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.
He's alive and well, Oh, that stones been rolled away
He's alive and well, He's no longer where He lay
He's alive and well, I can hear the angel say
Let all the world rejoice, He's ALIVE... and well, an coming back again!!!
Proof of God's existence is in the Holy Bible. Read it.
By that logic, proof of vampires is in the Twilight books.
A complete and total waste of time, WASP. Dumper is just a "anti-Darwin" bot. No critical reasoning ability detected. It took me a few pages to figure it out: don't make my mistake.
Darwin was possessed by the devil when he came up with evolution.
To Bumper, Adam, and others...PLEASE! You sound like children trying to talk like grown-ups. It might be cute if you had a little toddler lisp and couldn't pronounce some of the words, but presumably you are adults which just makes your childish ignorance seem pathetic and sad. When you attempt to address evolution you sound like Miss South Carolina infamously trying to address geography. Just please stop.
My sense of decorum prevents me from responding to such rubbish.
Charles Darwin was possessed by the devil when he came up with evolution.
How are you any better? Vocabulary is vocabulary, no matter how it's used. Just because you can use "higher diction", it doesn't mean a thing. You aren't any better than anyone. Neither is anyone else here. I'm only trying to speak my mind. I actually search for the truth unlike most people. Its absolutely ridiculous to assume that there is no God when we as humans don't understand most of the universe. Of course we all know that light makes every single materialistic thing, therefore we are all one. We are eternal, whether you like it or not.
@kayla: i doubt any of our brillant minds throughout history were possessed by the devil. you need to be thakning them for making child birthing safer through the study of medicine. otherwise you,yourself may not have made it to adulthood to claim that darwin was possessed by the devil.
@adam: i applaud your search for the truth, however there are two truths in this world.....biblical truth and scienctific truth. one was voted on what should be in that truth, the other is constantly challenged to see what truth will stand up when tested. i can throw a ball billions of times, each time it will fall back to earth. gravity is an accepted truth. i can pray a billion times for food, but if i don't do something for myself i will starve. that is also an accepted truth. old saying "education is optional; training is mandatory." churches train their flocks to think a certain direction, schools teach education to those that wish to learn.
Adam, your point that I'm not better than anyone is true, but it carried more weight before you went on to say the you search for the truth "unlike most people" and that people are ridiculous to not believe they way you do just because the universe is large.
I'm only saying that to say there is no God is foolish, cause we don't know everything. No one can force their beliefs upon another person, I understand that. And im not trying to do that at all. I wasn't always FOR God, in fact I used to be for science. It's just that some time back I had a personal encounter with God. No, I didn't actually see him, but something supernatural really did happen. If you'd like I can show you my testimony on youtube, but I don't think you'd want to hear me talk about God at all. I realize that in order for an atheist or any non-believer to be saved is if they have a personal encounter with God as I did. Well, I'm done here. You all take care now <3
"to say there is no God is foolish, cause we don't know everything"
How is that logic any different for saying there is no chupacabra, no giant magic marshmallow on Jupiter, no oceans of Gatorade filled with fire-breathing fish that write poetry about helium? Saying that we don't know everything is a pretty weak reason to believe in some specific thing.
To paraphrase, "To say there are no oceans of Gatorade filled with fire-breathing fish that write poetry about helium is foolish, cause we don't know everything."
Why do you ignore the fact that I've had an encounter with God? Like I said, it would take a personal experience (in your case) to actually KNOW there is a God. Have one of those Helium fishies talked to you? Have they answered a question with a book that has numerous amounts of pages, leading you to the SPECIFIC answer to a prayer you had a few hourse before? The chances of me finding my answer ON MY OWN is just....impossible. But hey, maybe im just crazy. In that case crazy people must be psychic, and I believe in no such thing. Have you ever had an encounter with demonic forces? If not, I encourage you to go to the most haunted location you can find near you.....If you're even brave enough to do such a thing. I guarantee you'll know the truth by the end of that night. Im telling you specifically to have an encounter with a demonic force because you won't have one with God unless you search for him with your heart. Good luck to you sir.
@adam: haunted places i have found.......well weren't haunted. i've done the whole trying to scared the crud out of myself.......and couple girlfriends for kicks. i didn't buy into it and i senced nothing; just like in church i reached out and tried to seek god to understand why i had been abused as a child, wanna know what i found......nothing,emptyness, a void. no god so i turned to the one explaination i did understand that it was humans that had commited those acts. they made the choice to attack their own flesh and blood, no go or devil or demon or ghost made them do that. how's that for a testamony.
