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. heh

    Funny how my sister was born with a gill because her unnecessary gene that is left over from our evolutionary history wasn’t turn off. She got it surgically removed because it got infected all the time.

    March 1, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
  2. Conundrum

    It is very interesting that some who profess to adore science hang out by the belief blog instead of the science blog.
    what scientific knowledge are they supposedly gaining by learning about faith and philosophy.?!?!?!

    Never mind, get it , it must those tools which have a bachelors in "pseudo scientific selective searching using the google" ;)

    March 1, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • Observer

      Probably their quest and thirst for pseudo knowledge is slowly convicting them to the truth. :)
      After all, a man can lie to himself only for so long...

      March 1, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      Chad, regardless of what moniker you submit your comments under, it remains that you are just dodging having to respond to the substantive comments below.

      As for scientists addressing issues on the Belief Blog, the article is about religious views on science. We are right on topic.

      March 1, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • Ida

      Yo Conun... you might be upto something there..just for giggles I went to the article 'Human Connectome Project' filed under innovation to see how many of these ardent science followers commented and voila not one from here...this article has been posted for more than 3 hours now...and sounds very interesting too...can't seem to recognize any of the posters there who really are science lovers...

      atheistic pseudo science lovers-liers et al

      March 1, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • Conundrum

      I read that article too sound interesting,all about the secrets of the brain-

      It's the difference between looking at the bonnet (of a car) and looking at the gears and belts inside
      –Van Wedeen, Human Connectome Project

      Agree Ida, these atheists that have pseudo interest in science Liars et al

      March 1, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Wayne

      This is an obvious attempt to deflect attention away from the obvious fact that none of the science deniers on this forum have been able to come up with any valid objections to the theory of evolution. Red herring logical fallacy.

      Instead of admitting that you can't refute any thing in reguardless to evolution, your asking that we stop refuting your nonsense and to just let you believe the crap you believe.

      Once you keep that nonsense to yourself, we will, untill then, no chance.

      March 1, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      At least it's getting interesting, though, watching one person's multiple personalities have a staged conversation with one another!

      March 1, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • Ida

      If you are so confident in the proof you have. Go ahead and provide the fossil evidence that establishes proof that humans evolved from something other than humans.

      This conversation has been going on for so long and you simply can't provide the proof. Provide evidence or shut up.

      Hint-I am not one of them ;)

      March 1, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Ida

      Do you happen to know why IDers (Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents) can't look at the many skull fossils collected and determine which are human and which are not?

      March 1, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Chad, surely you know that "proof" is not a scientific concept, and instead ideas are evaluated against evidence. As I have mentioned before, arguably the strongest evidence comes from genetics. I could provide you with a list of some the evidence in the form of fossil species, but you most likely will take the typical absurd tactic of either trying to argue that all are either apes or humans with nothing in between, or that they are individual "kinds" that are not related to each other, so I won't waste my time.

      As I have also pointed out before, genetics has provided a very specific and independent test of the model of evolutionary relationships provided by fossils, and has without exception found that species are related to one another just as predicted by inferences from the fossil record. In other words, the amount of genes shared in common between any two species patterns exactly according to how recently they are proposed to have diverged from a common ancestor. Talk about things that are unlikely to be a result of random chance!

      also see your beloved Wikipedia for more info on fossil hominids:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

      March 1, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Now, Chad/Ida/Conundrum/Observor or whoever would like to play,

      I ask you to do the same:
      Provide some cases of organisms proposed to be related through evolution, for which DNA studies show no relation and instead support separate creations – in other words prove that something as different as a goat and a centipede share the same amount of DNA as do a goat and an antelope. There's no reason they should share more DNA if they are not more closely related through a common ancestor.

      If we were to start seeing examples of that, I think everyone would begin considering alternatives to biological evolution. So, show your evidence.

      March 1, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • momoya

      I predict a response of "your goin t'hell, I'm leavin this sinful message board for gud!"

      Followed by new member "Darwan iz dermb!"

      ...."Hey, since Darwin had a long beard he believed beards evolved from snakes! What an idiot! All evolution is wrong! Turn your eyes toward jesus!'

      March 1, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Wayne

      Ida's question is dishonest. He/she knows that they'll automatically reject anything he or she is shown. A better way to ask for evidence for something woudl be to say:

      "I'll accept human evolution if you show me this"

      Make it specific. The way Ida worded allows him/her to move the goal post once evidence was shown, saying that fossil evidence isn't somehow good enough. That was his/her intention in the first place, even though we have fossils of hominids that were not fully human or ape, that made tools and lit fire, what were they doing in the garden of eden? They should not exist at all if your fairy tale is true but they do. How do you explain that?

      http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils?page=1

      March 1, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Ida

      The fossil evidence that you have listed are not considered direct human ancestors. Good try though...
      The fact remains you do not have the evidence. You can lie to yourselves that evolution is a fact but to me it will always remain a theory :)

      The bigger concern is for those 3 out of 10 pastors who apparently need to hear the truth!

