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. Leo

    Jesus would say..."Tell me something I don't already know"....and then he would say.."Wait for the iPhone 7, it's going to be a blast!!"

    April 10, 2011 at 8:00 am |
    • Gary

      So in your analogy who would Steve Jobs be?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:09 am |
    • Z.

      But the problem with this entire article is that it assumes that evolution has been proven true. Before anybody freaks out, I just want to point out some mistakes and unexplainables in Darwin's famous theory: 1. The finches that had distinguishable beaks. Scientists recently went back to that island and found that the diversity of finches was micro-evolution, not macro-evolution; that is, the diversity of the birds decreased, back to their original states, so Darwin can't claim that they were diversifying. 2. Apartheopteryx (I know i spelled this wrong :D) was also not the link between dinosaurs and birds; actual complete bird fossils have been found pre-dating it. 3. Lucy, the famous missing link, required a crucial ankle bone to prove she walked upright. But that bone was taken from a completely separate fossil site. 4. If evolution is supposed to be the gradual growth of the number of species and diversity, what happened during the Cambrian explosion? Thousands of species emerged suddenly. 5. Just for fun, how did the butterfly evolve? How did a creature evolve so that it could evolve during it's own lifespan?

      So to conclude, I just wanted to show that this is a completely off topic. The author of the article is not studying the data in depth enough.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:17 am |
    • Q

      @Z – Your post has too many flaws to address. Please refer to TalkOrigins.org to address your many, many misconceptions...

      April 10, 2011 at 8:27 am |
  2. RUSS-124

    Jesus would not believe in evolution because he was there when the world was CREATED. Digging past the propaganda, you'll find statements made by evolutionists such as George Wald, Professor Louis T. More, Professor D.M.S. Watson, Sir Arthur Keith and Sir Julian Huxley that prove that THEY DON'T BELIEVE IT EITHER!! "Spontaneous Generation" (evolution) was disproved by at least five scientists over 100 years ago. Mathematicians, applying probability analysis to evolution have disproved it on multiple "evolutionary step" levels. Evolutionists are a bunch of atheists who can't bring themselves to face the existence of God, something millions of Americans kids did in Sunday School before the age of ten. Any objective adult who reads a book containing the evidences in support of God, the Bible, and Christianity comes away a believer.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:57 am |
    • Grog

      Where do you buy your "smokes"? It must be good stuff, care to share some?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:16 am |
    • Chuck

      "Jesus" (not his real name, btw) was born in 32AD or so. And was not around even when some Creationists say the Earth was created. God was, sure, but not the Son, according to the Bible.

      Oh, and if starlight has been traveling for a million years, did God make those places first?

      Explain, and please, show your work.

      You have misunderstood Faith to be Willful Ignorance. Honor God and look at the Creation with the eye of Hubble. It is lovely.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:39 am |
    • Amused

      Jesus was a witness to the creation of the world??? In the context of the new testament, that is impossible! What verse says that!!! You are either delusional or illiterate! Do you realize that there are NO EYE-WITNESS accounts of ANYTHING ANYWHERE in the entires holy bible!

      April 11, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
  3. Grog

    What is Evolution? It is, in a nutshell, Natural Selection and Adaptation over a very long period of time. No one has a problem with either of those Biological foundations, but a majority of Americans don't believe in Evolution. Yet most Americans believe in Bibles that have been re-written by "later day Saints" or Prophets or British Pasters like Robert Preston. All questionable as to their veracity.
    Strange world we live in when the Catholic Church is on the side of science isn't it? Because they have acknowledged Evolution as being a scientific truth and that it does not have a conflict with a belief in God.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:57 am |
    • Chuck

      Correct. Just as believing the earth orbits the Sun does not invalidate Earth as a sacred place.

