home
RSS
Rubio ignites debate with answer about creationism
November 19th, 2012
04:19 PM ET

Rubio ignites debate with answer about creationism

By Dan Merica and Eric Marrapodi, CNN

Washington (CNN) – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that have provoked the ire of liberal blogs, leaving the door open to creationism in responding to a recent question about the age of the Earth.

When GQ’s Michal Hainey asked Rubio, in an interview released Monday, “How old do you think the Earth is,” the rising Republican star described the debate about the planet’s age as “one of the great mysteries.”

“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told the interviewer. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”

“Whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras,” Rubio continued, “I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.”

Most scientists agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old. Christian Young Earth Creationists, on the other hand, argue that the weeklong account of God creating the Earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the Earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Left-leaning blogs and sites like ThinkProgress and Huffington Post jumped on Rubio’s comments, with the Zack Beauchamp from ThingProgress writing, “To suggest we can’t know how old the Earth is, then, is to deny the validity of these scientific methods altogether — a maneuver familiar to Rubio, who also denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”

Rubio is regarded as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016, though the senator says his visit last week to Iowa, home of the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, had “nothing to do with 2016.”

His response to GQ’s age of the Earth query has also provoked questions about his political aspirations. Dave Weigel of Slate writes, “How can you read that and not think ‘Iowa’? ” The state is the first to hold a presidential caucus in 2016.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents.

The Gallup poll has not specifically asked about views on the age of the Earth.

Rubio attends a Baptist church in southern Florida but also considers himself “a practicing Catholic.”

He was born Catholic, but his family converted to Mormonism when Rubio was 8 years old, according to Rubio’s recent memoir. The family left its LDS faith behind when it moved from Nevada back to Florida and Rubio was confirmed in the Catholic Church.

Catholic teaching is that science and faith are not at odds with one another and it is possible to believe what scientists say about the Earth’s age and in God. But many evangelical churches, including Baptist ones, promote a version of creationism.

When CNN reached out to Rubio’s Baptist church in Florida on Monday, a person answering the phone would not comment on its teachings about the Earth’s age and said that a church representative was unlikely to be available in the near term.

During the GQ interview, Rubio argued that “there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.”

For the past 30 years, the “equal-time argument” –- the idea that Creationism taught alongside evolution -– has been popular method for Creationists to advance their cause. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.

In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school classrooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Creationism • Politics

soundoff (6,211 Responses)
  1. Rabbi Baruch Plotkin

    Most Theologians understand that religious life serves a different function than scientific life. They should complement each other.

    The Laws of Bible (Torah) are:
    • Ideals (not facts)
    • Societal
    • Originally revealed
    • Treasured in sacred texts

    The Laws prescribe:
    • How humans (and Jews) should become and behave by free choice
    The Laws of Torah are Ideas
    They expect fulfillment
    They are Potential
    The Laws of Torah depend on their human Interpretation
    • They are explored and ruled by authority and majority.

    The Laws of Nature are:
    • Facts (not ideals)
    • Cosmical
    • Gradually discovered
    • Manifest in mundane reality

    The Laws dictate:
    • How all natural phenomena actually exist and function by pre-determination
    The laws of Nature are real
    They exist
    They are Existential
    The Laws of Nature ignore their human interpretation
    • They are formulated, and verified or rejected, by proof.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Dr Tom

      Thank you.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
  2. Colin

    "...but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians"

    No, it isn't. theologians have about as much value to add to determining the age of the Earth as they do to determining the age of the Universe. Zero. Ill educated, pontificating half-wits arguing over differing interpretations of Dark Ages superst.itions.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • frespech

      I'll bet most of them are more educated than you. For some reason non believers think they have the intellect and that everyone else graduated from middle school. Maybe you would be better suited to investigate just who are all these"morons" that actually believe in a God. You may learn something that you are otherwise unaware of.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • derp

      "I'll bet most of them are more educated than you'

      Any human who would posit that the earth is six to ten thousand years old is dumber than a goat's scrotum. I don't give a s hi t which seminary school they got their PhD from.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Frespech,

      Intelligent educated people can be wrong. If they believe in god on factual evidence I would like to see it. If they believe on bad evidence or no evidence (faith) they are wrong to believe it.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
  3. Dum Hycks

    Sitting here in Canada, I'm laughing my as$ off at you loonies.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Edwin

      Imagine living in it, a lot of people here still think Obama's a socialist muslim hell bent on instilling sharia law.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • AvdBergism source of filthyRainerBraendleinism©

      Absurdity of Canadian Creationism, pagan Bob & Dougism – NO DOGS!

