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. Mark

    Here is what I think of this article:-

    1) Not all Christians believe in 7 literal creating days... (As a day for God is like a thousand years), and at times a day could represent a year. So, in retrospect, a “day” could mean a million years or even 100 million years.

    2) How did God create things? By saying: "Let there be"... Note, he did not say, "Let things come into existence at this instant"... So things could gradually come to be, or take a few thousand or even millions of years to be...

    3) Only Man was created (according to Genesis)... Maybe through a similar process of evolution (or even a more refined one), but long after the domestic animals, and flying creatures... Hence the "sixth day" which surely is greater than 10,000 years ago... as I mentioned, could be up to 100 million (we just don’t know)

    4) Though from the rivers in Genesis, we are sure the Garden of Eden was in the Middle East (Fact)... However, Man was placed there, not made there...So, We are not sure of how long it took man to get there...So this does not disprove Evolution’s account of man coming from the flat lands of Tanzania. It could be that the at this point, Man found it necessary to start writing or talking about their history…

    April 10, 2011 at 8:16 am |
  2. prophet

    What do you mean believed, Yeshua Mashiah and Our Elohim is Evolution. Elohim Invented Evolution.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:16 am |
  3. Davo

    Anyone wanting to really grasp the core of this conversation need look no further than "The God Delusion", by Richard Dawkins. I challenge anyone to read the contents, and then come up with a logical, objective, plausible explanation for creationism. It simply isn't there. Though speaking of religious beliefs is still extremely touchy, those beliefs, like any other should be the subject of honest open debate, and be thoroughly examined as much as any other subject.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:16 am |
  4. james

    I am a christian and I believe the earth is billions of years old. God doesn't give an explanation for existance on earth prior to the garden of Eden. He is concerned with his spritual creation, Abam, not a knucle dragging soulless animal. Had he wanted to fill in the blanks, he would have. Real life with a soul, began just as he said. Spiritless cave dwellers play no part in mordern man's evolution. The great flood took care of that. Science and creation can work together if both sides take off their blinders and work toward the truth that mordern man's dna is not shared with the creatures of old. The ape man's evolution stopped on the first day of the Lord, otherwise we would be living with the results. Both sides are correct. Evolution is an ongoing process starting from God's man, up to now. Evenually that will become fact. Both sides win.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:16 am |
  5. bluemax77

    No other credible news organization in any other modern, civilized country would even consider posing such a dumb-ass question, let alone have an audience to read it...

    April 10, 2011 at 8:15 am |
  6. Sriram

    I don't know about Jesus.....but in Hinduism there is an uncanny indication of evolution in the Puranas. God is believed to have incarnated 10 times (Dasavatar) in various forms. They are Fish(Matsya), Tortoise (Korma), Mammal (Varaha), Half man -half beast (Narasimha), Pygmy (Vamana), Ferocious man (Parasurama), Righteous man (Rama), Super man (Krishna).....in that order. Cool isn't it?!

    April 10, 2011 at 8:14 am |
    • Dennis

      What? It skips over 2 billion years when algae ruled the earth?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:17 am |
  7. vbscript2

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

    Or that they were created by a common Creator...

    Would Jesus believe in Macroevolution? Well, no, considering He assisted in the creation of earth and its lifeforms and was, therefore, quite aware of how they came about without having to postulate outrageously improbable ways it could have happened.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:13 am |
    • Dennis

      Ta da! Magic

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

      Right on! And speaking about postulating outrageous ideas, what about that crazy story regarding an ancient Jewish guy who was born from a virgin, healed people on touch, walked on water, and was raised from the dead! You people are so silly.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:53 am |
    • Q

      This is the second time in this thread I've come across folks suggesting their "intelligent creator" intentionally inserted broken genes. The credulity required of this is mind-numbing. Would you buy a car from a manufacturer equipped standard with a broken left headlight, but came with a flashlight taped to the hood? Would you call that "intelligent design"?