1)to all christians 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."
@bumper/ BG neither of you can explain god without your bible. if i took your bible away and asked you to prove god, you would stand there like all the other christians i have done that too with a blank face. without your book your brains can not compute reality without your indoctrinated lessons from when you were children. trust me i know i was raised southern baptist, i quit after the preacher couldn't answer my questions at age 10. he just told me take it on faith, lmfao, take it on faith that a man in front of me is telling the truth when humans lie so easily......old saying for that" i was born at night but not last night" .
2) evolution is a process of adaptation, if evolution was a stair case, adaptation would be the steps. you can see adaptation any where in the world. need examples just ask, i believe the few curious with open minds will question me and weigh my knowledge against their own observations of the world. to me i find it hilarious that anyone truly takes religion serious any more, with cellphones and internet and all these wonderful advances in medicine that prolonge human life, convience of food both natural and genetically engineered. the fact that scienctists will attempt to make vaccines to combat everything from malaria to HIV, is all done by understanding how these things will change/adapt to what drug they are introduced to. ages ago people were dying from small pox, until louie pasture made a discovery about his milk maids. they would get cow pox, but then couldn't catch small pox. so he did a test and found it was true. now we have the vaccine for small pox and it's all but wiped out. now let's do a little test of our own shall we. let's say louie pasture had taken his observation to the local preacher, then we would still be dying from small pox and spoiled food because the preacher would have looked in his bible to explain why those milk maids couldn't catch small pox.
Once again, very weak arguments galore...
Humans are not omni-potent.
I never said you could prove the existence of God using math or science, but is a matter of faith. I simply stated that the best of the atheists arguments (eternal universe and "something" for "nothing") are NOT tenable ideas due to science. Atheists hold onto Darwin's false idea as though it were their manifesto to engage in hedonistic behavior. You know its wrong, but don't want to admit it. It's always seems easier to take the lazy approach and deny theistic realities, but, ultimately, the easy approach to life will be harder.
@bumper: humans aren't omnipotent, that's a duh. i'm still waiting on your proof that god exists. i have explained how evolution works, in simplest terms i can. i know for fact no one can ever prove any god exists, it's always "take it on faith" your faith is in that preacher. i went to southern baptist church, i watched them fire the preacher i grew up with because they didn't like what he was preaching. they hired a new preacher, so tell me which preacher was the way to god and heaven? let's get your two cents BG or bumper? lmfao if you can buy your own preacher,priest or rabbi then how would you kow he is telling you the truth. read the bible myself you say? a book with any kind of idea to convey normally does so in a way that insures the reader can understand it.
The path of righteousness is NOT through a Southern Baptist preacher, but through Christ, and Christ alone. The proof of God's existence is through is revealed word, the Bible. It's not through math or science.
@bumper: where in any of my posts did i say "prove god through math and science"? what i said was put down your bible, forget the words in that book and prove to yourself that god exists. for me god or any god hasn't ever existed, humans needed a way to explain things we couldn't explain before we achieved a higher level of science. so we told stories to make sence of things. what i was explaining to you bumper was that without your religious text you can not prove any god. if somehow all references to the bible were destroyed in the early days of your religion, then there would be no bible to base your beliefs in, thus no christian god/jesus to found your beliefs on. there wouldn't be chirstians wihout those religious texts. i am aware of the fact that you soulfully refuse any view that calls in to question your beliefs, however i have always been open to new information. it's just with religion there isn't any new information for me to absorb. science constantly changes due to the fact we are increasing our understanding of everything around us. if you went back and told folks in ancient history that bleeding a patient, ie how hey did with george washington, was acctually making the patient weaker and thus more seceptible to the illness in their body, they would have called you crazy. science will continue to extend life and improve our way of life. religion will always be there to stunt our progression forward, if religion would keep it's nose out of discoveries like embryonic stem cell research and stick to just preaching on how to be a better human, and praise that "god" gave his creation the ablility to improve themselves then the world would be a marvelous place to live.
God without the Bible. Science tells us that energy is eternal it's neither created or distroyed but transposed, it's properties, Heat, Motion and light let us know that there are laws that Govern it. You may say the law of randomness, however even that is govern by laws and to top that, Energy is not random. So the question I ask is Where, Why, When, What, and who gave Energy it's Laws. For Me It's GOD.