      March 1, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • Wayne

      right on que, as i predicted

      "The way Ida worded allows him/her to move the goal post once evidence was shown, saying that fossil evidence isn't somehow good enough. "

      March 1, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • Wayne

      "The bigger concern is for those 3 out of 10 pastors who apparently need to hear the truth!"

      Yes that 6,000 years ago, the first human appeared fully formed out of dirt via an incantation spell. A few days/weeks later a fully formed adult/teen woman appeared after that from the rib of then man that was made from dirt.

      Where is the dirt to man rib to woman fossil evidence? LOL morons

      March 1, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Chad-Ida,
      No one listed any fossil evidence, so I don't know what you are responding to. The fact remains that you are trying to answer what you want to, rather than respond to what was stated and asked. And you continue to base your argument on negative evidence and a false dichotomy,

      I'll ask again: what is your positive genetic evidence for special creation? Show me some direct evidence that organisms that appear to be related by common descent, are actually not related at all.

      March 1, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      haha. Yes, a clear record showing dirt to man to man rib to woman would const.itute positive evidence as well. Of course, it will have to be disqualified if every step of that record is not visible – no gaps!

      March 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • Ida

      False, I am not defending evolution so the burden of proof is not on me. Good try at kicking the ball into my court. The burden is on you. You have to prove that complex structures can evolve. You have to prove that homosapiens evolved from some other creature. Apparently there is no fossil evidence to support this assertion.

      Oh and btw., Ida is a she and Chad is a He ;)

      March 1, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Ida

      The theory of evolution has met the burden of proof in millions of different ways. Your refusal to believe in it is like a person refusing to believe that cars exist–it only makes you look dumb. Please feel free to disbelieve.

      March 1, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • Ida

      The conversation between Ida and Momoy

      Momoy-Do you believe cars exist?
      Ida-Absolutely, I drive one , my neigbor drives one. Why do you ask?
      Momoy-Just making sure you understand cars evolved from bikes .
      Ida-No Momoy that is actually absurd. Can you prove it evolved from bikes?
      Momoy-You appear delusional if you don't believe that. You are free to not believe that cars exist

      Ida-At this point Ida is not sure anymore she was talking to a homosapien and does the facepalm and sobs for Momoy .

      March 1, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Chida: "You have to prove that ho.mosapiens evolved from some other creature. Apparently there is no fossil evidence to support this a.ssertion."

      You clearly don't understand that science doesn't deal in proof. No scientist can prove to you that water freezes at 0 C (there will always be the possibility that under some circ.umstances it doesn't). Science is defined by evaluating ideas against evidence. I can direct you to the overwhelming evidence from fossils, genetics, biogeography, archaeology, ecology, anatomy, organic chemistry, and on and on that supports evolution (evidence so abundant that evolution can be considered a fact, defined as something that is so overwhelmingly supported by evidence that it would be perverse to dismiss it), but you will resist it and do everything you can think of to rationalize it away. I can't take off your blinders.

      Knowledge will always be incomplete, and that's not a flaw – that's what science thrives on. Scientific research is driven by those unknowns because they are never simply dismissed as "mysterious ways." Scientists assume they are ultimately understandable and pursue them with curiosity. It honestly makes me sad that so many people have been immunized against boundless curiosity by the dogmas that inflict their thinking.

      March 1, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
  3. Wayne

    @Falsum

    "Charles Darwin does not have ownership of the concept of evolution."

    Nobody brings Darwin up in these discussions except you science denying morons.

    "There are many types of evolution including biological, chemical, galactic, etc...."

    No they are called cosmology and abiogenesis. On the chance that anyone of them turn out to be incorrect, it has no bearing on the validity of any others. The big bang we are pretty sure of, abiogenesis not as much. Evolution? Decent with modfication? You can't get any more sure than that. For some reason or another it disagreess with your mythology so you consider it invalid, but that's irrevelant.

    " For example, I pointed out that cosmic evolution is pretty solid"

    You meant cosmology, right? I agree.

    "but Darwin's idea is full of holes and incorrect too."

    And your better explanation of the diversity of life on earth would be? Why have you not presented any alternative idea to anyone? Heck you haven't even written a paper to debunked evolution, with all of it's holes...why is that? There is much money fame money to be had to debunk evolution. Do you know why? Because it would be another step to learning the truth about reality, and i'd be all for that. The sad thing is that you don't have any other explanation, and evolution is the best one right now.

    "Where didn't you get your degree?"

    This is just pure gold! Because everyone knows that every major academic insitution in the world rejects evolution right? So much so i bet you could list them all for me? Pretty please? LOL you are an idiot of epic proportions.

    March 1, 2012 at 9:35 am |
  4. False Dichotomy

    Chad, earlier you insisted that Ichthyostega had limbs and lungs and was therefore an amphibian. Period. If it has lungs and limbs it can't be a fish. (your argument)

    Later you say that Tiktaalic had gills and rayed fins, so it is a fish. Period. If it has gills it can't be anything other than a fish. (your argument)

    But Tiktaalic also has lungs, and wrist bones, so by your definition Tiktaalic has to be an amphibian. PERIOD. Wait, except it has gills, so it is fish. PERIOD. And Ichthyostega also had gills and a rayed tail fin, so it has to be fish. PERIOD. Except it's not cause... Wait, uh....