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

      If you read the account, the broken genes were inserted by humans. Humans were never meant to be sick and die. When man chose to disconnect himself from his creator, he broke himself. In the scriptures it's called sin. And according to the scriptures that is what is genetically handed down to each of us. I don't expect you to accept it but please if you want to transmit the concept from the scriptures please represent the concept. While I do not believe in evolution, I try to quote evolutionists' theory properly and then use that as the basis of the discussion. What I find is both sides are ignorant of the others data and reasoning. Contempt is not going to bring people together.

      April 10, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
    • LetsThink123

      I find it hard to believe that u are quoting the adam and eve story. It is a myth! Just another creation myth, why do u believe this without any rational questions?
      1. FACT: If a brother and sister have a child together, there is a high probability of that child suffering from retardation.
      Based on this fact, why isn't most of the world suffering from retardation if we all came from Adam and Eve?
      2. FACT: The first early humans were walking this earth 200k-500k years ago, and came out of AFRICA.
      Based on this fact, how does the Adam and Eve story hold up to such a vast error in timescale? God created the world in 7 days, and even if you say that 1 day = 1000 years, the number is still way off!
      3. FACT: The stars we see in the night sky are just other suns (some larger than our sun, some smaller). They were also formed BEFORE our sun.
      Genesis 1:3 says: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. <– This means that the sun was created.
      Genesis 1:16 says: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
      Why did God make the stars AFTER our sun?? It contradicts FACT.
      4. FACT: Land animals were present BEFORE animals who could aviate.
      Genesis 1:20 says: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
      Genesis 1:21 says: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
      Why did got do the reverse??

      So no, there was NO original sin. And that is not the reason for the broken gene. Delusion can seriously take you places.

      April 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  8. Bill

    There was no scientific understanding of the world when Jesus walked the earth. Things happened due to the actions of God. In other religions, that do not have God as a central concept, things happened because of spirits . Also. people lived in villages and towns cut off from one another. Information was spread by rumours and here say. There was no understanding of microbiology, electricity, chemistry etc. God (or the Devil) made people sick, caused locust to swarm over crops, and caused and volcanoes

    The question is – How accepting would Jesus be of all the scientific explanation that now guide our lives? Religious leaders today be it Christian, Muslim, Judaism still see God as the creator of everything while at the same time living with the products of scientific discoveries. They will continue to believe that God was the creator. The reason is that once you accept evolution as an explanation for human existence then ones belief in God fades. The 'big man theory' replaces God.

    No matter what science discovers about our human origins, religions people will not accept it, they cant. A religious person who believes that God created the earth and then man would have to believe that God created the big bang and evolution but that goes against 2,000 years of Christian belief. Once everything has a scientific explanation, there is no need for God.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:12 am |
  9. dude

    DNA issssss the language of God!

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

      and all the errors...the birth defects, the miscarriages, the crippling genetic diseases....All part of the magic...If only there was a simpler answer...hmmm

      April 10, 2011 at 8:15 am |
  10. Ray

    Matthew 19:4: " In reply he (Jesus) said:"Did you not read that he who created them from the begining made them male and female?"

    April 10, 2011 at 8:10 am |
  11. Mike

    This "report" states that DNA shows evidence we came from monkeys. That same DNA evidence could just point to a common creator. We've never seen or have true evidence of one species evolving into another which is key to the evolutionary theory. Evolutionist need a billions of year old earth for enough time for this make believe transformation to occur. Read the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". Its an interesting read. Also "Darwin's Black Box". That one is written by a microbiogist (not Christrain) and he shows scientific reasons why evolution doesn't look like a promising theory.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:10 am |
    • Giovanni

      I have read "Darwins Black box", nothing he says would disprove a theory. Plus many things were simply not true or construed to be more than they were worth.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:32 am |
    • Q

      Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. The molecular mechanisms underpinning evolution are rather well defined and do not require billions of years to produce speciation nor diversification beyond this level. One notable example are the lizards of Pod Mrcaru. Behe claims offered in "Darwin's Black Box" have been well-refuted, most notably when the ID/creationists lost the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial in 2005.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:36 am |
    • holyguac