      If you Honor God, you will please stop telling Him how he made things. It's rude.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:34 am |
  4. IDAGO

    leonid7 good point!
    "your post illustrates how difficult it is to refute something you know nothing about with an ideology you don't understand."
    Truth never evolve with respect to time. So, science is just like a boy trying to find some beautiful treauries, which are hidden by GOD.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:56 am |
  5. rene

    This is yet another sneak attack from the devil vs the Truth of God. I can't recall if the author of this article, Dr. Karl Giberson claim the christian faith. But first he supports Jesus then immediately implies that the bible has fallacy. What's next? Since the bible contains error we must discard it? He went to say Jesus is an evolutionist! Is he aware his very accusation of Jesus can be judgement vs him. The bible specifically says God created every animal after their likeness AND let them reproduce ACCORDING to their likeness. If a dog is reproducing according to its likeness, How do I get a monkey out of that or vice versa? Lastly I took genetics, as the DNA (genes) mutates, it weakens. Therefore it's scientifically impossible to go from one cell organism to a much more complex organism such as an elephant or human being.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:55 am |
    • Chuck

      Early Christians (they were Jews for several hundred years, actually) knew the four books had different and obviously conflicting views of the same events. They never, ever, thought they were perfect. That is a modern belief. The Bible obviously does not completely agree with itself about very simple events in Jesus' life.

      Your belief that it has no inaccuracies is in error, and is in no way the Devil's work, unless the whole Bible is.

      God gave you eyes and a brain. Now use your heart and Soul to see the Creation for what is really is, glorious and always changing. Always Creating!

      April 10, 2011 at 8:32 am |
  6. Gary

    The key difference between evolution and creationism is how the change from species to species occurs. Evolution uses undirected random chance to cause change while creationism believes in directed change for a purpose. Micro evolution (change within a species by genetics) is a fact. Random mutation to create species has never been proven. The statement that the mechanism of primates to create Vitamin C is a proof of evolution is really biased and can have multiple explanations. And there in lies the key. When a choice of views are possible, the average person (scientist and religious alike) allow their bias to think they have made a conclusive statement. For instance- watches have gears, screws, shafts, etc. Cars have gears, screws, shafts. Some similar, some identical to each other. Can we conclude that watches and cars evolved? Or that the very nature of mechanics lend themselves to different applications? And that their failure mechanisms would be similar due to the nature of the "technology" used? Both science and religion can exist as long as each know the others limitations and can interact in a reasonable. I know people don't believe as I do. That's half the fun. Debate, reason, persuade but let's not demonize each other. When dogma and acrimony is present on either side, we demean both science and religion.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:55 am |
    • Chuck

      Evolution made man, man made car and watch.

      Both car and watch came from the brain of a species that thinks the way it does because of its evolution.

      So yes, looking at watches and cars you can say evolution made them and their similarities point to a common thread of ancestry. You can also find factories, plans, tools, etc for cars and watches. In evolution, those factories are in the genes themselves. And frankly, God doesn't go 'poof' and change your life, it is a series of events that does it, the same as evolution. It is a lovely wonderful thing, this world that we have been given to explore and describe.

      My guess is that the world will teach us more about the Creator than a 4000 year old book taken from the oral tradition of illiterate sheep herders. What else from that time do you still use? Medicine? Transportation? Language? Do you still stone your misbehaving sons to death? Do you still use slavery? (all in the old testament) What? If you keep Genesis, you have to keep Leviticus too.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:25 am |
    • Gary

      The whole point of the book is how much man will hurt himself when he ignores a higher level guidance. Medicine- people still die, transportation- methods today are not sustainable, slavery- the concept back then was not the way it was applied in later times. Jesus accepted the writings of the sheep herders, he rejected the way self serving people were applying it without heart and compassion. A knife can be a tool or weapon depending on the hands its in. We need to recognize that what we are doing, the way we are living is hurtful and not sustainable. Evolution, right or wrong, can only detract from the focal point of our generation- our moral and ethical compasses are broke and we better hope that there is someone smarter than us to help us get out of the mess we've made for us and our children.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:47 am |
  7. Yarah

    No, because He was the one who created the world. I know what God did in my life and what He can do in yours if you want Him to. Yarah

    April 10, 2011 at 7:55 am |
    • Chuck

      He may have created the world. But are you really going to tell Him how HE did it?

      Seems arrogant to decide how God does what He does based on the oral tradition of sheep herders 4000 years ago. If you want to know the Creator, study the Creation, not a book edited by men.

      btw: the Big Bang theory? first introduced by a catholic Bishop, and Evolution is officially acknowledged by the Catholic Church.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:14 am |
  8. MatterOfFact

    There are human bones found that are over a million years old. Time and time again it has been proven that mankind is older than 10,000 years. So this part of the old testament cannot/should not be taken literally.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:50 am |
    • Gary