    Hmm, it's almost as if it isn't exactly one or the other even by your superficial definitions. It's almost as if they are somewhere in between – exactly as the evolutionary model would predict (which is of course why you must do whatever it takes to try to twist things around).

    Coelocanth is indeed another good example – just because it was thought to be extinct and wasn't doesn't prove or disprove anything at all about its place in phylogeny, does it?

    Now, back to things I notice in common among Tiktaalic, Coelocanth, and Ichthyostega. Here is what they have in common: Your inconsistent and lame arguments.

    The only thing that is consistent in your arguments is you will say whatever it takes to desperately try to maintain the "kinds" mentioned in the bible. And consistent with the classic definition of Pseudoscience you will attempt to camouflage your non-scientific agenda (creationism) in science-y sounding language to gain credibility, which is why you try to throw around some taxonomic terms from Wikipedia.

    March 1, 2012 at 12:57 am |
    • Wayne

      Poor Chad, his God wasn't great enough to create a system were life fully developed on its own. So it had to go through the pains of creating water, land, and air animals all at different times. Even though some, like you've stated, look like land and water animals at the same time. Weird.

      March 1, 2012 at 10:15 am |
  5. CC

    The stupidity of religious people is disheartening. WE need to stop this now. Religions is the bane of humanity. How can all these fairy tales (different religions) be true? Oh wait, I know, they aren't. All religions are just the oldest way of governing and controlling a population through fear. By the way if you believe in "god" you shouldn't have to right to call yourself a scientist.

    February 29, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      I was with you right up until that last sentence. I have known too many good scientists who also believe in god to go along with that. However, I have never ever ever met a professional scientist who denies evolution or the age of the earth or universe.

      February 29, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • Chad

      @False Dichotomy "I have never ever ever met a professional scientist who denies evolution"

      =>no scientist is going to deny the reality that genetic mutations occur and that natural selection occurs, and that little dogs can become big dogs, and big birds can become little birds.
      however
      Those facts DO NOT mean that the complexity of organisms that we now have have been the result of purely random genetic mutations combined with natural select.
      Its at that point that you run bang up against the fossil record, and there are MANY professional scientists that do not believe that could have arisen purely by chance.

      see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Evolutionary_biologists_who_were_also_theists

      February 29, 2012 at 11:32 pm |
    • momoya

      Maybe he just meant what he said...that he never met one, personally. I'm sure scientists debate portions of the theory, and I'm glad. I think genetic science has the branches and time epoch facts fairly nailed down, but if someone can improve upon the theory of biological evolution that's fantastic.

      It seems weird to hear christians say that scientists believed this thing or that thing happened "purely by chance;" umm...that's what the science is attempting to clear up!! Science is attempting to nail down exactly what did what and how it did it INSTEAD of being satisfied that it happened by some chance or other or some oddball deity. Science is trying to eliminate the "dunno...um..chance or mebee some star gud or sumpin'" and replace it with direct, proven facts. Science is saying, "Well, it wasn't just by chance, so how did this happen? Let's test and experiment and see what we can find out." Jesus doesn't knock on the door of your heart; science knocks on the door of universe. Jesus didn't lay down his life for your sins; billions of faulty humans laid down their lives for a little piece of truth (Marie Curie and others). There's no eternal reward or punishment; your life's work merely adds or subtracts from the human experience.

      There's no external god 'out there;' there's the values that you hold most dear and are most unlikely to change–that's god. Your highest opinion of righteousness. I think some christians value a vengeful ideal, and that god permeates their thought process; they live their own lives choosing their own desires by either labeling that life "godly," or on a wheel of rationalization and guilt. Nasty people serve nasty gods; I don't think it's coincidence.

      March 1, 2012 at 12:00 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      Welcome back, Chad. Good to see you have kept your ability to verbally bait and switch intact.

      "Its at that point that you run bang up against the fossil record, and there are MANY professional scientists that do not believe that could have arisen purely by chance."
      A. the fossil record is not even considered the primary evidence for evolution since the grand synthesis – see genetics.
      B. who said anything about chance? I referred to professional scientists that deny evolution, and you claim something about scientists who do not believe the fossil record could have "arisen" by chance. You can count me among the latter. BTW, how does the fossil record "arise" anyway?
      C. If you are attempting to say there are many qualified scientists that do not accept evolution as properly defined, that's actually not true either. If I recall correctly the rate of acceptance of evolution in the National Academy of Sciences is 99.98%. That means that 0.02% of members do not accept evolution. I don't think that counts as many (especially not MANY)

      "see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Evolutionary_biologists_who_were_also_theist"
      I referred to scientists who deny evolution, you provide a list of evolutionists who believed in some form of god.
      A) those are completely different subjects.
      B) that's what I said above in the first place.

