My Take: Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you
The most compelling evidence for evolution comes from the study of genes.
April 10th, 2011
01:00 AM ET

My Take: Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you

Editor's Note: Karl W. Giberson, Ph.D., is vice president of The BioLogos Foundation and is the author or coauthor of seven books, including The Language of Science and Faith.

By Karl W. Giberson, Special to CNN

Jesus once famously said, “I am the Truth.”

Christianity at its best embodies this provocative idea and has long been committed to preserving, expanding and sharing truth. Most of the great universities of the world were founded by Christians committed to the truth—in all its forms—and to training new generations to carry it forward.

When science began in the 17th century, Christians eagerly applied the new knowledge to alleviate suffering and improve living conditions.

But when it comes to the truth of evolution, many Christians feel compelled to look the other way. They hold on to a particular interpretation of an ancient story in Genesis that they have fashioned into a modern account of origins - a story that began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews thousands of years ago.

This is the view on display in a $27 million dollar Creation Museum in Kentucky. It inspired the Institute for Creation Research, which purports to offer scientific support for creationism.

And it’s hardly a fringe view. A 2010 Gallup poll indicated that 4 in 10 Americans think that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx)

While Genesis contains wonderful insights into the relationship between God and the creation, it simply does not contain scientific ideas about the origin of the universe, the age of the earth or the development of life.

For more than two centuries, careful scientific research, much of it done by Christians, has demonstrated clearly that the earth is billions years old, not mere thousands, as many creationists argue. We now know that the human race began millions of years ago in Africa - not thousands of years ago in the Middle East, as the story in Genesis suggests.

And all life forms are related to each other though evolution. These are important truths that science has discovered through careful research. They are not “opinions” that can be set aside if you don’t like them.

Anyone who values truth must take these ideas seriously, for they have been established as true beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is much evidence for evolution. The most compelling comes from the study of genes, especially now that the Human Genome Project has been completed and the genomes of many other species being constantly mapped.

In particular, humans share an unfortunate “broken gene” with many other primates, including chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques. This gene, which works fine in most mammals, enables the production of Vitamin C. Species with broken versions of the gene can’t make Vitamin C and must get it from foods like oranges and lemons.

Thousands of hapless sailors died painful deaths scurvy during the age of exploration because their “Vitamin C” gene was broken.

How can different species have identical broken genes? The only reasonable explanation is that they inherited it from a common ancestor.

Not surprisingly, evolution since the time of Darwin has claimed that humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, and macaques evolved recently from a common ancestor. The new evidence from genetics corroborates this.

Such evidence proves common ancestry with a level of certainty comparable to the evidence that the earth goes around the sun.

This is but one of many, many evidences that support the truth of evolution - that make it a “sacred fact” that Christians must embrace in the name of truth. And they should embrace this truth with enthusiasm, for this is the world that God created.

Christians must come to welcome - rather than fear - the ideas of evolution. Truths about Nature are sacred, for they speak of our Creator. Such truths constitute “God’s second book” for Christians to read alongside the Bible.

In the 17th century, Galileo used the metaphor of the “two books” to help Christians of his generation understand the sacred truth that the earth moves about the sun. “The Bible,” he liked to say, “tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens ago.”

To understand how the heavens go we must read the book of Nature, not the Bible.

The Book of nature reveals the truth that God created the world through gradual processes over billions of years, rather than over the course of six days, as many creationists believe.

Evolution does not contradict the Bible unless you force an unreasonable interpretation on that ancient book.

To suppose, as the so-called young earth creationists do, that God dictated modern scientific ideas to ancient and uncomprehending scribes is to distort the biblical message beyond recognition. Modern science was not in the worldview of the biblical authors and it is not in the Bible.

Science is not a sinister enterprise aimed at destroying faith. It’s an honest exploration of the wonderful world that God created.

We are often asked to think about what Jesus would do, if he lived among us today. Who would Jesus vote for? What car would he drive?

To these questions we should add “What would Jesus believe about origins?”

And the answer? Jesus would believe evolution, of course. He cares for the Truth.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Karl W. Giberson.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Culture & Science • Culture wars • Opinion • Science

soundoff (3,562 Responses)
  1. Kelsey

    I am doing a term paper for college about how evolution is false, and although I've barely even begun researching, I can name several facts that disprove evolution. One, if humans evolved from primates, wouldn't there be no more chimpanzee and gorillas? Two, if man was evolving, wouldn't we be some kind of Iron Man by now? Three, there is absolutely NO evidence for a missing link. Four, the one-cell that life supposedly came from couldn't have just come out of no where. Scientists now know that cells are much more complicated than was once thought.
    Besides, evolution is not a science, but a faith or theory. No one but God was present when life was created. Thus, no human knows exactly how life began, except by what the Bible tells us.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:11 am |
    • FifthApe

      Kelsey said:

      "One, if humans evolved from primates, wouldn't there be no more chimpanzee and gorillas?"