      Really. Who says they are human? Who says they are over 1 million years old? What I have found in statements like that is ask "Where is the assumption?" Was the dating done with radiometric or carbon 14 dating? What is the resolution, what is the range? What are the assumptions? Is there a variety of opinions on the dates and are they just the authors opinion of which one is correct? My point is the human element is involved in every step of the way. Bias can rule in any arena where the "facts" are cloudy at best.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:06 am |
    • Q

      Regardless of your dismissal of dating, the simple chronological layering of the geologic strata within which the hominid lineage exists contradicts special creation of humans. Add to this more recent genomic analysis of Neanderthal DNA clearly indicating their "separate-ness" from modern H. sapiens. Add to this, all the other concordant evidence from all the other relevant scientific disciplines and your argument becomes one of incredulity founded in ignorance.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:24 am |
    • Gary

      If you noticed I asked questions. They were not unreasonable. You certainly won't help me to understand by insulting me or others who are of the opinion that I am. Simple chronological layering. Is that 100% accurate. Are there any assumptions? Has there been instances where it has proven inaccurate? I am not trying to be difficult. But I have worked with engineers and scientists. They are human. Self correcting does indeed take place in science. In 1905 there was one galaxy. In 1920 there was a steady state universe. Humility on both sides of this issue, to agree that we can disagree agreeably without demonizing the other is actually more telling about how "evolved" we are. I don't believe in 6 literal days, I do believe in the big bang. How about we cut each other some slack and just have civil discussion?

      April 10, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
  9. Ajit

    "Science began in the 17th century..." Huh!!!!

    April 10, 2011 at 7:49 am |
  10. Jim Christian

    It saddens me to read articles like this one. Giberson attempts to raise his opinions to the level of "undeniable truth." Science is based on observation and testing of one's theories. Evolution was a theory based on incomplete and faulty observation and theorizing. Each theory is based on the multilayered theories that preceed it... and "understood" through the lens of one's worldview. The big problem with evolution is that it has become so much of a religion.. a religion that purports to meld neatly with the Judeo-Christian worldview. However, the Christianity that could meld with evolution would be totally incompatable with the real thing.

    "Would Jesus believe in evolution?" What a ridiculous statement! Jesus is the Word of God; through Him were all things made. I suggest that would give Him a perspective way outside the hateful, hurtful and proud little world of evolutionists.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:48 am |
    • Chuck

      You do know, that his name wasn't even Jesus.

      What else is incorrect in the big book? You would think getting the name OF THE SON OF GOD correct would be, you know, important.

      Just like we are sure Jesus wanted a northern European tree decorated to celebrate his birth. And the men that put him to death (Romans) are now the gold-laden head of his church (The Roman Catholic Church). Isn't that like the FBI taking over David Koresh's flock?

      Methinks your Truths are lovely and Yesua bin Joseph was wise, but the modern religion is more a means of controlling people than freeing them.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:09 am |
  11. Lenny

    Science reveales much and the Bible shortens the explanation of creation because the message from GOD / Jesus is more important. Every one has the ability to reason for them selves. All should seek what GOD / Jesus wants us to do for him in our life. Thats were the truth of the Bible and the use of science can improve the world and each other.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:47 am |
  12. Hydra

    The reason religious people get so uptight about evolution is because the creation myth is one of the lynch-pins. It is meant to be infallible. If it is found to be flawed, then that puts the entire faith system into scrutiny. People don't want to think that their religion may actually be wrong. If you open one part of religion to questioning, then the whole thing becomes wide open to questioning, and would absolutely not survive rational debate, because religion is, by nature, irrational.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:45 am |
  13. atheistnomore

    To Q who said "I just can't get over how creationists believe all humans (the old, the sick, the young, etc) somehow managed to survive and not drown as all the aquatic dinosaurs (e.g. plesiosaurus, etc) wonderfully adapted for swimming perished first... "

    No ill will toward you – I understand that you don't believe what the Bible tells us about creation and the flood (I didn't for 40+ years) but your reference to the biblical account of the flood here is inaccurate.

    Genesis 7:23 He wiped out every living thing that was on the surface of the ground, from mankind to livestock, to creatures that crawl, to the birds of the sky, and they were wiped off the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.