      March 1, 2012 at 12:39 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      PS – that cute little big dog/little dog and big bird/little bird quote you like to throw around is also straight out of Kent Hovind's lectures. Is a guy with a fake doctorate who is currently doing time in the federal pen for felonious dishonesty really the best source of ideas you guys have?

      March 1, 2012 at 12:43 am |
  6. LA Lkrs

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

    February 29, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • momoya

      So "lesser lights" and "goddidit" describes the cosmos better than science? Believe, believer.

      February 29, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      This is a very good video. The person that made this video has some familiarity with science, but not as much as myself.

      For example, both the Darwin's theory of evolution and the "Big Bang" both have some holes, but less so for cosmic evolution.

      One point the video did not get correct is that the universe is NOT mostly comprised of matter. In fact, matter takes up far less than 5 percent of the universe itself. Also, the video did not say anything about dark matter or dark energy. It's kind of hard to make broad sweepings conclusions about the "Big Bang" theory when we don't understand these phenomena.

      My own theory is that God created the universe with a hot singularity that was called into existence from outside of space and time dimensions. The "Bang" event did produce any sound because there was no medium to support the acoustic oscillations. The universe expanded out from the hot and luminous singularity to form fundamental particles that eventually combined with other particles to start a chemical evolutionary process. These processes can occur very fast or slow depending on the nature of the chemical reaction and resultant elements. This is one of the primary reasons why Darwin's theory of biological evolution is not correct.

      February 29, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      The bang did not produce any sound waves.

      February 29, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Falsum

      You give a long description and then say "This is one of the primary reasons why Darwin's theory of biological evolution is not correct."

      My question is "this what?" What, exactly, is your reasoning for evolutionary theory being wrong?

      February 29, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Falsum

      Generally speaking, you're a thundering.

      February 29, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • Wayne

      "This is one of the primary reasons why Darwin's theory of biological evolution is not correct."

      It's a shame the big bang has nothing at all to do with evolution. You people are so stupid it's amazing.

      February 29, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      @mo

      Darwin's theory of evolution is only correct if there are no counter examples to slow and gradual complex adaptive processes for biological systems. This could not possibly be true because chemical reactions are governed by fast and slow processes. Surprisingly, the author of this video seems to think that embryonic development is an example that supports evolutionary viewpoints. I was intrigued by this concept because, from my perspective, the early stages of embryonic development run counter to evolution.

      @ stupid Wayne:

      Charles Darwin does not have ownership of the concept of evolution. There are many types of evolution including biological, chemical, galactic, etc.... Some of the evolutionary concepts are more sound than others. For example, I pointed out that cosmic evolution is pretty solid, but Darwin's idea is full of holes and incorrect too.

      Where didn't you get your degree?

      February 29, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @Falsum, Bumper, Blind, Jesus>>, whatever...
      'Evolution' used in any context other than Biology is usually an informal term indicating change over time, whereas Biological Evolution is well tested and well substantiated scientific theory, involving descent with modification, natural selection, etc.

      February 29, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Agreed. While evolution can simply mean "change" in everyday speech, it's pretty clear this article is referring to biological evolution.

      February 29, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      PS – the fact that so many people don't make that distinction suggests that for some "evolution" is a catch-all term for science they don't want to accept for religious reasons.

      February 29, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      @False

      The article is referring to Darwin's theory of evolution.

      The video refers primarily to cosmic evolution, but toward the ends, talks about embryonic development which fits better under biological evolution.

      February 29, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
    • LA Lkrs

      @Falsum-What I posted above is the second part of a series of videos created by the original youtube poster.
      You can find alll of his/her series on Youtube.
      Also, Part1 is posted below and appears on this page.
      Thanks to the original creator of these videos-marvellous job!

      February 29, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      This video is a great example of one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience:
      Claiming that mainstream science is unreliable, while simultaneously appealing to the authority of any science that can be twisted to support the argument.

      In other words "Science can't be trusted....and here's some science to back that up."

      As for the other video segment presented below, those talking points are taken directly from Kent Hovinds talks (although of course they aren't attributed to anyone – funny how these cosmological "experts" don't even understand high school level scholarship). Yup, Kent Hovind – the guy in prison for 58 federal counts of fraud, tax evasion, and obstructing justice. Maybe that's why the authors of the video choose not to provide any references for their quotes. Just marvelous!

      February 29, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • Simon Scowl

      False?-did those videos go above your level of comprehension? thought as much... learn science before you betray your ignorance your ignoramus!

      February 29, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
    • Simon Scowl

      false dicho... The Ignoramus!

      February 29, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Uh, yeah. They must have gone right over my head.

      February 29, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
  7. Joe

    The Bible clearly states that God is self-existent, creator, eternal and omnipresent.
    I think Christians who believe in evolution are not true Christians.

    February 29, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      Hi Joe,

      You are the perfect example of false dichotomy.