      You are kidding right? This is parody right? Tell me that you are not this stupid..... please. And you are in college? This is scary indeed.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:15 am |
    • FifthApe

      Kelsey said:

      "Besides, evolution is not a science, but a faith or theory."

      I took Atomic Theory in university. Please educate your self on that term – Theory as its used in science. This is *grade* school level. And you are in college???????

      April 10, 2011 at 9:17 am |
    • JPC

      To give you some help with your paper... if the continued existence of primates (if indeed we are descended from them) bothers you, then what about this:

      IIf Americans are descended from Europeans, then why are there still Europeans?

      (Answer: the Europeans we are descended from are in fact dead. They have been so for hundreds of years. However, they had *other* offspring, who remained in Europe. Hence there are both Americans and Europeans alive today, people with common ancestry but who come from different branches of the family tree whose histories diverged at some point. Similarly, the primates from which humans descended are all long dead. But they had other descendants, descended along different branches whose histories diverged from ours at some point, who are alive and well today.)

      April 10, 2011 at 9:24 am |
    • Liesmith

      ...sigh. I hope this is satire, but on the off-chance that it isn't:

      1)"If humans evolved from primates, wouldn't there be no more chimpanzee and gorillas?"

      Humans evolved from apes in the same way that terriers evolved from golden retrievers: we didn't. Humans and apes have a common ancestor, and we are both still primates.

      2)"If man was evolving, wouldn't we be some kind of Iron Man by now?"

      No. Evolution by natural selection does not make you better by *your* standards, it makes you better suited to your environment. For instance, people from hot, sunny climates have increased melanin in their skin cells because those who had darker skin got sunburn and skin cancer less, and were more successful at surviving/reproducting because of it. When some of them moved to colder climates, the increased melanin became a liability, as it inhibits vitamin D synthesis, so those with lighter skin were more successful at survival/reproduction in those area.

      3)"Three, there is absolutely NO evidence for a missing link."
      Missing ling between what and what? Every single fossil is a transitional form. You yourself are a transitional form. Evolution is not a progression towards some defined end-point, but a constant process. As for specific human fossils, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

      4)"The one-cell that life supposedly came from couldn't have just come out of no where."
      Evolution does not describe the origin of life, only the process by which different species can arise. What you're describing is "abiogenesis". The theory has been tested, and seems promising...but it's difficult to replicate in a few decades in a lab something that took millions of years with the entire surface of the planet as its lab. Here's the details of the early experiment that successfully produced the first steps of life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

      I hope I just prevented you from failing your paper.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:37 am |
    • OnanismO

      Kelsey, how do you explain the existence of polydactyly (characterized by 12 fingers & 12 toes), and how a polydactyl father can produce a polydactyl child? What if somehow polydactyls were to become a majority of the human species? If the emergence of such a new trait can be observed in our lifetimes, then how many other CHANGES can be observed over a MUCH GREATER amount of time? And humans haven't KNOWN ENOUGH about our universe for LONG enough to CARE about our origins to be able to observe such larger changes. Maybe in millions of years, if the human species (or its offshoots) are still around and still care, they will bother enough to dig up "old" human fossils. What if they find a high concentration of polydactyl fossils? Do you think they will consider our species to all have had 12 fingers and toes?

      How do you explain the existence of Neanderthal fossils and how these Neanderthals seemed to just stop existing at some point in the fossil record (considered to be nearly 30,000 years ago, not merely 4,000-6,000 like your bible says), How did those fossils get there? They were not apes, but were also different enough from modern humans to be given a different scientific name. Evidence of Neanderthal DNA has been found in such currently living persons as Ozzy Osbourne, so what do you have to say about that chief?

      April 10, 2011 at 1:12 pm |
  2. Brian

    Of course Jesus believes in evolution. He and his dad created it! The original evolutionists!

    April 10, 2011 at 9:11 am |
  3. FifthApe

    Funny how the CreTards cry about evolution, and yet THIS is what they believe:

    Definition of Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:11 am |
    • Two Witnesses

      Next time you are looking at your "purebred" Shelty or Doberman or Pit Bull, ask them if they believe in "evolution".