    As I said, once I didn't believe in the creation story either, but that was before I believed in Christ. The truth of Him opened my eyes to the other truths of God's word. And, no, Jesus would not believe in evolution.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:42 am |
    • what the

      were you homeschooled? Has anyone ever told you you sound bat$h!t crazy?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:05 am |
    • Q

      I'm afraid you didn't understand the context. Creationism declares that humans and dinosaurs (and all other organisms past and present) coexisted, however, the fossil record clearly shows ALL dinosaurs having died out long before the FIRST human fossil appears. Essentially, if all organisms co-existed as required by literal creationism, then the well-ordered, progressive fossil record is an impossibility as their burial and eventual fossilization would have resulted in a jumbled mess. Creationism has never even remotely provided a decent explanation for the order of the fossil record...

      April 10, 2011 at 8:20 am |
  14. Hydra

    I used to believe in creation, until I became a farmer. Lorisban, a common pesticide, used to work incredibly well on common farm pests. Around 1998, a few pest insects started to show signs of being resistant to it. By 2002, the stuff had become useless in southern Alabama. It *did* work and it did indeed kill off nearly every insect, but a few insects were hatched with a random mutation that caused them to shift one phosphorous atom in the Lorisban in place of an Oxygen atom, which turned the pesticide into an extremely nutritious starchy food for them. The ones who could eat the poison rather than keel over dead had a pretty good time and made lots of babies, which is why Lorisban is useless now. Sorry, but I have oberved evolution in action on my own farmland. No divine miracle made moths able to eat pesticide. It was simple evolution.

    Really, why hold onto an archaic and stubborn position that just makes your whole belief system look moronic? Things like http://creationmuseum.org/ make me fear for humanity's future.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:40 am |
    • Gimel

      Mutating is not evolution. Mutation is the destruction of a gene.or a part of a gene. A Loss of information. For true evolution to occur. A body would have to be able to make new genetic material. No bodies have a built in mechanism to manufacture genetic material. From Kind to Kind as the Bible states. You came from your Kind.

      April 10, 2011 at 12:14 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      Gimmel: w-t-f are you even talking about?
      Hydra: Nice example.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:16 pm |
  15. Alvinoid

    Dear religion (all flavors of belief in mythical beings that have power over everything), do as Peter Lorre said, "Don't go away mad, just go away." Seriously,though, GO AWAY!! We don't need you anymore, ever!

    April 10, 2011 at 7:39 am |
    • what the

      If all the religions were sitting around a table with me I'd say:

      F you, F you, F you, you're cool (looks at greek mythology), F you, F you ok I'm out

      April 10, 2011 at 8:02 am |
  16. johnny

    of course Jesus would believe in evolution...... from what we understand Jesus was the "freest" of men...... a real free thinker for his time.... unlike a whole lot of people who believe in him nowadays......

    Think for yourself..... you're much more intelligent than they've made you believe.......

    April 10, 2011 at 7:38 am |
  17. civiltruth

    I am not sure you could use the evidence that may indicate evolution happened as facts that evolution actually occurred. To me it sounds like some monkeys all of a sudden decided to be humans and some of them decided to stay monkeys? Doesn't make a lot of sense to really consider it to be fact.
    I understand that our dna is 98 or 99 percent compatible but I believe our dna is 94 percent compatible with dogs as well. At what point did we break from dogs? I don't know maybe I'm looking too far into it, but when they say that it's factual that means that you can prove it. Did they prove that humans came from apes, because if they did I'm pretty sure I would have read a headline by now that said scientist proved evolution from apes or something like that.
    My only argument is that if your going to say that something is fact that means you can prove it. Fact to me means 100% proof that a certain event took place. I'm not trying to discredit any side on this debate I'm just saying that if it's fact then show me the proof not just the evidence that may show that it happened. Otherwise it's still up for debate, deliberation, and criticism.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:38 am |
    • MatterOfFact

      Fact: very old bones have been found. Carbon dating works. So the timeline in the old testament is wrong.

      April 10, 2011 at 7:53 am |
    • kim

      Actually, you are stating a very common misconception. Evolution does NOT say people evolved from apes, rather that apes and humans had a common ancestor. Monkeys have evolved from that ancestor and humans have evolved from that ancestor. We are two different branches on the evolutionary tree, we just came from the same main branch. Monkeys did not "decide" to stay monkeys, like humans, they have evolved. It is a very important distinction and the cause of a lot of confusion.

      April 10, 2011 at 7:54 am |
    • Brian

      The reason you think it doesn't make sense is because you don't know enough about it. The reason monkeys still exist is because humans began from genetic mutations not because they willed it to happen. We are able to witness this fact even today. For example, the hairless cat called the sphinx is a semi recent mutation we have observed. The hairless cat continues to breed and exist, while the other breeds of cats still exist. Just an example...