      February 29, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • Wayne

      And where does evolution say that God isn't "self-existent, creator, eternal and omnipresent"

      Here's a hint, it doesn't. Don't be mad there are Christians that can't delude themselves to your level. Quit worshping a book and take alook at the real creation, it's much more beautiful!

      Also fyi, you commited a logical fallacy. Don't do it again, thanks

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

      No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.

      February 29, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • momoya

      Let me guess, it's our old friend Bumper, again? Couldn't stay away, could you? ]

      I'll help you out here, a person can't be a "false dichotomy." A "false dichotomy" is a condition, and it describes a TYPE of argument, not a type of person.

      February 29, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Joe

      It's not about understanding but it's all about trusting and believing God.

      February 29, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      "It's not about understanding but it's all about trusting and believing God."

      WOW! That's classic pre-Enlightenment, Dark Ages thinking. If you truly believe that (and it appears you do) then logical debate is irrelevant (and it appears for you it is). So why debate? Solely to convince people to stop trying to understand things? Perhaps the "e" word is indeed appropriate.

      February 29, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      @mo

      I'm not a Bumper. What are you talking about? Did you take your medications today?
      I notice that you tend to take the bait on more of the simpler and childish arguments related to
      both science and religion. Of course, I know a person is not generally an example of a false dichotomy, but you
      understood my point...Again, you tend to take the low hanging fruit in the debate without digging down deeper to understanding true meaning and purpose. I assume you took this approach during your alleged Bible readings too.,

      February 29, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Falsum

      Assume away. I'll be glad to engage on a deeper level when you present an argument that isn't "low hanging fruit."

      Oh, by the way, you're still wrong: "A person is not generally an example of a false dichotomy." No. A PERSON is NEVER a "false dichotomy." "False dichotomy" is an 'incorrect framing' of an argument. Setting. Staging.

      February 29, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      @

      With a little creativity it can be shown how a person is a false dichotomy or represented by a false dichotomy. However, I won't argue this point because you understood what I wrote and went for the easy fruit anyway.

      February 29, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Not that it matters, but as long as we are guessing aliases, I would be willing to bet that "Joe" is Bumper, and "Falsum..." is Chad.

      February 29, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • momoya

      @ Falsum

      No, you fool. A person can NOT be a "false dichotomy." The position they hold may contain or represent a "false dichotomy." I wonder where you got your education?!?!

      February 29, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      @mo

      Once again, taking the fruit and missing the point. Are you related to Eve?

      February 29, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
  8. kenny

    How can any of you take a group of people ( or cult ) seriously that openly things that number one:: think the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, 46% agreed, compared to 43% who disagreed. 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.
    How can so many people be so stupid...
    Number two:::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.
    Number three;;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.
    At least some are thinging on their own now 40% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, versus 54% who said humans developed over millions of years

    February 28, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
  9. Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

    Please be careful about how you decide on false dichotomies. It's very easy to say that a particular idea or viewpoint is a false dichotomy, but we have to look at how various theories work to support known facts. The ancient Hebrews were using concepts from the theories of Babylonian Astronomy and Cosmology to support their premise that God created the Universe. This really is not too different compared to how Charles Darwin used his theory to support what he considered to be observable facts in nature. The Bible certainly offers various dichotomies, but too say that they are false is not necessarily a true statement without further explanation. For example, stating that the Bible is either a collection of myths or not is a false dichotomy.

    February 27, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • nown

      True but that is either a false dichotomy or it isn't.

      February 27, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      A false dichotomy is when one asserts or implies that there are only two possible conclusions, and typically attempts in vain to prove one by disproving the other. The classic example is, of course, when one presents evolution and creationism as a dichotomy and does everything they can to undermine evolution in order to prove creationism. The fallacy lies in the fact that even if they were able to undermine evolution they have done absolutely nothing to prove creationism because there are countless other alternatives. That is why it the creationist arguments are futile.

      As was pointed out before, history shows that when scientific theories are overthrown they are always, in every single case, replaced by more sophisticated scientific theories. They have never, not even once, been replaced by supernatural explanations.

      February 27, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      The notion that science and the Bible are in conflict in a way that creates a dichotomy of belief is false.

      February 28, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • False Dichotomy

      Agreed. That's why it is ineffective to try to support or "prove" the bible by attacking science. Unfortunately, at the foundation of every anti-evolution argument put forth here is the implicit assumption that the bible is somehow strengthened if science is weakened. That is false.

      February 28, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • momoya

      Excellent points, False Dichotomy.
      .
      @Flasum...
      .
      The major problem in the "science/vs/bible" discussion is the method that many believers set up the dilemma. Many believers will discuss 6-day creation as hard truth that cannot be reconciled with current astronomy and evolutionary science. For THOSE individuals, THEY have created the dichotomy, that from THEIR perspective either the bible is right or science is. When THEY put forth such arguments, the representative for science is automatically taking the "anti-bible/anti-god" position. This is most clearly seen when very fundamental christians debate non-fundamental christians–both sides usually begin accusing the other of somehow being less of a christian for their view of science instead of their view of the bible.