      April 10, 2011 at 9:14 am |
  4. anotherone

    You cant say you believe in parts of the bible, but not other parts. You cant claim that the people of the old testament were too stupid to understand a concept that the earth was billions of years old. There are plenty of religions from old that speak of how old the earth may be. That being said, micro evolution is the only evolutionary theory that has been proven without reasonable doubt, Macro evolution, the idea that we came from a completely different species has not been proven. Watch "Expelled, no intelligence allowed". It points out many holes in the theory.

    On another note, everyone saying you cant say religion=ethics is wrong. If someone is an atheist, they have absolutely no moral ground to stand on. Christianity is the basis for moral judgement, particularly in America. Many religions, cults place little emphasis on morality. Some have believed in human sacrifice, and many other atrocities have been part of religions. Christianity has a history of misinterpretation, but there is no denying that its teachings include Not Killing, and loving thy neighbor. That being said, if you simply believe in "Darwinism" then survival of the fittest is the only grounds you have to stand on. As long as what you do helps YOU survive, and produce more offspring, then nothing is wrong. Anytime you claim murder is wrong, infidelity is wrong, to lie is wrong, you are borrowing morals and ethics from a source you don't even believe in.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:10 am |
    • Q

      Empathy is all that's required to provide a moral ground to stand on. If you believe "survival of the fittest" is all there is to evolution, then you should really take some time to educate yourself before posting nonsense...

      April 10, 2011 at 9:12 am |
    • anotherone

      Survival of the fittest is the basis of the evolutionary theory. You can throw in every aspect of the evolutionary theory and it is all based on the survival of the fittest. Genes mutate randomly, whichever products survive produce, and the cycle continues. How is that in any way contradicting any aspect of "origin of Species"?

      April 10, 2011 at 9:55 am |
    • anotherone

      Empathy is not a synonym for morals. Mobs are created through empathy. Your empathy is created from your morals, which in turn, come from your beliefs, or your borrowed ones. Chances are, no matter how strongly you deny it, your morals are based off of the ten commandments. If someone is a true atheist, they can not have morals outside of self preservation. From an evolutionary stand point selfless giving = extinction

      April 10, 2011 at 10:12 am |
    • aginghippy

      Again, you fail to understand the atheists about whom you presume to know so much. Long before anyone heard of Jesus, or before mankind invented gods, humans understood the concept of working toward mutual survival. What's good for the tribe is good for the individual. Empathy allows the atheist to put his or her self in the other person's shoes, and to "do unto others".
      Again you imply that the only reason a believer acts for the common good is because god tells them to. That suggests that believers are not very bright.

      April 10, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
  5. Two Witnesses

    We can accept evolution as a scientific fact, but why do we struggle with "Divine" DNA intervention? We as humans have been playing "God' for a few decades now manipulating the DNA of plants, animals, sometimes using forensic technologies, but other times using the simple order of un-natural selection to elevate a "better breed" as in cattle, horses and canines. I just don't understand why humans have such a hard time imagining an extraterresrial creature (otherwise known as "GOD") could have come down to earth and done the same for us. It's a no-brainer actually.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:09 am |
  6. derek

    evolution is false and had no scientific proof this man has no right to put words in jesuses mouth... i guess jesus will tell him the truth when he brings him to hell

    April 10, 2011 at 9:09 am |
  7. MH

    Sorry, mean't for this to be a comment and not a reply to Gogogopher.

    Here is another quandary everyone may consider. Recently it was discovered that protein was found in the marrow of a T-Rex femur. Red blood cells, matrix and other cells were identified. Previous theories said that protein/elastic tissue cannot survive that long. Certainly not 65-100 million years. If that is true, then maybe dinosaurs are not that old. Maybe they are 5000 years old and that Genesis is correct saying the earth is only 6000 years old. Need proof. Check out this link to an article on Science Daily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412140942.htm Who is right, who is wrong?

    There are plenty of animals in history that show no sign of being evolved from another previous species. Gabon monkey. Shoulder spins completely 360 degrees. No other monkey has ever been like that. If it evolved to avoid being eaten by predators, wouldn't the predators also evolve to overcome the evolution of the species its trying to eat???

    April 10, 2011 at 9:08 am |
    • Q

      While the report you cite does indicate that in very, very rare circ-umstances, some biomolecules can be preserved far longer than previously thought, this in no way supports anything resembling a young earth or a literal creation account. Read closer and you'll see that actual cells were not found...