The discovery of genetic mutations and embryonic development stand on their own merit and do not support the false paradigm of Darwin. Further, Darwin's theory fails both in its own defined context and outside too. If Darwin had deduced how there are no exceptions to slow and gradual development or counter examples of irreducibly complex systems, he would have had a valid idea. Furthermore, his theory fails in both directions regardless of whether or not a system is irreducibly complex. Even though Darwin only considered "living systems", these examples can always be reduced down to the level that is not evolving, but reverting in its energy form. Therefore, one should never use the Darwinian paradigm for discussion about the creation of the universe or anything related to creative elemental design or the existence of God. From a purely logical and fundamental scientific perspective, the existence of a creative elemental design is more likely than simply believing that "something" emerged from "nothing". This is not just prima causa, but backed up by the simple scientific fact that you can't get "something" for "nothing".
You're a bot; but do you know it?
I don't really understand why you attack Darwin so much.
It seems to me that what you are really saying is that, regardless of Darwin and/or modern Evolutionary Theory, there still needed to be a Universe with fundamental particles/energies and the rules necessary to produce the first life, or abiogenesis, which science is still investigating.
I'm not questioning abiogenesis, but digging to a deeper level. That is a separate matter.
It sounds to me like you derived your position from the thoroughly debunked Intelligent Design proponents. It's nothing more than creationism in scientific clothing. The evidence for evolution is immense and, frankly, undeniable, unless you've closed your mind due to preconceived conclusions, which you clearly have.
I believe that God created the universe, but, as it stands now, "intelligent design" is simply a statement, and not a well thought out science. God is an all intelligent being, but just about any label that uses the words "intelligent" or "intelligence" is a bit oxymoronic.
"I'm not questioning abiogenesis, but digging to a deeper level. That is a separate matter."
Perhaps I'm not being clear, abiogenesis is outside the bounds of the theory of evolution, so if you are "digging to a deeper" ,or more "fundamental" level, then you are clearly beyond, or below, anything evolution-related or Darwinian.
The purpose of the Old Testament (and really the entire Bible) is to point to Christ. The fulfillment part generally refers to the realization of the OT prophesy. The New Testament of Christ trumped the old Judaic laws (wearing scriptures on the forehead, ritualistic cleansing, etc...). Jesus arrived on the scene to uphold the Spirit of the Law upon which in was intended. Jesus has initialized the kingdom of God, but it has not yet been completed by His return.
Just out of curiosity, I've always wondered, how does one fulfill a law?
I thought a law was a rule to be followed, not something to be completed. It's not like once I file my taxes, I don't ever have to file them again. Or once I pay the fine for speeding that I don't have to obey the speed limit anymore.
How's that work?
Women were not allowed in the temple during certain times of the month. This indeed was not gender discrimination, but related to blood expulsion. I think the same would be true for a man with open wounds or sores. This was part of the old Jewish law and not valid after Christ.
... just happen to have this quote handy from another thread:
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one t.ittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.–Matthew
@Bumper: I think we're all tired of this topic. Why don't you pick one of the more recent blog postings to illustrate your poor understanding of life, the universe and everything.
Why is it not valid after Christ?
Yes, and fulfillment meant a SUPERCEDING of the Law. In other words, the old covenant passed away and Jesus ushered in the New commandments.
Natural Selection alone destroys evolution. According to this, only the fit species survive. If that's the case, evolution CAN NOT occur. There NEVER has been a certain species changing into another form, for ex: Humans came from sea animals (scientists have claimed this LOOK IT UP). Instead, all that has been happening since the creation of this world is the EXTERMINATION of species. Wake up, do some critical thinking and stop eating up what others tell you.
First, you are twisting the words. "Survival of the fittest," obviously is not the same as, "only the fit survive."
Second, as it is used today, the phrase "survival of the fittest," doesn't accurately describe the theory of evolution. More accurate would be, "better adapted for immediate, local environment."
Are you serious? Darwin spoke of certain finches that died out. Everything that has happened from the beginning of time has remained the same. It doesn't matter how the word was used -.-
And I understand that Natural Selection and Evolution are two different things. What I am saying is that because of Natural Selection there can be no evolution.
"Everything that has happened from the beginning of time has remained the same."
One can only believe this if they ignore practically all of science, physics, cosmology, geology, atomic theory, astrophysics, etc., and, of course, evolution.
"What I am saying is that because of Natural Selection there can be no evolution."
Natural selection is one of the main engines of evolution, how exactly can it negate evolution?
"Everything that has happened from the beginning of time has remained the same."
Perhaps I misread this. Are you saying that nothing has change since the beginning or that all the processes are the same?
You said, "And I understand that Natural Selection and Evolution are two different things. What I am saying is that because of Natural Selection there can be no evolution."