      Laughably, most christians, regardless of how much they agree or disagree with science, will use scientific discoveries to bolster their "faith-view," yet will not hesitate to completely disregard scientific discoveries and rely wholly on faith when those discoveries are not to the advantage of their "faith-view." Worse yet, such folk don't even recognize the stupidity and hypocrisy of that method.

      February 28, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      @momoya:

      I agree. False Dichotomy has some good points.

      However, I disagree with your viewpoints.

      It seems as though you are trying to stack the deck heavily against the believers in favor of science.

      This is the type of behavior and reasoning that leads to the formation uneeded dichotomies.

      February 28, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • momoya

      I'm not stacking anything; I am stating the reality of what many fundamental christians do. If THEY use a false dichotomy, that's THEIR problem. As to the hypocrisy of using some science as a credit, when they do not use the majority of science that would discredit their position, that is just plain stupidity that needs to be pointed out.

      February 28, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      The reality is that some proponents of evolution and some creationists form this dichotomy, and not just one or the other. You have a negative one-sided viewpoint that is heavily stacked against creationists. I think it is very weird that you don't believe in God, but yet you had the audacity to describe God using the "e" word. No normal person (atheist or otherwise) in their right mind would ever do this. If you have the gumption to believe in the "e" word, then it does make sense to deny the existence of Spirituality.

      February 29, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • momoya

      @Falsum

      No, "evolutionists" do not "form this dichotomy." A person who understands that evolution has been proven merely discuss evolution. If some god believer decides that evolutionary science weakens or disproves his god-belief, that is his issue, not the person who understands that evolution is proven fact. A person who understands that the fact of the Big Bang and evolution deny a young earth and instant creation of plants and animals is perfectly within his rights to explain how that science disproves that sort of creation. Here again, it is the young earth believer who has set up the false dichotomy.

      I don't know what you mean by "e word," but you could always just make your point clear, if you so desire.

      Science discusses things that are proven to exist, not imaginary body parts or realms. If you want to talk about the "spirit" or "spirituality" they will need to be discussed as philosophical ideas.

      February 29, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

      @mo

      "e"=evil

      The theory of evolution is NOT fact and proponents of evolution such as Richard Dawkins do create false dichotomies just like some creationists.

      February 29, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • momoya

      Dawkins argues weirdly, but his arguments have no effect on the individual who does not accept the false dichotomy he implies.

      Anybody can use the word "evil," just like anybody can use the word "god."

      Evolution is proven fact, but don't beat yourself up to bad if you don't believe in it; most pastors in America don't either.

      February 29, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Dog breeds, antibiotic resistant viruses, lactose intolerance, etc. are evolutionary facts. The explanation that these come about due to the interplay of reproduction, mutation, and natural selection is evolutionary theory. Descent with modification is an observable fact. Evolutionary theory explains that fact.

      To insist that the fact of evolution is wrong is to insist that your child looks like you (but not exactly like you) simply by coincidence.

      February 29, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
  10. Group Religious Thought

    Religion is a biz. A business. Nothing but a business. Just a self protective mode way of stopping the threat of losing the flock. If the poorly educated pew sitters could read something other than religious views by their leaders then they could see that it is a shameful myth culture hiding behind untruths. It is painful for those who spent their lives just reading the Bible to think that it was all just a waste of time. Nothing in it can be backed with scientific fact. Just old stories. In contrast the church blocks science so scientific research can not be done to solve major medical problems. Stem cell research is solving major health problems. Shame on the church mongers.

    February 27, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
  11. kayla

    I have asked many questions and now it is time to reveal the answer...

    Drum roll......

    Sweating and anticipation.....

    The answer is...... GOD!!!!

    February 27, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • manda

      Oh no. I think up til now most of us were giving you the benefit of the doubt and just taking your questions as satire.

      February 27, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • kenny

      sounds like "kayla" hasn`t been taking her meds

      February 28, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • sam stone

      The answer is God?

      Good, I was wondering who killed Jon Benet....

      February 29, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  12. momoya

    @Chad

    If you're willing to ignore the millions and millions of data points across the scientific disciplines that show the evolutionary "picture," then you're always going to find a way to disbelieve it. EVERY single living cell IS a "missing link." Very few were fossilized, so you'll always have a safe place to hide. If you're so convinced that you can't amend or disprove a small section of data within evolution, then get to work. Do your experiments, publish your findings, and attend to the peer review process. Saying that you won't believe because you want a particular missing piece is like an atheist who doesn't believe the bible because he thinks there's a missing chapter in Hosea.

    Here's more facts for you to ignore. (But hey, don't forget to USE scientific facts when you feel that it suits your position, it's what intellectually dishonest people do).
    .
    .
    .
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&w=640&h=390]

    February 26, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      That's pretty well done. And they didn't even have to make anything up or stretch any truths to do it! I may look into more of this series to see if they are appropriate for some of my intro-level classes.

      February 26, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
  13. Kayla

    Whose words alone can catch a falling star?

    February 26, 2012 at 11:08 am |
    • momoya

      Words don't catch physical objects.
      Stars don't "fall." (though they follow the rules of gravity and move towards an object of greater mass if it is close enough).

