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.
Don't speak of God in that way.
F your fake god in the A.
I'm waiting to be smoten.
Pulu Si Bagumba
You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe me without seeing me.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of r.a.ping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a r.a/pe victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
11"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals,
12then you shall cut off her hand; (A)you shall not show pity.
So it's okay otherwise, just not in saving her husband?
The bible is often oddly specific.
The reason we say God the Father or He, is because of his begotten Son Jesus Christ. The word Begotten means to Fathered.
Sorry, god was male in the Old Testament too. How about this, god is male because he is the invention of a society in which men subjugated women and treated them as property.
It's more than that, manda, the christian model provided the paradigm of sacrifice to the "father" and the pleasure and righteousness of sl.a.vehood. It allowed for Europe's overthrow and subjugation of foreign lands for simply not having a flag (Eddie Izzard) and turning those people into slaves running a monoculture crop for the christian governments that ensl.aved them. It continues to this day.
Historically speaking, women have taken on more a prominent role in the domestic sphere and less so in the realm of Spirituality. In many ways, society has evolved in a way that has prevented women from holding position of Spiritual leadership. In ancient times, menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth made women ritualistically unclean. They were not allowed to enter the temple during certain times of the month. Their time spent taking care of the household and children didn't leave much time for pondering the finer points of hyperbolic poetry or the origins of the universe. It simply was not practical.
In contrast, Jesus had an extremely caring and counter cultural view of women. He encouraged his followers to treat women with respect and dignity. In particular, his viewpoints on divorce were really aimed at protected the abused and vulnerable females. He was not afraid to talk to women of ill repute and foreigners like the ritualistically unclean Samaritan woman that he met at the well. This was absolutely unheard of during this time period!! He encouraged his followers to honor both the letter and the Spirit of God's law, but not the amended laws of the Pharisees.
Manda & Momoya God's love, we all try to rationalize the things of the Bible, yet no man or woman can honestly say he knows the mind of God, with that being said, the Bible could have been a book that told you that all it's characters are perfect. Instead it shows us the true realty of the world, with it's characters and all there flaws. In reading it I am reminded of three things that created this here Universe. KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM and UNDERSTANDING.
"KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM and UNDERSTANDING."
You can get those from Aesop's Fables too (and from many other sources)... without the primitive Hebrew drama queen's tyrant.
“no man or woman can honestly say he knows the mind of God”
Probably because if it exists it is an evil, megalomaniacal, schizophrenic, masochistic psychopath by what you read in the bible. There are so many contradictions he has to be insane. Do not kiII, but kiII these people over here for me.
Rainbow and Lollipops – I didn't say you couldn't, however when I am reading the Bible, I read it from those 3 perspectives.
The fact that there is *some* wisdom in the Bible does not validate *everything* in it. There is *some* good advice for practical, beneficial human behavior in it, but mostly it is a compilation of ancient Middle Eastern Hebrew historical fiction, myth, legend, superst.ition and fantasy.
There is not a shred of verified evidence for any of the supernatural beings and supernatural events in that book.
Bizarre – From what I have experienced in LIFE, I beg to Differ.
I don't try to rationalize the bible; I read it exactly as what it is–a book of collected myths and fairy tales.. It does not provide objective truth, but like any other holy text can be manipulated to serve the purposes of those with the ability and inclination to engage that system/model..
Momoya- You try not to rationalize, but you see the Bible as a book of collected myths and fairy tales, Funny.
Religion seem to wish to turn this country into an ignorant, third world nation.
Creation is very obvious to me. Science & the bible go hand in hand. Their are many intelligent scientists who believe in creation. Evolution is a theory and is not scientifically sound in any way. Their are evidences of the worldwide flood all around us especially in the southwest. I believe completely in the young earth theory & it makes total sense to me. I also believe the bible is accurate & inspired. I shake my head when I read about things being formed millions of years ago...it is nothing but a theory...we all have the right to use our mind and choose what we believe & just because something is supposedly scientific does not make it true. If you trust in supposed science of men above what the bible teaches you are trusting earthly ideas rather than having faith that the greatest scientist of all , God.. Actually created the world in 6 literal days just as we are told.
Use 'there' and not 'their' above.
Show me where the Bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old?
We do all have the right to use our minds and believe what we want to believe. But again, why argue that scientific evidence has nothing to do with whether or not something is true, and then turn around and talk about supposed evidence for a flood and how lots of scientists accept creationism? If you're going to disregard scientific evidence, just say so. Don't turn around and then try to use it to prop up your opinions.
As for lots of scientists accepting creationism, and there being evidence for a worldwide flood, you are simply incorrect. You have the right to believe it, but that is absolutely incorrect.
