh1BH34Q&w=640&h=390]

      January 26, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
    • Bumper

      What?? You are making too many assumptions. The numbers themselves have Biblical numerological significance.

      January 26, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
    • wayne

      Not they don't. You just assume they do in order to avoid the inevitable conclusion. But you know what? I bet even though you and Bold George disagree with each other, in both your personal relationships with Jesus he's on your side and on Bold George side of the disagreement at the same time.

      January 26, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
  18. Dr.K.

    Here is the result when many of the arguments being put forth here were argued before a judge and jury. It is worth noting that the judge was a conservative appointed by Bush, and the jury were local citizens.

    "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether Intelligent Design is science. We have concluded that it is not...Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
    "To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."
    -Judge John E. Jones III, concluding statement in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

    January 26, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
    • Bumper

      To be fair, I don't think that anyone on the blog was arguing that the intelligent design statement should be thrust into a classroom. You either accept the existence of God or not.

      January 26, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      True, but it directly addresses your repeated posts that evolution by natural selection is not good science, and that some version of creationism (which you consistently fail to specify) is good science.

      More specifically, many of the arguments put forth here proceed from "Well, what about ____. How do explain that? You can't, therefore evolution is false!" The relevant phrase in the ruling is as follows: "the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion."

      (and that, after hearing the full argument, is from a judge who was recommended by Santorum!)

      January 26, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
    • Bumper

      My scientific viewpoints are not represented by creationism. You are prejudice. As it stands now, intelligent design is a statement and not a science.

      January 26, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • Dr. Gary Hurd

      A minor point, the plaintiffs were local Dover citizens, specifically parents and teachers in the Dover School district. The trial was heard before the judge as both parties waived a jury trial. My favorite books about the Dover trial are;

      Lebo, Lauri
      2008 “The Devil in Dover” New York: The New Press

      Chapman, Matthew
      2007 “40 Days and 40 Nights” New York: Harper Collins

      January 27, 2012 at 11:18 am |
  19. Bumper

    I disagree with you. Nothing has been proven to evolve according to Darwin's theory. Absolutely nothing Sir.

    January 26, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • momoya

      I see that you learned how to spell "Revelation" since I pointed out the correct spelling to you several pages back. You do realize, thumper, that when the book says not to take away or subtract, it does not refer to the "bible" since the bible did not exist at that time. Also, the grammar limits the statement by saying "from THIS book of prophecy," referring, therefore, to THE book of Revelation and no others.

      When you talk about evolutionary science, you show that you have no understanding of even its most basic structure; when you talk about the bible, you show that you have no understanding of its finer points. Were those the goals you set out to accomplish by posting here. (By the way, you're not "blogging")

      January 26, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
    • Bumper

      The point is that it makes absolutely no sense to add an incorrect scientific theory to the Bible. That Pastor should be ashamed of himself.

      January 26, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • Primewonk

      I guess I'm confused about why you keep referring to the theory of evolution as Darwin's theory.

      Yes, Darwin proposed the original theory of evolution 150 years ago. But today's modern theory of evolution is much stronger, much more robust than Darwin could have imagined.

      It's like you are stating that the modern theory of gravity is wrong because Newton didn't understand relativity.

      January 27, 2012 at 9:42 am |
  20. DSBsky

    I'm a pastor and I don't disregard evolution. I think it's ridiculous after all the science behind it to ridicule evolution. It has been proven that things evolve.. Really there is no reason to fear science like so many religious people do. Science is necessary.

    Listen, we can't just look at the bible and take every single word it says for face value. Even God revised the bible.. Remember that whole "new testament" thing? Yea God's own revision to his own words (according to some) Personally I'm non denominational and when I heard a pastor at a church say "god holds the world up with strings and there is no gravity" I never went back to his services again.

    There is a line between being religiously vigilant and being conscientiously ignorant.
    So let's make a revision to include evolution. Anything else is just plain, old fashioned, ignorant.

    God knows that won't happen. Apparently it's easier to believe a giant wand was waved and we all magically popped into existence, dinosaurs never existed and there are invisible beings around us all the time..
    Really, it's easier to believe that? Scary..

    January 26, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • Bumper

      Nope. You cannot and will not ever incorporate a false scientific theory into the Biblical text. Ever!!

      January 26, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • Bumper

      Furthermore, if you are really a Pastor, you would know that in the book of Revelation, it does say, "DO NOT EVER MODIFY ADD OR SUBTRACT FROM WHAT IS ALREADY WRITTEN IN GOD'S WORD".

      January 26, 2012 at 5:21 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

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« 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.