      If you mean meteors, when possible, science uses special equipment to gather them while they are falling to the earth. And words expressing ideas brought about that process.

      February 26, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • kenny

      what planet are you on ?

      February 28, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
  14. Chad

    Coelacanths belong to the subclass Actinistia, a group of lobed-finned fish that are related to lungfish and other extinct Devonian fish such as osteolepiforms, porolepiforms, rhizodonts, and Panderichthys.[1] Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa

    More closely related to tetrapods than even the ray-finned fish, coelacanths were considered the "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River (now Tyalomnqa) in 1938.[5] Museum curator Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer discovered the fish among the catch of a local fisher, Captain Hendrick Goosen, on December 23, 1938.[5]

    Interesting stuff.. still looking for that fish to land animal evidence..

    February 25, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
    • momoya

      Tiktaalik roseae fossils

      February 25, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
    • Chad

      Tiktaalik is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned "fish")
      Coelacanths are members of an order of fish that includes the oldest known living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish)

      do you notice anything in common? :-)

      February 25, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • momoya

      I notice that you ignore or insist on science based on what your faith demands you believe. Lemme guess, you disagree with the proven evolutionary track of whales, too?

      February 25, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    • Chad

      @momoya "I notice that you ignore or insist on science based on what your faith demands you believe."
      @chad "?? I thought I just pointed out that you purported missing link between fish and land animals is in the same family as the Coelacanth, which was once thought to be that link, but then it was found to be not extinct.. oopsie..

      I would point out, that the bible defines faith as "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11

      Atheist scientists define faith as "molding evidence to fit a preconceived notion despite all evidence to the contrary"

      February 25, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      Chad, I do notice some things in common:

      Earlier you insisted that Ichthyostega had limbs and lungs and was therefore an amphibian. Period. If it has lungs and limbs it can't be a fish. (your argument)

      Later you say that Tiktaalic had gills and rayed fins, so it is a fish. Period. If it has gills it can't be anything other than a fish. (your argument)

      But Tiktaalic also has lungs, and wrist bones, so by your definition Tiktaalic has to be an amphibian. PERIOD. Wait, except it has gills, so it is fish. PERIOD. And Ichthyostega also had gills and a rayed tail fin, so it has to be fish. PERIOD. Except it's not cause... Wait, uh....

      Hmm, it's almost as if it isn't exactly one or the other even by your superficial definitions. It's almost as if they are somewhere in between – exactly as the evolutionary model would predict (which is of course why you must do whatever it takes to try to twist things around).

      Coelocanth is indeed another good example – just because it was thought to be extinct and wasn't doesn't prove or disprove anything at all about its place in phylogeny

      Now, back to things I notice in common among Tiktaalic, Coelocanth, and Ichthyostega. Here is what they have in common: Your inconsistent and lame arguments.

      The only thing that is consistent in your arguments is you will say whatever it takes to desperately try to maintain the "kinds" mentioned in the bible. And consistent with the classic definition of Pseudoscience you will attempt to camouflage your non-scientific agenda (creationism) in science-y sounding language to gain credibility, which is why you try to throw around some taxonomic terms from Wikipedia. (and if I were a big enough goober to program smiley-faces into my keyboard, I would add one here).

      February 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • False Dichotomy

      And as for your smug tag-line "still looking for that fish to land animal evidence" Keep looking, I guess. No one is hiding it from you. Maybe if you keep looking hard enough (and if you look beyond those Answers In Genesis-type websites) you will eventually see right through your own self-imposed blinders. But I or anyone else can't do that for you.

      February 26, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
  15. SJ Shrks

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lEg9_8F8YQ&w=640&h=390]

    February 25, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • David

      at 3:13 of a 4:20 video attacking evolution, the video states..."Before we begin, let's define the term evolution." shy of John by :03, the video offers six definitions and gets, maybe, 1 right. the rest is simply garbage.

      February 25, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • momoya

      I didn't know you could fit that much stupid into just over 4 minutes.

      February 25, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Cosmos

      The person who put this video together has done a marvellous job.
      Kudos!

      February 25, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
  16. momoya

    @ Robert Brown

    You're being way to lenient on the OT god. It's a result of your brain compartmentalizing god as just and holy and beyond reproach. The OT god commanded wholesale sl.aughter and r.a.pe several times and had no problem killing huge numbers of his own chosen not to mention other outsiders. You're familiar with jephthah's story?

    February 24, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Yes, I am familar. That was undoubtably a brutal time in history. Just look at the news, it can still be pretty brutal in this more civilized time. God's wrath and judgement is a terrible thing.

      February 24, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • momoya

      Harsh times may excuse a society but not god. Your god commanded genocide and r.a.pe, and he thinks eternal torture is a grand idea. You call it perfect and holy. How's it feel?

      February 24, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      I recognize it was and is terrible. As far as feeling, I would have to say sad. Thankfully, He provides us with a remedy or alternative.