      Yes, and then there are water lilies, which change their environment to make hospitable living conditions for themselves wherever they are planted. Darwin was, after all, first and foremost a botanist. Darwin was hospitalized with a mental breakdown over that one humble plant, because they do not fit into his theory of evolution. His solution to the enigma of the water lily was to ignore and dismiss them from his theory of evolution, because he had no answer to why they do not change to adapt to an environment. He suffered from "nervousness" for the rest of his life after that. I guess there's a reason his theory remains a theory, and not a fact.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:53 am |
  12. prophet

    If you are refering to Our Saviour then His name is not jesus, it never was, this is the deception of the christisans who are antisemitic, not all but those who want this religion thing for theier own idealogy.

    Our Saviours Name is Yeshua Masiah and this has always been HIs name and His Name means Salvation but not only menas it but does it as well.

    The greeks invented the name isous which has no meaning as does jesus.

    To translate accurately into Greek then salvation is soter so they have not only mistranslated but misled the innocent.

    Hebrew Words arn't just Words but have meaning and Power in them, this is why some people pray but seem to think that their prayers are not heard but Truly they are praying to a name that isn't really. Try Praying To His REal Name and then you will have answers.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:10 am |
  13. Khadijah

    It is laughable that people would fight over evolution. Like I mean, did Jesus himself set down for coffee with anyone and say, "Yep, evolution is the deal, dude"? I just sit by enjoying my morning coffee while those who are arrogant enough to think they have all the answers duke it out. Careful boys, don't knock my table over while you act like pre-adolescent children. 🙂

    April 10, 2011 at 8:09 am |
    • holyguac

      It is funny that people are so intent on believing that their "truth" is the only possible truth, and any deviation from it is so wrong. And hey, let's hate each other over our disagreement on what is or is not sacred, perhaps to the point of killing each other. If there is a supreme being, it's ridiculous to think hatred, misery, and contention among us was the goal. I say "If" not because I don't believe, but because there are those who do not.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:45 am |
  14. Brook

    Why would God not create the perfect conditions for us to evolve?

    April 10, 2011 at 8:09 am |
    • Dennis

      Every description of god is an excuse for his absence.

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

      Life probably has evolved elsewhere in the universe, in different conditions.
      They probably thank their imaginary friends the same thing.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:20 am |
    • johann1965

      We are here, therefore God's conditions are perfect.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:41 am |
  15. prophet

    If you are refering to Our Saviour then His name is not jesus, it never was, this is the deception of the christisans who are antisemitic.

    Our Saviours Name is Yeshua Masiah and this has alway sbeen HIs name and His Name means Salvation but only menas it but does it as well.

    The greeks invented the name isous which has no menaing as does jesus.

    To translate accurately into Greek then salvation is soter so they have not onlt mistranslated but misled the innocent.

    Hebrew Words arn't just Words but have meaning and Power in them, this is why some people pray but seem to think that their prayers are not heard but Truly they are praying to a name that isn't really. Try Praying To His REal Name and then you will have answers.

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

      Um Dude, why would I use another language to refer to a guy we call Jesus in english, and "heyzuse" in espanole, and Isa PBUH in Arabic, and so on and so on. Lighten up eh?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:17 am |
  16. Oscar

    Short answer: wrong. Evolution has one gigantic hole as a theory. It is called The Cambrian Explosion, and evolutionists avoid tackling it like the plague. They don't talk about it, they don't discuss it, they don't even teach about it. Darwin himself was convinced that unless the huge gaps in his theory (which some debate he stole from Wallace) like the Cambrian Explosion could be explained, evolution would be disproved (Origin of the Species, Chapter VI). 150+ years after publicizing The Origin of the Species, no one has been able to explain the Cambrian Explosion. In fact, no one has even come close. It is shocking that people that call themselves scientists choose to believe in evolution, considering that they have been ignoring the elephant in the room for so long. Memo to Dr. Giberson: science is the search for truth, not the blind belief in things that make no sense. Leave that to us Jesus Freaks.