What are you smoking? And, more importantly, why aren't you sharing?
It is natural selection that drives evolution. Those individuals that are more suited to survive in a given environment will be more likely to be able to procreate and pass on the genes that gave them the traits that made them suitable for the environment. Individuals with less suitable traits may have a harder time to survive to adulthood, and their traits die out.
Changes to individuals that give it an advantage or disadvantage happen through random, small genetic changes. A slightly faster individual may be able to stay ahead of other animals in the herd and avoid being dinner for a predator. The predator in this example is aiding evolution through natural selection by removing the slower individuals from the herd.
The predators aren't immune to natural selection either. Unless they evolve to be faster or smarter, their food source will out-evolve them. The slower ones will have a harder time finding food, and be less likely to have offspring.
That's called extinction. Of course no evolution would take place since there's a reason why those certain types of species survived in the first place. If they are fit enough to survive, why on earth would there need to be an adaptive change? I wish I could grow gills whenever I wanted to or maybe a tail to hang from a tree :o
"If they are fit enough to survive, why on earth would there need to be an adaptive change?"
Conditions change. Floods, droughts, Ice Ages, global warming, meteor strikes, volcanoes, hurricanes, new predators, new diseases, new compet.itors for resources, etc., etc.
"I wish I could grow gills whenever I wanted to or maybe a tail to hang from a tree"
Individuals do not evolve. Populations (groups) evolve.
Apparently in your Universe, critical thinking is best founded upon ignorance. The evidence for evolution is mountinous, ever-expanding, and has been beutifully underpinned by the discovery of DNA. Yes, life started in the sea, but no scientist says a fish directly became a man. There are hundreds of excellent books on the subject. Try reading a few before you critically think.
Why should I read articles that men of no faith wrote? Clearly they wouldn't give a damn if they're lying or not. Yet, you all take sincere scribes of the bible as a joke and say that it is all lies? As believers we know the penalty for lying. I have yet to see hard proof of any evolution, only claims that scientists write on paper.
Another thing, the book of God described Dinosaurs long before your god, "science", ever did.
Dinos in the bible? Book, chapter, and verse please.
I thought lying was a sin. Too bad being intentionally stupid isn't.
"Why should I read articles that men of no faith wrote? Clearly they wouldn't give a damn if they're lying or not. "
One of main benefits of science is that you don't have to 'trust' anyone. If a scientist is incorrect (e.g. lying) they can be shown to be incorrect by repeating their tests. If they are incorrect repeated, tests will invalidate their results. If they are correct, repeated tests will corroborate their results. It happens all the time, both ways.
If someone has a better (e.g. more truthful) explanation of phenomena in nature and their evidence is repeatable and/or verifiable, then the evidence is accepted, not the scientist.
Teh Bible also describeds 7 headed dragons that spew torrents of water and eat pregnant women.
It describes locusts wearing tiny crowns and armour that have the face of a man, the hair of a woman, the mouth of a lion and the tail of a scorpion.
Talking snakes, donkeys, and foliage....
You wouldn't find it in any english bible. You'd have to read the hebrew Torah and learn hebrew to see what I'm talking about.
@UncleBenny "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?"
Yes the universe was here first and it took about 10 billion years for earth to form. What problem do you see with that? Some people are just complete morons.
Darwin's theory of evolution is a false scientific idea that will go extinct under its own operating principles. God is real. Heaven is real. The sobering reality of judgement is real. Jesus is real. Josephus was a real historian. He didn't live during the lifetime of Moses, but is 1000 times more likely to get the meaning of Genesis correct compared to a Catholic priest or a Baptist minister in Alabama. He lived almost 2000 years ago and studied under the most regal of Jewish scholars. He knew there was a back story to the word "Day" used in Genesis, but did not divulge the meaning in his account of creation. He basically indicated that Moses literally meant "Day", but it has some other meaning. As believers, we know that God can do all things, so the Bible and word of God do not hinge upon the veracity of a 24 hr Day. Also, the Bible has a simple Spiritual message, but many parts are intended to keep out interlopers.
Good! I guess there are still some smart people who believe in reality rather than a scientifically concocted unreality. as for the 6000 year old earth, any pastors who believe that the earth is 6000 years old havent read the bible
" Darwin's theory of evolution is a false scientific idea that will go extinct under its own operating principles. "
You still have not posted the peer-reviewed science that supports this contention.
"Darwin's theory of evolution is a false scientific idea that will go extinct under its own operating principles."
Why do you think that?