Although there is a simplistic beauty in what you believe, your perspective shows that you have not done very much research into the scientific material on the age of the universe/earth and evolution. There are some very excellent videos on youtube that do a fair job of explaining the complex theories in basic terminology and with creative animation and graphics. If you don't care to "rock the boat" and carefully consider what you currently disbelieve, that's understandable. If you would like a few suggestions, let me know.
As far as theories go, evolution is perhaps the most sound. It has passed every test leveled at it, the discovery of DNA fits wonderously within its framework, and it has now been directly observed in bacteria. Denying evolution is tantamount to insisting the earth is flat.
Evolution is a "theory" because Scientists are open minded people. They do that so they may change the theory on the fly when new evidence arises. This is contrary to religion, which states a single ideology and starkly defends it despite logic and reason proving it to be nothing but fairy tales. If there was scientific evidence to suggest that evolution was flawed, the theory would be evaluated by countless people, all smarter than you, and they would change the theory to suit whatever the evidence suggests. That being said, over 99% of scientists are evolutionists, scientific evidence supports evolution, and the entire biological field of study is based on evolution.
I assure you, the evolutionary theory is an evolving(no pun intended) notion, and the "theory" concept is there only as a reminder that science continues to advance. This does not mean we should reject our best efforts simply because 100% conclusiveness is impossible.
The Shroud is far too elaborate to have been a hoax.
Maybe, but that's just an opinion. The only actual evidence to go on here is that the shroud dates to the Middle Ages, and no equivalent evidence to the contrary has been presented. The rational position is that until contrary evidence emerges, it can be considered a Medieval artifact.
Interesting that the Shroud crosses some threshold of complexity that induces your credulity, while the Theory of Evolution, with orders of magnitude more complexity and evidence, does not.
The Shroud is real.
Grrrr. This comment update is not working!!!!
The scientific method would have worked had the researchers performed fair sampling.
I sure hope that I never have to play a board game or card game with you. You are the type who would account for your losing by accusations of cheating, or poor rules or some other weasel-like tactic.
Science depends on statistics and fair sampling. Clearly, the researchers did not perform fair sampling. Therefore, the results are not valid relative to the original hypothesis.
The scientific method would indeed work if they let it, rather than put the brakes on it. As I said before:
Revising the original hypothesis (to say PARTS of the shroud are the burial cloth of Jesus, because of a repair) is a standard part of the scientific method, and the next step should be to test the revised hypothesis – date a different sample. Instead, people have just revised the hypothesis and then insisted that the new hypothesis is true – period, cause we say so – which throws the whole process down the drain.
If the sampling was bad, fine. Demonstrate that it was bad and carefully choose a better sample. AMS radiocarbon dating can be done on a portion of the cloth smaller than the head of a matchstick.
I understand wanting to believe something, but choosing to do an objective analysis and then saying it doesn't count when the results don't go your way is indeed like saying "I win anyway" and turning the game board over and going home.
I think your earlier comment was truer – that religious believers will choose to believe it regardless of the analysis. That's at least honest.
What rubs me wrong (and creationists are especially guilty of this) is when someone who doesn't have a scientific worldview appeals to the authority of science to gain credibility (such as the dating of the shroud), but then denies the whole process when it doesn't prop up what they already believe. That is not honest.
If the only acceptable science is that which supports what you already believe, you are not practicing science at all.
The sampling seemed fair to me.
"The sampling of the shroud took place in the Sacristy at Turin Cathedral on the morning of 21 April 1988. Among those present when the sample as cut from the shroud were Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (Archbishop of Turin), Professor L. Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic and the Archbishop's scientific adviser), two textile experts (Professor F. Testore of Department of Materials Science, Turin Polytechnic and G. Vial of Musée des Tissues and Centre International d'Étude des Textiles Anciens in Lyon), Dr M. S. Ti.te of the British Museum, representatives of the three radiocarbon-dating laboratories (Professor P. E. Damon, Professor D. J. Donahue, Professor E. T. Hall, Dr R. E. M. Hedges and Professor W. Woelfli) and G. Riggi, who removed the sample from the shroud.
The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. "
(http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm; 'Reprinted from Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989')
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness
Sure theres a lot of evolution in this planets history. It's just that modern man did not evolve. I believe Man also was not created by a spiritual being. Yes I believe there was intelligent design at work . Man is the result of genetic engineering....not by a magical being but by a race of ET"s. God is an ET (not of this earth) and a flesh and bone being...not singular but many ET's. "Let us make man in OUR own image." Even our bible is based upon the writings of the Sumerians....not written by men who had visions beamed into their heads. Either way none of it matters....everyone is always trying to question the why and how when we should really focus on the here and now.....what we do here on this planet. None of us work together for the betterment of mankind. its a shame. All man cares about is wealth.