      November 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Bryce

      Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years..."
      If it wasn't so scary, I'd be laughing right along with you.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • Another Canuck

      a lot of people here still think Obama's a socialist muslim hell bent on instilling sharia law

      That's the one that stands out the most. How can such a great nation be so riddled with such fools?

      November 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
  4. cedar rapids

    “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians'

    No Rubio, we dont ask theologians to determine the age of the planet, we ask scientists.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • centeredpiece

      They why ask scientists to opine about the existence of God, a debate to which science adds nothing. Just because humans understand HOW something took place, does not mean that we understand all about it. The best scientists of their day at one time believed that the earth was flat, that bleeding people cured illness, that spontaneous generation was a fact (after all, they saw it with their own eyes) and other such nonsense. Science knows what it knows, but it does not know what it does not know. A wise scientist understands this. After all, there was a time when we could not record brain waves; did they not exist then because we could not measure them? There was a time when we did not know about blood types; did these not exist because science had not discovered them yet? Fellow doctors ridiculed Lister's ideas of germ theory – since they "knew" that it was various humors that caused disease, not tiny living beings they could not observe with the naked eye. When science begins to believe it knows everything it degrades into scientism, an absolutist belief no different from the religious fundamentalism that its adherents decry. Funny how it's so easy to see the speck in another's eye while at the same time ignoring the plank in one's own eye. Hmm, sounds rather familiar. Guess some famous scientist must have said that. . . .

      November 20, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • derp

      I love it when the religiots use scientific advancement as an argument to believe Iron age myths.

      That's precious.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • JustRight

      centeredpiece – god is a belief, anyone can opine on belief.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      Who asks scientists to opine about the existence of god? This story is about Rubio making a comment on the age of the earth, not the existence of a deity.

      And what a strange argument you put forward as a rebuttal to my comment. Again I state... we dont use theologians to determine the age of the earth, we use scientists.....and until such time you can refute all the different methods used to determine age then that carries far more weight than what a 2000 year old book says.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • Pete

      Derp, I like it when they use science to tell us we shouldn't listen to science.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:36 am |
  5. pbernasc

    this is a great day, because discovering that the GOP and its most promising rising star are still drumming on the ignorance game play means that they will lose huge in the next mid-term elections.

    FANTASTIC .. it's a great day when you know the GOP is doomed

    November 20, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
  6. frespech

    In spite of what the techno guy in the wheel chair says- nothing comes from nothing. Life comes from life and the chicken came first.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Colin

      So where does you god come from?

      November 20, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Actually the egg came first. Dinosaurs laid eggs before there were chickens.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      actually the egg came first, laid by a proto-chicken, from which hatched the first 'chicken'

      November 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • frespech

      Everyone agrees life starts at when an egg an sperm meet. Video proof of this can be seen at saladandchips.com. The proof of life beginning, a soul created.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Then you agree with us! Your god can't exist, because he would have to have come from nothing! Thank you for coming over to our side!

      November 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      'The proof of life beginning, a soul created'

      i think you would be amazingly hard pressed to claim proof of a soul created.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • JustRight

      the techno guy in the wheelchair has never said anything came from nothing. Im willing to be youve never read any of his work. You should start there

      November 20, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • jakku

      Nothing exists.. everything is an illusion. Then there is no question of what came first. But then for the illusion to exist, something must exist. Hence the universe exists. This is getting confusing. I need a vacation on a illusory cruise ship.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • pbernasc

      actually u r really wrong .. because there is no nothing, there is energy, you just don't see it, but it's there .. and from energy anything is possible

      November 20, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • gladiatorgrl

      ever hear of the primordial soup?