      February 24, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • momoya

      Yikes! I don't see how you could trust such a monster. The god of the bible is unbelievable for a variety of reasons, but why worship such an evil character? It seems very arrogant and callous for christians to say that they will enjoy heaven just fine while others will be in a lake of fire. That morality just doesn't compute.

      February 24, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      He is the righteous judge. Get your pardon today.

      February 25, 2012 at 4:40 am |
    • momoya

      You can't trust a pardon from a guy that twisted.

      February 25, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
  17. Well Hung Jesus

    Nonimus

    @Robert Brown,
    "God is spirit."
    "God created everything, humans and spirits included."

    So God created Himself?

    -------
    Um no...men have created their own gods

    February 24, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Well Hung Jesus

      ps and the evidence is quite clear

      February 24, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
  18. jimtanker

    @Robert Brown

    “Maybe I didn't do a good job of communicating. Let me try again. God loves humans and wants them to love Him and each other. He has given us a recipe for how to accomplish that. If you want proof of God follow his instructions and you will find all the proof you need.”

    So I should own slaves, kiII my kids if they are unruly, NEVER wear clothing that is of mixed cloth, don’t kiII (even though god says to kiII over and over and over in the bible), and all of the other silly things in that book and I’ll live a good life?

    I think that I’ll try without it.

    February 24, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Some of that Old Testament stuff is pretty rough. Under the law (Old Testament covenant), the consequences for sin or payment for sin required a blood sacrifice. Either a designated animal or the sinner, as the case may be. Under the new covenant brought about by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, his blood paid it all. It pays for the sin today, yesterday, and forever for the believer. For example, adultery was a sin punishable by death, but Jesus told the people if you look at a woman with lust in your heart you have committed adultery. The point is that the flesh is sinful by nature whether in thought or deed. No one is good. We all need forgiveness.

      February 24, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Well Hung Jesus

      The point is man is the god of man

      February 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • jimtanker

      So then I'll ask you again, this means that the old testament doesnt count anymore then?

      Also, then why did the character in the story named Jesus say that he didnt come to do away with the law? Just one more contradiction in the big book of multiple choice.

      February 24, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • Well Hung Jesus

      man made a few mistakes....I mean god made some mistakes and made new rules

      February 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • momoya

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ilZq3R900&w=640&h=390]

      February 24, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      No, the Old Testament counts. There are a lot of reasons. Here are a few. The Old Testament reveals a great deal about how God thinks, it shows that he is forgiving. The people would disobey Him, repent, and He would forgive them and bless them again. It has the prophecies of the coming of Christ. It contains all the awesome Proverbs and Psalms. Through the creation it tells of the fall of man and his need of a Savior.

      It’s not actually a contradiction if you just read a few more words from where you are referencing. Jesus was letting the folks know that he didn’t come to do away with the law (Old Covenant). He came to fulfill it. In other words, he became the sacrifice for sin. Sin is still sin. The new covenant (Jesus) provided for the forgiveness of sin detailed so well in the Old Testament.

      Hope that helps Jim.

      February 24, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
  19. Blind CS

    momoya:

    that video you posted is about rejection in teenage and young adult relationships. It is not possible to use this as an analogy for the interactions between theists and atheists. The reason why many Christians continue to interact with you is because of the great commission in the latter chapters of Matthew and has nothing to do with teeny bopper rejection. Also, a few of us are concerned that at your advanced stage in life, you don't have much time left to decide on your eternal living arrangements. I don't feel rejected by you. I'm accepted by Christ and His light is within me. I will not continue to subject myself to the outward defilement of the comment postings on this board. There is great outward defilement and sin being committed on this board, and I don't want to continue to dwell in the midst of such wrong doing.

    February 23, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
    • momoya

      I could never figure out why you were so obsessed with this board and me anyway. Go in peace, but most of all, just go.

      February 23, 2012 at 11:51 pm |
    • Blind CS

      My time to get off this board is long overdue. Goodbye, peace-out and take care of yourself from now until the day of eternity.

      For God so loved the world that He have his only Son such that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but inherit everlasting life.

      John 3:16

      Amen

      February 24, 2012 at 1:26 am |
    • jimtanker

      Quoting a work of fiction is a waste of time.

      February 24, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  20. Blind CS

    No momoya

    you are missing the point with the stupid Nominus quote. The Bible can be understood literally with an aggregate understanding of the entire text. This is something you would not know since you didn't ready it. Or perhaps you did not read it carefully.

    February 23, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • Blind CS

      you didn't read the Bible.

      February 23, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • momoya

      Tell yourself whatever lies you need to, Dumper; you've had enough practice with the whole religion thing.

      February 23, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
    • manda

      I read the bible. I read the part that says that everything was created in six days and then found out it wasn't, and the part that says that two of every animal survived a global flood on a boat and found out they didn't, and the part that said the end of the world would come before a generation ended, and it didn't.

      But then I read the part that said "beware false prophets" and I thought Oh! Now I get it. and I put the bible down and carefully backed away.

      February 23, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
« Previous entry
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.