Who is the liberal genius that thought asking pastors if they believed in evolution was a good idea? Thats like asking a medical doctor if they believe in the witch doctor
I was not trying to prove or disprove anything. I just thought it was an interesting story and wanted other opinions.
Without question, this young girl is an artistic prodigy and this is not just the imagination of some ordinary kid that draws pictures of warriors or whatever. She has paintings that are worth millions of dollars. I don't know if her parents are trying to exploit her talent, but at face value, they have been converted from atheism to a belief in God. One of her pictures of Jesus does look a lot like one would expect for a Jewish male that lived during that time period. Not blond hair and blue eyes! In fact, if you look at this picture and compare it to the recent 3D rendering of the shroud of Turin, they look very similar. How would a young girl know this. This is especially odd since the 3D rendering of the shroud came out after she painted the picture. I think the young girls makes a very good point when she states that YOU HAVE TO HAVE FAITH TO TALK TO GOD. As Christians, we are to hunger and thirst for righteousness and realized that we are dependent on God.
Also, instead of being so consistently negative and disagreeable, I recommend that we edify one another when we have a good point and offer kind suggestions upon disagreement.
Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.
I haven't seen the paintings, but the Shroud of Turin has been definitively dated to AD 1260-1390. These dates were obtained by the Vatican itself from three different labs; they concluded the shroud could not have been the burial shroud of Jesus, and was probably an intentional hoax.
Sure sounds like you are trying to prove something. There's nothing wrong with that, but you are clearly pushing a specific interpretation. "how could she know this?" Perhaps the same way you do. The mother said the didn't talk much about god, that doesn't mean they don't have TV, internet, or contact with other human beings.
My point about princesses and unicorns was not to argue that her painting skills are the same as everybody else, it was to point out that if she were painting this well, but painting something other than Jesus, no one would be insisting that something supernatural is involved.
I wan't trying to prove anything, just curious about what others thought of this girl. The physical realm is discerned by the physics and the Spirit realm is discerned by Faith. There is no axiomatic way to prove the existence of Spirituality, but God often intervenes in our lives and makes himself readily known without the need for detailed explanations.
Carbon dating was done on repaired portions of the Shroud on the edges of the cloth. The three repaired parts of the Shroud do date back to the middle ages. If the scientists do samples on three pieces of the interior herringbone pattern of the Shroud, it will show a date consistent with the first century AD. The Shroud contained pollen spores that are only found in the Jerusalem area. It's almost impossible to 100% prove this was the Shroud of Jesus, but another carbon dating test will show first century AD for the interior.
I have heard that argument before (of course, that argument wasn't made until AFTER they didn't get the dates that they wanted). The actual an.alysts were consulted and they determined that there was no evidence for any repairs. And besides, why would the original experts choose samples from a compromised part of the shroud in the first place? This argument smells susp.iciously of post hoc special pleading to try to explain away undesired results. That's bad, bad science no matter who does it.
But let's as.sume for a moment that it had been repaired and that samples were accidentally taken from the repaired area. How do you know the other part would date to the first century AD? It could date to any previous time period, possibly even just a few days or weeks earlier than the repair. Yet you state with such certainty that it would date to the first century AD. It's so bizarre to me how people are susp.icious of actual information, but are so certain of absolute conjecture.
If people are so sure it has been repaired and the wrong part was dated, why not date the right part and prove it once and for all? I suspect it's because it's safer to simply as.sert that it's true than to risk being proved wrong again. As long as they don't test it again, they can always plead that it WOULD date to the desired age if they did.
I don't think there is any pollen that only occurs in Jerusalem. I have a Rose of Sharon growing in my own backyard today. Even in the Middle Ages, Jerusalem wouldn't have had a different pollen spectrum than surrounding countries.
I don't have anything against it being the shroud of Jesus. I suspect that Jesus was a historical person who existed, so I don't have any reason to want to disprove it. I am just a person who trusts evidence over wishful thinking, and am thinking about it from that perspective.
Carbon dating the Shroud is tricky. My recollection is that it caught on fire during the middle ages. The damage from the fire obviously would have polluted the material composition within the fabric. It does not surprise me that the sample patched dated back to the middle ages. I'm not questioning the veracity of these sample results, but there is a problem with the overall method in that the researchers did not sample from an a diverse number of regions on the cloth. I suspect that the clergy does not want them to sample the interior because it will inevitably cause more damage to the Shroud. It's hard to convince religious officials to do more testing on the Shroud because they already believe in it whole hog independent of science.