      November 20, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • JFCanton

      The event horizon dwelt on by Hawking is -essentially- nothing... but then that is not an obstacle to belief for a lot of physicists because when something does come from nothing they admit that they have reached the limit of their understanding.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
  7. Court Roddey

    Oh Please I have dirty socks older than that fools sheep sheep sheep

    November 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • frespech

      Pbernasc: Actually the Bible speaks of God as an abundance of dynamic energy. I rest my case.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • derp

      "Actually the Bible speaks of God as an abundance of dynamic energy. I rest my case"

      Quote verse please. I am just dyeing too see how you manage to spin that out of the bible.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
  8. johnkilpatrick

    I'm a scientist, and a Christian. That having been said, there is a bit of irony in all of this - if indeed one accepts that God created the heavens and the earth, then prior to the finalization of that creation, there was no such thing as a "day" or an "hour". Further, to conjecture that a "day" in God's time is the same as a "day" in mankind's time is rather presumptuous. Hence, God may have taken 6 of HIS days to create the heavens and the earth, but those may have been billions of years of OUR time.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Colin

      Yes, big fella, you're a scientist, and I'm an astronaut.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      That's a copout. Why call it a day, then...

      ...unless...

      ...people just made the whole thing up.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • frespech

      I am an evolving Christian and what you say is true.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • Edwin

      Scientist or not, his response makes sense. If Rubio had taken this stance or given this answer, I doubt anything would have come of it.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      'Hence, God may have taken 6 of HIS days to create the heavens and the earth,'

      if god really is an all powerful god then why would it take 6 of his days? why wouldnt he just think of creation and it instantly be all done?

      November 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • DugB

      That's actually pretty similar to my belief...I understand all the science, but for me and my faith I've carved out a little space of mutual agreement. God is a pretty huge concept...a conceptual day for God would be a massive construct, perhaps occupying millions of what we call "years". In general, units of time are only such for humans because we've tied them to astronomical phenomena...but what if there were phenomena that we haven't yet discovered, that are so huge that we're not able to even notice the pattern...and that a unit of time we don't yet comprehend could be tied to that. These topics are things people just believe...like what feels right and wrong to someone, or how to be a good parent. If something doesn't feel right to you, no amount of preaching can make it seem right. Beliefs are personal and nobody should venture to try to change someone's mind. Rubio seems like he was just indicating his personal belief...what's wrong with that?

      November 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Yes, johnkilpatrick, let's revise Genesis' embarassing inaccuracy and cloud it in some speculation about "what they really meant". Here's another idea. Maybe God's "day" wasn't anything at all, because some guy actually made up the entire book of Genesis, and it turns out this guy actually wasn't sitting out there in the void witnessing it and jotting down everything as God created the universe.

      Is that a possibility? Just maybe?

      November 20, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • jakku

      Hmmmmm Good thinking John. But then how do we know what God's day is defined as. If you defined it as God's day is different from ours, isn't that presumptous in itself. Actually the very fact that we believe in God and understand and predict what he did, does and will do, is in itself presumptous and sparks of arrogance and states that we know all about God. A person who really respects God will not believe in his existance since being a lower form of life, we cannot understand or fathom the existence of a higher form of life like God. Does the ant even realize or understand humans or is it able to predict what humans can do or did? Got it?