The theory of Evolution was developed at a time when most people assumed some type of creationism was true. Then it survived 150+ years of thorough and rigorous testing and validation. It is now, as the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis," stronger, more robust, and more evidenced than ever. What possible reason could you have for thinking it "will go extinct under its own operating principles?"
Still waiting for the science that falsifies ToE.
To Wright Tern:
Well, join the proud list of other Atheists on this comment board. You all have the reasoning skills of a suicidal teenager and, as it stands now, can expect first class tickets to Gehenna.
If you do not understand how evolution works, and subscribe to some primitive faith based belief system instead you should at least learn to keep your opinion to yourself. That way you don't let the rest of us know how foolish you are.
And just what sort of witness for christ are you, Dumper? You lie. You twist what your opponents say. Your arguments are defeated time and again by decent, kind folk who took time to make sure you understood, and then you just ignore the facts and simply repeat your silly maxim that isn't even logical enough to be an argument at all.
You're so immature that I suggest you no longer investigate the myth-origins of your "holy" text since you and your delusion deserve each other so well.
My whole life as a Christian, I never saw a bit of proof. Ever. From anyone at anytime. It didn't matter to me because I was insane and participating in a group psychosis. Now I am free. I'm not in your nasty little cult anymore.
Sincerity is not proof that something is true.
Dying for something does not make it true.
We are not liable for what other people do if we were not involved in the first place.
Emotional feedback is not proof that something is true.
Emotions and feelings have no relation to the truth. They are caused by brain chemicals, not by anything supernatural.
The Bible is a mishmash of different fables and extreme exaggerations and outright lies.
Every so-called holy text in existence is made-up.
I could go on, but why should I bother? When you are a participant in the group psychosis, you are a prisoner of the mind.
What believer will listen to reason regarding their faith or what it's based on...when reason opposes religion?
Many believers do not like to think about other religions in a way that might show the weaknesses in their own religion.
They refuse to question the very causes of their religion. They think they already know it, yet they have never seen any proof of it themselves.
I remember what it was like and how lobotomized I felt when deep in "faith."
I can recreate my "faith" just by remembering how it felt.
I KNOW that "faith" is a mental disconnect with perception and reality and awareness.
It is a mental filter that strangles a person's ability to think realistically about almost everything.
Religion has shown time and time again that it is nothing but group-psychosis that is also a giant hoax on the victims.
Like any group-psychosis, most inside of it find companionship, comfort, and repeated reinforcement of the "tenets" and special propaganda and anything that can be used to explain any obvious hole in the shared-psychotic-belief.
Hey, when I busted out of it, I made sure I was correct in every supposition. My faith was deep, but I clawed my way out and escaped the clutches of anyone who might use my religion against me by making sure I was being reasonable about it.
Logic and common sense and science knowledge are tools for freedom from delusion. Any delusion.
Proof is impossible because there is no "God", no "Jesus", no "Holy Spirit", no supernatural anything.
There is no way I'd ever willingly pretend that a lie is true.
That's why I'm an atheist. I'm more honest than you believers.
Ah yes, America – the Land of the Free and the Home of the Ignorant. I do hope that the US plans to start importing scientists from other countries, because if these religious Know-Nothings get their way, the US is going to lose its preeminent place in scientific endeavors.
For Darwin's theory shall pass away into the trash heap of other half-baked scientific ideas, but God's word and His creation that abides in Him, will live on forever.
That's actually kind of funny. Pretending that there is any legitimacy to the idea that there is a God.
"The fool has said in their heart 'there is no God.'"
It's funny how these atheists take the bible as a joke, when all along, it was God's book that described and discovered dinosaurs long before science ever knew about them. Original hebrew texts prove this. The translation was lost between hebrew and english. Even now there's a publishing company that wants to print out new versions of the bible, only this time they want to take out the words "Son of God". Yeah, I only trust the original hebrew language :)
No, the problem here is that what we think is the literal interpretation. The Bible is to be understood and not re-interpreted.
So help me "understand" why your god thinks women are unclean twice as long after birthing girls than boys.
Women were not allowed in the temple during certain times of the month. This was not gender discrimination, but related to blood expulsion. I think the same would be true for a man with open wounds or sores. This was part of the old Jewish law and not valid after Christ.
Why did you move the goalposts? I didn't ask you to explain why womwn having periods couldn't go into the temple. I specifically asked you why women were "unclean" twice as long after giving birth to females as males.
Care to give it another shot?
"Let there be light". And darn it, several million years later, there was!
However, if by "light" you mean freedom from ignorance, apparently we're not there yet.
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.