      April 10, 2011 at 7:59 am |
    • what the

      I literally facepalmed and had to stop reading your post

      go finish your GED, then go take 2 college level biology courses – intro biology, and evolutionary ecology.

      then you could at least understand what evolution IS so next time you decide to go on a forum and type away, people who are educated on the subject could at least read your post and not want to stick pencils in their eyeballs to erase the horrendous misinterpretation of reality you have displayed.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:00 am |
    • Reason & Logic

      I would recommend that you enroll in an introductory Biology class as you seem to lack even a cursory understanding of biology or evolution with your statements. The evidence you are looking for can be found and is well established... if you look for it. It is not going to be in an article in USA Today or the New York Post. Remember, just because you do not understand something, does not mean that it cannot be understood.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:05 am |
    • dog lover


      Geneticists have traced the ancestry of the dog back to the period around 40-50 million years ago when modern carnivores emerged from two “superfamilies”, known as canoidea and feloidea.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:12 am |
    • civiltruth

      Well it seems that everyone on here is such an expert on biology and evolution. But the way you explain it is very simplistic and you expect everyone to understand you. By the way biology was not a requirement in my undergrad or graduate degrees. No one said hey you need to understand biology in order to form an opinion.

      April 10, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
    • civiltruth

      I also assume we have a common ancestor with dogs too since none of you biology majors seemed to dig into that. Where do neanderthals come into play, since they weren't considered human either? Look the way you explain things leads to a lot of questions instead of more answers.

      April 10, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
    • civiltruth

      You guys are too funny. It's like you have been waiting your entire lives for cnn to post subject matter that you are an expert on to finally sound off. For all of you suggesting that I read up on biology I won't because one, that's not my area of interest, and two you guys would have nothing to over exaggerate about.

      April 10, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
  18. ljheidel

    In 7th grade science class, I learned that, in scientific terms, "theory" has a very specific meaning in the scientific method. For a theory to become a "law," it has to be shown as absolutely not disprovable, a very high bar indeed. I'm guessing that the people who don't understand this were so busy reading their bibles that they weren't paying attention in class? (No, more likely they were picking their noses and pulling little Susie's pony tail like the troglodytes that they were and apparently continue to be.)

    April 10, 2011 at 7:37 am |
  19. Jon O

    Uh... I think he'd have to. It's scientifically proven to occur in nature and since he, in theory, created nature... uh... he'd have to believe in it.

    What a dumb question. I'm tired of people acting like science is some kind of accident and isn't part of the plan.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:33 am |
    • Chuck

      Well said, mate.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:40 am |
  20. DrMabuse

    More delusory pondering.

    April 10, 2011 at 7:32 am |
    • Ken

      I always like it when evolutionist claim to be the brain while insisting they came from monkeys. They also use words like "could have" might be" "should be" as evidence of fact in their large minds.

      >>The only reasonable explanation is that they inherited it from a common ancestor.

      The only reasonable one that registers in his mind is not evidence of fact.

      April 10, 2011 at 7:57 am |
    • RC

      Science is God.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:01 am |
    • what the

      hahahahahah oh ken, kenny boy...child....no "evolutionist" (whatever that means, I accept gravitational theory too am I a gravitationist? germ theory – I'm a germist! cell theory – i'm a cellist....not the cello playing kind) believes men came from monkeys. That WOULD be silly. We believe that men and chimps SHARE a COMMON ANCESTOR. Those are two VERY different things. Since you fail to grasp that most basic concept, any further argument you attempt to make just falls apart since you don't even understand what evolutionary theory is claiming.

      The same goes for the fact that, in your response to a claim made by the author of this article regarding genetics, it's painfully obvious you don't know the most basic concepts of genetics. If I asked you for instance at which points during DNA replication you could achieve a sustained mutation, you would give me the same clueless look you probably have displayed in most academic settings for your whole life. You don't know the first thing about it so how the heck are you going to make an argument against something you don't even understand...

      April 10, 2011 at 8:11 am |
    • LetsThink123

      @what the
      Nice response! Unfortunately I think Ken is confused even more, and in order to justify himself he will go and re-read genesis (cognitive dissonance) instead of actually picking up a book on evolution.

      April 12, 2011 at 12:24 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
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.