    But to answer your article premise, Mark 13:19 states clearly that Jesus truly was a Creationist ("For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION WHICH GOD CREATED until this time, nor ever shall be" [NKJV, emphasis added by me]). So if Jesus is the truth, and he believes in Creation, according to your own line of thinking He just shattered the Theory of Evolution.

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

      You are simply delusional.
      There is no reasoning with someone who believes such nonsense. Especially if they refuse to see obvious evidence because of "faith", which itself is unscientific.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:18 am |
    • Godisamyth

      Oscar...come on now. Scientists avoid this topic? It's never covered? These are simply untrue statements.

      The truth of the matter is, we don't really know why such rapid development occurred during that 80 MILLION YEAR TIME FRAME. Yet, it did. Specialized organisms showed up and increasingly complex adaptations were made in such a short time, never really seen before.

      But does that mean we should stop looking? Our ignorance on this subject does not mean we should simply turn away and fill that void with god. Do we know why this "explosion" happened? Not really, no. Should we point to it and say, "Then god must have done it?". No, that would be a travesty to the human intelligence. If that were the thinking, we would still be under the impression that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us. We would still think that impairment of the mental faculties was demonic possession.

      I hope that this scientific inquiry, which is admittedly mind boggling, is not your "AHA!" moment. If it is, please do not vote in the upcoming elections and please refrain from breeding.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:29 am |
    • Q

      The Cambrian Explosion took tens of millions of years. There is significant research available to you were you actually inclined to read it. It is most certainly not an issue for evolution but is invariably a talking point for creationists who know little of what they're speaking of...

      April 10, 2011 at 8:31 am |
    • Prof

      wrong, wrong, wrong...as someone who teaches evolution, I can assure you that the Cambrian Explosion is taught, including presenting evidence suggesting that the 'explosion' was a consequence of an incomplete fossil record, and is covered in every legitimate text book on the subject.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:33 am |
    • Belfrey

      You're incorrect, Oscar – the Cambrian Explosion is indeed taught, talked about, and actively researched in evolutionary biology. There are different competing plausible explanations for the evidence, all of which are consistent with evolutionary theory.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:36 am |
    • Tyler

      Actually we covered the Cambrian Explosion in a freshman biology class, and mechanisms for it. So the whole idea that scientists avoid it is just wrong. I'm not a mean person, but I can't be kind to your kind of people; moreover, you people make me sick. Do you have a college degree in biology, or any science for that matter? There are unexplained phenomenon in gravity we don't understand yet, so I guess you're are going to propose gravity doesn't exist either, right? This whole comment page is filled with ignorance, and for this to happen in what is supposed to be the most advanced country in the world is colossal, shameful failure.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:44 am |
    • johann1965

      These kinds of posts really don't rate any kind of response. They are the product of a delusional mind (when they are not trolls), so twisted by their need to create separation between them and "unbelievers"...they live in another reality altogether. May I suggest a straight jacket and medication? Anything to get them from voting.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:51 am |
    • Oscar

      To all of you that claim the Cambrian Explosion is discussed, studied and took "tens of millions of years", you are incorrect. I am a biologist by trade and throughout my college career, it was never mentioned. Not once. I got my degree in 1997 and studied and worked in college for several years with 14 Biology PhD's in various Universities under various grants. It was never mentioned in class or research and it still isn't. It wasn't until I studied under a professor who had reservations about evolution (and who was forced to retire because of such reservations) that I first heard about them. And If I hadn't researched it, I would still not know anything about it. And it did not took "tens of millions of years: The Cambrian Period took tens of millions of years. The Cambrian Explosion took an estimated 1.3 million years, time which makes evolution completely implausible given the diversity that appeared.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:21 am |
    • Godisamyth

      "And it didn't took"?

      Is it just me, or do these grammatical errors drive anyone else nuts? It is not even a misspelled word, it is a complete breakdown of the English language. Yet you claim to be a biologist? A college-educated one?