      November 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • raforrester

      Sean, the word "day" could have been meant to mean "period of time." The days could not have been literal 24 hour days as we know them because the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day. I favor the interpretation that in the beginning, God didn't create physical light, but rather the "Light of Understanding" in humans who were still not much more than animals. In that interpretation, during creation each day is actually the era of a different religion with the "Light of Understanding" illuminating the earth and then fading, and then being renewed again with a later, deeper message. The process gradually brought the human race higher and higher in culture and civilization. That means that no religion is the "true" religion. Each one is just one step in the education of the human race.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Pete

      Exactly, you can take parts of the bible and make them mean just about anything you want, which in the end makes it pretty worthless.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:40 am |
  9. Fresco

    Rubio just committed political suicide with his ignorant support of the myth about creationism.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Dum Hycks

      I think you are over estimating the GOP base.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
  10. skywolfrf

    I agree. The "Let there be light" easily could reference the Big Bang, then out of the void etc is the galaxies and planets forming. When the Bible was written most people couldn't keep goats in a corral so you teach them with stories. By the time Jesus was around they had city states and he taught in parables. One doesn't have to choose science OR religion. But to ignore science, then go full out and give up your cell phones, flat screens, weather reports, GPS etc and crawl back to a cave and take your kids with you and pound dirt.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Dr Tom

      Don't mix you science and your religion. It just doesn't work. If you do then your science will be proved inaccurate by the religious zeolots or your religion will be proven to be nonsense by the atheist-scientists. Keep them separate. And only allow the science into government decisions and public schools in this country.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
  11. The Jackdaw

    Science is a system for understanding the universe. It has no agenda, although admittedly, sometimes those who use it do. Science is supposed to be empirical; its results repeatable, testable and predictable. When those using science to understand the universe sketch an outline of the history of everything, it is not a guess; it is based in empirical evidence. To dismiss it in favor of “God”, whatever he may look like to you, is to take the easy way out. To say, “God did it” is to tie off all the loose ends you do not understand with a magic wand. I think that in today’s day, with the information that is available to us, we owe it to ourselves to try a little harder than that.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
  12. frespech

    Why don't one of you brilliant scientists capture a liter of Nitrogen- A pot full of clay and a little water and grow me a living breathing organism- until then HOHUM.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Colin

      The only book that claims life can come from such a mixture, or dust, or clay, is the bible. Oh the irony is rich.....

      November 20, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      And yet, frespech, you apparently have no trouble imagining that there's this Yahweh fellow floating around out there, who presumably performed the exact same "impossible" feat that you're ho-humming about.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Rad forcer

      It has already been done idiot. Check out the full article on creating life at saladandchips.com. Dumbsh.it.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • JFCanton

      Amino acids have successfully been made many times. Getting them to combine in useful ways -and stay there- is the hard part.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
  13. Ezra

    Then you have Mitt Romney who believed the Universe started the day he was born.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • nancheska

      Ha! Good one!

      November 20, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
  14. SeanNJ

    Why do otherwise smart people say really stupid things out of fear of alienating stupid people? Stop coddling the weak-minded.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • gladiatorgrl

      Exactly – until people start to speak up AGAINST the weak minded we'll continue to have to put up with their delusion. Why is it someone can say to me I'm a sinner 'cause their talking snake says so and it's OK??? BUT when I say your talking snake is imaginary I'M being rude? That's what has to stop this placating these people who walk around trashing others on their imaginary beliefs.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • derp

      Because weak minded and stupid people vote for those who coddle to their ancient belief system.

      Fortunately for the rest of us, that group is shrinking.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
  15. gladiatorgrl

    and the dumbing down of America continues....

    want to REALLY be a FREE American – dump RELIGION!!

    November 20, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • jeannie

      Gladiatorgrl – I agree with you 100%

      November 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
  16. John

    Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe
    is a must read for those that find themselves on either side of this issue. One thought that Behe raises is that since Darwinism was first postulated before the discovery of the electron microscope it fails to describe the evolutionary processes necessary for complex systems like sight and blood coagulation to have evolved. He points out the largely sillent gaps in such discussions in the scientific writings. His point is well made. Like a mousetrap, if one would dispose of any one item, it functions no more to be a mouse trap. He argues that sight for example is irreducably complex making it unlikely to have ever evolved.
    We wrestle with great mysteries in these opposing world views. Either matter is eternal or God is eternal. Both are incomprehensible but one of them has to be true. Both take great faith to embrace but the question is which one will you?