      April 10, 2011 at 9:17 am |
  8. Armageddon

    is that So? Well... Increasingly, genuine science suggests a young earth, which supports the biblical creation story. Bear in mind that even the most advanced techniques cannot detect 14C in specimens older than 80,000 years. In 1997, the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth group (RATE) began an eight-year project researching data typically ignored or censored by evolutionists. One of their discoveries was significant levels of 14C found in various samples of both coal and diamonds collected worldwide. The finding indicates that the coal and diamonds could not be billions of years old, as evolutionists claim.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:07 am |
  9. Damian

    One of the remarkable transformations that human thought went through during the Renaissance was to start understanding when we actually knew something, rather than 'believing' in something. Asking whether a historical figure from pre-Scientific times would 'believe' in a modern explanation is largely irrelevant. It's like asking if Julius Caesar would believe in gravity or electricity or cell phones or iPads, more relevant to evolution, antibiotics. Of course, for millions of people it does matter what they think Jesus would believe. But it begs the question if they themselves 'believe' in gravity, or whether they accept the very direct benefit of our understanding of evolution - modern medicine. If you don't "believe" in evolution, then you also shouldn't "believe" in antibiotics or other forms of medicine more advanced than leeches.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:06 am |
  10. Scott

    Jesus would not and does not believe in evolutionary. In fact he upheld the creation account that in the beginning God created all species male and female and that they would reproduce after their own kind.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:05 am |
    • OnanismO

      If that's true, then where did all the OTHER PEOPLE come from when Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden? Adam and Eve are not these other people's parents, nor are Cain and Abel. Explain, please. Got any circular BS logic that can tidily wrap that up?

      April 10, 2011 at 9:28 am |
  11. Two Witnesses

    So we're different from monkeys because we have to drink orange juice to get Vitamin C? How then have we evolved from monkeys if the link is broken? EH? Sort of suggests divine intervention, don't it? "God formed man from the dust of the earth" is probably a simplified version of "The super intelligent alien we call "God" came down, took a monkey, monkeyed around with its DNA a little bit and created male humans, then he took the human, and monkeyed around with the DNA some more (from a rib), and made female humans. He didn't do it all in a human "day" either. More like a million human years. Thank you, next question?

    April 10, 2011 at 9:05 am |
    • give your head a shake

      We didn't evolve from monkeys, einstein. Humans and monkeys have a common ancestor.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:13 am |
    • Liesmith

      "Why wasn't the broken gene fixed?"
      Why would it be? Natural selection doesn't make you better, stronger, faster; it makes you more well-suited to your environment. Since our diet, and the diet of primates who share the broken gene, contains enough vitamin C for us, there's no benefit to fixing it.

      Imagine a primate born in the wild who, through random mutation, can produce his own vitamin C. He would be unaware of the difference, and would live and eat just as the other primates around him do. He would be no more or less successful than they.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:20 am |
  12. aginghippy

    Well, considering the concept of "Jesus the Messiah" was borrowed from other primitive belief systems, we may as well ask if the Easter Bunny believes in Santa Claus. The author is like a little boy trying to function in the adult world, but still dragging around a tattered security blanket. Let it go. It's ALL a myth.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:04 am |
    • OnanismO

      Or the author is beyond all the fairy tale crap he was raised on (like so many of us in the Western world are raised on) and he is merely trying to express evolution in terms that the people who are still brainwashed by Christianity might be able to relate to.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:25 am |
  13. songtraveler

    This article is ridiculous not be cause it's wrong about evolution's being a fact (evolution is a fact), but because of its silly premise, "Jesus would believe in evolution." The actual Jesus was a human being who was born in a pre-scientific world but had some humane insights about how we should get past the revenge/power ethic in favor of passive resistance to evil by means of loving rather than fighting each other.

    The article seems to posit that Jesus, if he were reborn as "himself" in the modern, scientific world, would "believe" in evolution. But this is a silly premise: Jesus could not be born again as "Jesus" because if he were born in modern times he'd grow up to be a different person because of the differences in culture between now and 2000 years ago. A human personality consists in large measure of the cultural assumptions prevelent during the time the person was growing up and learning from his parents. Would the author of this article expect his modern Jesus to speak Arameric?

    If one took the Christian point of view (which I don't share, obviously), then the premise of the article would be silly for a very different "reason": since Jesus was the "son of God," he would have been omniscient and would have known if he and his Dad, God, had created life on earth using evolution (which, by the way, from the scientific standpoint makes no sense because evolution is by its nature an unplanned process), or had just been tormenting man (excuse me–testing man's faith) with fake fossils burried in the earth and fake DNA in all living things.