      Then I'm a theologian.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:52 am |
  17. Armageddon

    Evolution has no claim WHATSOEVER to being a science. it is time all these nonsense ceased. it is time to burry the corpse. it is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction sections of the libraries. If you do believe that there is no devil you'de be the last to let it know.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:04 am |
    • Giovanni

      When you say time to move the books to the fiction section, you do mean the bible, right?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:38 am |
  18. Farris

    All I know is that Christianity is fact, so as long as science supports it, then that science is true. Any science that contradicts it is false. Just because science proves something doesn't mean when God created the earth, he didn't compress billions of years with his powers into one day. it literally took 24 hours but only he could do it. and yeah evolution... no. people need to stop being so critical of religion. it is not an unreasonable interpretation to believe what i believe. this guy is trying hard to blend science into religion just so we believe in science and put religion secondary.

    leave here antichrist!

    April 10, 2011 at 8:03 am |
    • Itsmellslikefish

      Just because he puts science ahead of religion, I don't think you can
      really label him an Antichrist. That's a bit harsh. How about calling
      him Antichrist Jr. He's still an antichrist, but not like a bigtime Antichrist.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:12 am |
    • johann1965


      April 10, 2011 at 8:17 am |
    • fj226

      "All I know is that Christianity is fact, so as long as science supports it, then that science is true. Any science that contradicts it is false."

      Wow. Prime example of a close-minded religious hack who would rather delude themselves than be honest with the evidence. If you had been born in the 17th century I'm sure you would "know" that the earth revolving around the sun was false, since it contradicted the Christian interpretation of the Bible at the time . You sir are the type who do a great disservice to Christianity..is it any surprise atheism is on the rise? Mind filling us in on how you "know" Christianity "is fact"?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:21 am |
    • Darth Cheney

      It is the very definition of unreasonable to believe what you "know". Unreason. You don't even know what "know" means. Don't make the common fundamentalist error of conflating knowledge with faith.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:23 am |
    • johann1965

      Agreed.Although Farris is a troll, there are people on this forum who truly believe the same things.

      Their definition of Truth is one that denies their own eyes (and others), to perpetuate the power of ignorance, and empower them to hold accountable those who do not believe the same way they do. They have set themselves up as God.

      I am humbled by God's creations, and the rules (science) of the universe were laid in front of us to seek. We seek truth. What do creationists seek? The Moral high ground. They would step on the heads of unbelievers in order to ascend to Heaven.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:32 am |
  19. Chris

    The account of Genesis is all about a rough evolution. The seven day progression is designed to explain the ORDER in which things happened, and the use of "days" is symbolic of the general order. Mankind, as the symbolic "sixth day" was God's end result. The "seventh day" of rest only suggests that man represents the final end. God rested, not because he was tired, but because Man was his end result. It's a mythology passed down to explain Man's dominion over nature, his "naming" of nature's wonders, his importance as a caretaker and arbiter of nature's wonders, and his relationship to God as the "final" creation. God symbolically rested because there was nothing better to create. That's my take as a lit. major. . . and an atheist.

    April 10, 2011 at 8:02 am |
    • Belfrey

      Although I agree that you can interpret Genesis in valid ways other than literal "days" of creation, it still doesn't quite work if you take the order of creation as given. For example, plants are created a "day" before the sun, birds before land animals, etc.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:20 am |
  20. No Name

    I saw an interesting Nat. Geo. show on the scientific Adam. claimed to have traced the Y chromosome back to one man and his parents... He was just the smartest of the family, I have one question... If he was just the smartest of his family, and would have carried his fathers Chromosome. wouldn't his father or his father's father be the "scientific" Adam, Its to me just like the world sits on turtles, what is under the turtles, more turtles.... right.

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

      Wow, you didn't understand that program at all.

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

      That's a common misunderstanding of the "Y-chromosomal/mitrochondrial adam/eve" idea, and unfortunately depictions of that sort of research in the popular media are often misleading. Identifying a Y-chromosomal "Adam" doesn't mean that all people came from a single man, but rather that man represents the most recent common ancestor.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:15 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.