I think you're probably right that religious officials believe or disbelieve in the holiness of the shroud regardless of scientific evidence. That's the part that's sort of incomprehensible to me (I know, that's why they call it faith).
Fire should have no affect on radiocarbon dating. Most things that are dated have been burned (charcoal is perhaps the most frequently dated material). For most archaeological contexts, organic material is not preserved unless it has been burned.
It just seems to me that this is a pretty straightforward example of hypothesis testing. The hypothesis is that the shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus. Radiocarbon dating provides a way to test that hypothesis: if it is, then it should date to the time of Jesus. The test is carried out and clearly fails to support the hypothesis. That's fine and good, and the religious officials should be commended for their honest approach ...
... except they don't stop there. Those who are emotionally invested in the outcome of the test refuse to accept the results, and grasp around for reasons that it doesn't count. Why do the test in the first place if you are not open to accepting the results? If one wants to revise the hypothesis to say PARTS of the shroud are the burial cloth of Jesus (because of a repair), that's fine and the next step should be to test the revised hypothesis. Instead, people have just revised the hypothesis and then insisted that the new hypothesis is true, which throws the whole process down the drain.
I would be willing to bet a large sum that if the dates did come back as the time of Christ, none of the religious officials would be saying, "hey wait – those samples are from a repair." They would be saying "See! It's true!" That's confirmation bias. Folks motivated by religious beliefs have a bad habit of appealing to science when it supports what they already believe, but dismissing it when it doesn't. Part of doing science is being willing to accept the results whether or not they are the results you wanted. That's the whole point of doing science in the first place – it allows us to more objectively evaluate our ideas.
This is a story (see below) about a young prodigy girl that was able to convert her atheist parents to a belief in God.
Explain it to me....
I'm not sure what there is to be explained. A precocious young girl can paint and play piano well, and paints magical images of god the way other 12 year old girls might paint magical images of princesses and unicorns. When a child paints pictures of unicorns, would we assume it means that unicorns are magically communicating with her? (I can hear it now, "She's been having these unicorn visions since the age of four. Her mother is not even a princess and says unicorns were never discussed in the home!).
My son likes to draw pictures of medieval warriors, and I never talk about medieval warriors. Perhaps he is supernaturally channeling them, too.
Her mother may or may not have been an atheist (this part clearly appears hyped, perhaps to sell paintings?), but any child in the US gets plenty of exposure to religious propaganda whether or not god is discussed at home. Good painter though – good for her. Hopefully she will outgrow the delusions.
People of all beliefs tend to find touching anecdotes that bolster their "faith in god" or whathaveyou. Also, it seems you need to be reminded how proof works. Atheists are under no obligation to explain the naturalistic origins of some story in order to "keep" atheism. When you make a claim (this story means jeebus is real) you have the burden of proof to show the connection and how your reasoning is unflawed.
@ mandy mo
maaaa.. breaker one, breaker one.. check...
This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom with the idea that everyone has a right to think and express themselves as their conscience dictates. Please respect the viewpoints that others bring to the table.
I agree we should be more respectful when we post an opposing view. I think we can all post our opinions without name calling. I personally find it hard using common sense to rely on a book written by another man, but people are free to believe what they want. I have many friends that believe in God, even though I would say I don't. Some folks think Dodge is the only way and some think Ford. Everyone has a different reasoning process. It's like when we tell our kids that Santa's coming, except some people never grow up. Both tales are written in books. If a person wanted to build a religion around Santa they could. The arguments back and forth would actually sound the same. A person would say, "how can you possibly believe that Santa could deliver presents to every child in one night." The believer would say, "he no longer comes to your house because you don't believe". and so on.... That's how any of these things go. If someone thinks they saw a UFO who am I to say you didn't? Folks get too worked up trying to convert one another. As long as neither side is "preaching" who cares? Those that believe will be dead just like those that don't, the only real difference is where we think we'll end up while we are alive.
Let's make an extra effort to be kinder and more gentle in the comments that we post on here.
I find it incredible how stupid these people have to pretend to be in order to preserve their beliefs. Apparently Ida's God is hiding in alleged gaps between non human hominids and modern humans. He/she will NEVER ever allow that gap to be closed no matter what. He/she knows it, but still asks for evidence anyway. Doesn't get any more dishonest than that, one of the main reason i know their God doesn't exist. Nobody with any sort of direct connection with the alleged the creator of the universe could be that dishonest on purpose it would be impossible.
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.