    My mind boggles at the sort of mind that can write an article like this one: the guy's intelligent enough to realize that evolution's true but then writes a preposterous essay like this one.

    With friends like this guy, who needs enemies from the Creation Museum....

    April 10, 2011 at 9:03 am |
  14. Delhiman

    No one can re-create the big bang in the science lab or much of anything else that evolutionists believe. Therefore evolution is not a science. It is a religion just like Christianity is. The reason you evolutionists hate Christianity so much is that it goes against your religion. It provides an alternative to the god you worship – mother earth. You also hate Christianity because by following it, you all of a sudden become responsible for your sins. But the main reason you are so against Christianity is that you just repeat the same old things that have been said for a long time against the Bible, but you refuse to read it for yourselves to see what it says. I haven't seen one accurate quote from the Bible yet in all these comments that is said in its right context.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:02 am |
    • thatonedude

      The mental hospital called, they want you back.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:07 am |
    • FifthApe

      Tell the people at CERN that you can'g recreate the conditions of the big bang. Just how out of touch are you?

      April 10, 2011 at 9:09 am |
    • Liesmith

      So, you've seen correct quotes, but not the right context...


      April 10, 2011 at 9:15 am |
    • tstiles

      As a physicist and a Christian, I am really troubled by your comments. Science is about creating hypothesis, observing experiments and making conclusions. Cosmology and evolution have only one experiment to observe, but that does not mean they are any less "science". Religion is about faith and a person's relationship with gods. Evolution is not a religion anymore than hinduism is a science.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:16 am |
    • OnanismO

      Seriously, you worship this "god"? A "god" who kills a bunch of kids for merely teasing? Kids will be kids and "god" gets all bent out of shape over that? You've gotta be kidding!

      2 Kings 2:23-24
      23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:48 am |
  15. Caleb

    And please, There is not enough proof to even consider evolution true. It was created to be another option from creationism.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:01 am |
    • thatonedude

      Really? Evolution was theorized just to combat the idea of Creationism? That is beyond laughable and it would pain me just to call it elementary thinking because it's much less. Why must everything be a 'war' with zealots?

      April 10, 2011 at 9:10 am |
    • OnanismO

      Learn about how the indisputable fossil record shows us that some types of fossils can be found in one layer of rock (let's call it layer 1), and other types of fossils can be found in other layers of rock that can be PREDICTABLY found UNDER "layer 1", and still other fossils can be found in layer 3, etc, etc, What does this say to you? How did the layers of rock GET THERE? They had to have been formed X number of years ago. And there is no way layer 2 could have gotten under layer 1 except that layer 2 had to have happened BEFORE (WAY BEFORE) layer 1. GET IT?

      April 10, 2011 at 9:21 am |
  16. JP

    Not speaking to the accuracy of the article at all, but one key point in the articles relies on a big assumption.
    "How can different species have identical broken genes? The only reasonable explanation is that they inherited it from a common ancestor."

    Why would this be the only reasonable explanation? If you took the standpoint of a creationist, the only reasonable explanation would be the creation of two separate creatures with this one particular commonality.

    Statements such as these show why true science is not always a pursuit of the observable truth. Sometimes it is a leap to a conclusion based certain assumptions that we can only guess are true.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:01 am |
    • Q

      It's not simply commonality, but the unique mutations within and between the lineages of vit C synthesis deficient organisms. As I asked earlier, would you buy a car equipped standard with a broken headlight, but with a flashlight taped to the hood? Would you consider this to be an "intelligent design"?

      April 10, 2011 at 9:05 am |
    • FifthApe

      "Why would this be the only reasonable explanation? If you took the standpoint of a creationist, the only reasonable explanation would be the creation of two separate creatures with this one particular commonality."

      Yes the creator would add this 'broken' gene to just these closely related species. Now, had the broken gene been found in a frog, then it would be evidence against evolution.

      But thats not what we find. We evolved.... get over it.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:07 am |
    • give your head a shake

      The operative word here, is "reasonable".

      April 10, 2011 at 9:10 am |
    • OnanismO

      If some "god" created multiple organisms with a clearly BROKEN gene (NAW, they won't need Vitamin C ever!) then that just goes to PROVE that "god" WAS a dumb@$$! As Nietzsche put it, god was only an apprentice after all. What? Couldn't even make humans without myopia, much less without all kinds of other, much worse congenital defects. What a stupid "god"!