    November 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Johns dad

      Scientific proof takes NO faith. Behe is full of sh.it and his "theory" is easily discredited.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Colin

      Oh Bullsh.it. Behe is a totally discredited scientist. An academic fraud. There is nothing irreducibly complex about the eye, as has been demonstrated numerous times. If you ewanty to read real science on the issue, try "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • jakku

      Darwin is not God who of course created everything (according to religionists like Rubio) and hence answers any question any human may have . Darwin was a scientist and like all scientists, he acknowledged that there are several things he does not know and isn't that the foundation of scientific research – humility and curiosity? During Darwin's time, we did not know a lot of things, for example, the physical elements of life and how traits are inherited literally. Now we know that it is the DNA and genes and chromosomal segregation and linking that causes selective inheritance of various traits in humans. this was after decades of research. But of course, if you are a religionist, you can just provide one answer that answers every single loophole (hence the lack of loopholes in religion) – God did it. SImple eh??

      November 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • JFCanton

      Eh... I imagine Dawkins made a *better* argument... but there are still some things to be ironed out where the mechanisms and the evidence interact. If individual structures like eyes and platelets build up to complexity over time, that's easily supportable. The jumpy nature of evolution on the timescale might be harder to resolve.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @JFCanton

      Evolution is not a prescriptive process. The rate of mutations not selected against by natural selection cannot be predicted, and there is also a heirarchy within genes, and depending on where the mutation is on that heirarchy, the phenotype change could be almost non-existent, or very different. Jumps in evolution aren't very hard to reconcile.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
  17. nagrom

    I wonder why his parents didn't remain Mormons when they moved to Florida? Or why he professes to be Catholic and yet attends a Baptist church?? Is there a trend here in the Republican party that they just cannot make up their mind who and what they want to be? Many are called but none are chosen.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Preparing him for the "blow in the wind" life of a politician. We're in Mormon country – go Mormons; we're in Baptist country – go Baptists.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • headlessthompsongunner

      He's just covering all the bases, hedging his bets to fit into whatever the GOP morphs into next time... As it stands now, he can tap into "Evangelical", "Mormon", "Catholic", "Creationism", and/or "Rational Science" whichever looks like an advantage in 2016. He totally going "bi".

      November 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
  18. jakku

    The GOP needs to accept science and start living in the 21st century if they wish to lead the most scientifically advanced nation in the world. I sometimes find it hard to believe that there are still people on this planet (especially college educated) who throw away all rational thinking and simply mouth some beliefs written in a book that is 2000 years old. The earth being 9000 years old absurd beyond all imagination.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • nancheska

      There are some who STILL believe the Earth's flat (and not just in the figurative sense)...."Thar be dragons on the Other Side!!"

      November 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
  19. onehappyguy

    Until liberals have evolved enough to look at the ultrasound of a pregnant woman and acknowledge that what they see is a life, I'm not sure they should be lecturing about science.

    November 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • nagrom

      Yeah! Can you tell me why babies are born in water? Could it be we evolved from the ocean? Scientifically speaking of course.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      We already know that it's life onehappyguy. But we are also able to step back and see that the woman carrying that child is life as well. There are two people to consider, which makes the abortion issue a bit more complicated than determining whether or not a fetus is alive.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      One has nothing to do with the other.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • jakku

      It is the definitino of life that is the problem. Religion sees it differently than what medical science believes. Medical science defines life as the ability to feel and respond to the environment around you and a foetus less than 6 months does not have that and hence is only an appendage. You got to believe science over religion. For example, if your mother has cancer, would you go to a doctor or would you see a faithhealer. If you answered "doctor" then you got to believe other facts in medical science as well since you acknowledge he has knows better about healing than the priest does.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      bizarre argument, truly bizarre

      November 20, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • JFCanton

      That's not a sufficiently strict way of arriving at the definition to be scientific or meaningful. Are eggs not alive, then? Are marsupials "alive" earlier in their life cycle than any other mammals? Are unborn children not alive at 7 weeks when they can be observed moving or 13 weeks when that movement can be felt? Not to mention the problems with bacteria, plants, sponges, etc.