      April 10, 2011 at 9:16 am |
  17. Scott

    Evolution is totally built on a foundation of faith. Evidence of variation within a species where no new information in the genome is produced is extrapolated to prove the belief that, given enough time, said variation can produce new genetic information thus giving rise to totally new species. This is not science but rather assumptive conjecture. Likewise all the observation of similarities in the DNA is just that, observation of similarities, not proof of a common ancestor. Many a naive person suffers from blind faith in authority. Truth is sacred, not our opinions.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:01 am |
    • FifthApe


      I'll take an large order of fries with that. Surly you are joking. You have no clue do you?

      April 10, 2011 at 9:05 am |
    • Q

      @Scott – I guess you've never heard of gene, chromosome and (rarely) genome duplication? Plenty of material to work with to produce new "information"...

      April 10, 2011 at 9:07 am |
    • Niall

      If scientific evidence actually supported creationist thinking and the classic story of creation, and more so the resurrection, then that would be direct evidence of a Christian God making need for faith meaningless. Faith would become science. Faith in Christ is the heart of Christianity, so opposing evolution and any other scientific evidence that doesn't support bible stories is actually opposing the idea of faith without evidence, and is an inherently anti-Christian stance.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:16 am |
  18. Caleb

    Ok. The Bible clearly says God created in six days and rest on the sabbath. So if Christians don't believe this, therefore your saying God lied. Which means God is a liar. Which means God is a sinner. Which means he is not God. Do you see my point? If you want to believe in Jesus you must accept the whole Bible to be true.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:00 am |
    • Q

      When Jesus taught about the Good Samaritan, was there really an actual person he was specifically referencing? If parable, metaphor and allegory worked for Jesus, who are you to question what is and what isn't an appropriate teaching tool? However, I agree. One need only look at 1 Sam 15:3 and Exodus 20:13 to learn the OT deity was a liar...

      April 10, 2011 at 9:11 am |
    • OnanismO

      If you accept the WHOLE bible then you must also accept that "god" created EVIL too.

      (Isaiah 45:7, KJV) – "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things."

      (Amos 3:6) – "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be EVIL in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"

      SEE ANY CONFLICT WITH THAT? No of course not if you're brainwashed.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:11 am |
    • Slav

      Accepting the Bible as the Lord's truth is a stupid supposition. It was written by men. Period, end of story. Even if they did their best to comprehend what he was telling them and put down his words there is no way that they would get it 100% right. Not to mention it's been translated so many times into so many different languages you can almost guarantee that there are mistakes somewhere in the translation. Take the Bible for what it is; Histories and a GUIDELINE on how to live a good life. There's nothing wrong at all with trying to live a good and just life.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:30 am |
    • OnanismO

      Slav: If you have to concede so much about the Bible's reliability due to its having been translated through so many languages, and due to its having been made (written) BY man, FALLIBLE man, then why even use it as a guide? Religion is not required to teach ethics.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:57 am |
  19. musings

    Galileo put it best, probably writing to his daughter, a nun.

    April 10, 2011 at 9:00 am |
  20. pk1990

    "When science began in the 17th century, Christians eagerly applied the new knowledge to alleviate suffering and improve living conditions."

    Hmm that's weird, I'm pretty sure that when science began in the 17th century, Christian church prosecuted scientists for making scientific discoveries that opposed the Church's view.

    Galileo Galilei anyone?

    April 10, 2011 at 8:59 am |
    • JP

      It is important to understand that the most popular religion in the world is going to have lots of bad seeds in its history. The Catholic Church has even admitted to making the mistakes. No different than suggesting that people who drive cars are bad b/c of the large number of bad drivers on the road. With in any large population group, it would be easy to point to the bad examples or bad organizations (Catholic Church at certain times in history) as indication of the character of the whole group.

      With that said, every scientist wasn't prosecuted even back then, mostly just the ones dealing with heliocentric theories. The article is accurate that many Christian scientist in the 17th century worked to make life better in lots of other areas, one of the biggest being medicine. Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton were all men of faith who sought to develop a better understanding of God through science.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:08 am |
    • lha

      ummm, Galileo was a a Christian, Newton, kepler, Mendel, pascal, all Christians. Yes, new truth is hard to assimilate. No less so for Scientists (despite protestations to the contrary) than for the rest of us...We cherish status quo, not a Christian fault particularly, but a human one most struggle with.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:09 am |
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
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.