      The real answer is that we have to balance between the conceived child's right to be permitted by the mother to exist and our assessment from the outside of the likelihood of that child being permitted by the mother to have a meaningful or productive life. The life DID pop into existence at conception, or possibly at implantation; those are the only two times when anything COULD rationally be deemed to suddenly emerge.

      November 20, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
  20. Ronald

    I grew up in the Baptist community and at a very young age I too, Like Christ, say that the Church was corrupt. Their may be some beings out there that we know as God or Christ, but, one thing is as clear to me now as light shinning from the sun! The Universe is Billions of years old, The Earth is Millions of years old and Science is the Truth! Sure we keep learning and finding bigger questions, but, Is there a God, isn't one of them! I do feel , emotionally,there is a kind of Karma, a natural order of things that should not be crossed! But to think one being created everything is foolish and those who push their faith on others are crossing the line! We are here for a short time in the much larger picture, learn!

    November 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • frespech

      When the end comes will those with no faith proclaim but God we couldn't prove you scientifically.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Mike

      Believing one being created everything is foolish, yet randomly appealing to some "karma" and a "natural order" is somehow reasonable to you? Your logic falls apart instantly, and with it, the privilege of calling anything or anyone foolish.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Your presumption that there will be a god waiting there to say "I told you so" at the end of the world, is just a slight bit more cruel than it is ridiculous. If he wants me to believe, he knows what to do. Either he doesn't care, or he doesn't exist. I'm leaning towards the latter.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Mike

      Enjay, there is a third option. Besides Him not caring or Him not existing, it's Him existing and you not caring. He has met His standard or proof, if it doesn't meet yours and you think that is a sufficient defense, I don't think you fully understand your position in the relationship. You may be bitter about Him being God and you not, and whether you believe or not is irrelevant to the inherent truth. It will be acknowledged one day, and it will be on His terms, not yours.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      No, no Mike you misunderstand. I already acknowledge that I don't care. But your assertion that he has "met his standard of proof" is an odd thing to say. A complete lack of evidence is hardly meeting a standard of proof.

      And I'm not bitter, as though I pining away because God is ignoring me. I don't believe in your god. How could I be expecing an entity that I don't believe in to do something? It's the very fact that nothing "godly" has ever occurred to prove its existence, that I don't believe in its existence.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Mike

      Enjay, I do understand what you are saying. While I do not fault you for your conclusion, nor do I celebrate my faith in God as some greatness within myself or a "smarter" conclusion than yours, I am saying that appealing to God (as I do) or appealing to a standard of proof (as you do) still requires faith. Proof does not CAUSE truth, it merely reveals it. Stating that proof does not exist for God is what you believe, and until the proof of God meets your standard, you will continue to not believe. Your standard is your personal god. A more accurate statement from you would be "enough proof of God's existence does not meet my standard....yet".

      Again, proving something does not make that something true, it simply satisfies the observer's standard, and reveals something that was true all along.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • Hunter

      Science is not truth. Science is simply man's way of thinking we have it all figured out, which you seem to have everything figured out, correct? I was born in a Christian home, went to public school most of my life but graduated from a Christian high school and currently attend a Christian University. To think everything came from nothing is foolish too. If you believe in the unicellular theory, you basically think we came from the same cell as cancer (that sounds wonderful, doesn't it?) is just as foolish. I have been taught both sides, evolution and creation, and I can tell you they can both sound crazy and they can both sound right. But one thing is for sure, this universe is too complicated, mysterious, and obscure to have just "happened". Don't blame everything on religion, blame things on intolerable people like you who seem to believe everything they read on some scientists' blog (and yes, there are Christian scientists, shocking, I know).

      November 20, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      As a matter of fact Mike I do often use the word "yet" when describing my lack of belief. My Facebook "What is your religion" status is: "I don't believe in God yet."

      It just puzzles me that anyone can believe, given the current lack of evidence to suggest this character exists. To me, "faith" is a code word for "I believe everything that the Bible and my preacher tells me." I simply don't believe either one.

      November 20, 2012 at 4:31 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
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.