Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age
January 10th, 2012
04:18 PM ET

Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

America’s Protestant pastors overwhelmingly reject the theory of evolution and are evenly split on whether the earth is 6,000 years old, according to a survey released Monday by the Southern Baptist Convention.

When asked if “God used evolution to create people," 73% of pastors disagreed - 64% said they strongly disagreed - compared to 12% who said they agree.

Asked whether the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, 46% agreed, compared to 43% who disagreed.

A movement called Young Earth creationism promotes the 6,000-year-old figure, arguing that it is rooted in the Bible. Scientists say the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

The Southern Baptist Convention survey, which queried 1,000 American Protestant pastors, also found that 74% believe the biblical Adam and Eve were literal people.

“Recently discussions have pointed to doubts about a literal Adam and Eve, the age of the earth and other origin issues," said Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, a division of the Southern Baptist Convention, in a report on LifeWay’s site. “But Protestant pastors are overwhelmingly Creationists and believe in a literal Adam and Eve.”

The phone survey was conducted in May 2011, sampling ministers from randomly selected Protestant churches. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent, LifeWay said.

A 2010 Gallup poll found that 40% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, versus 54% who said humans developed over millions of years.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Christianity • Science

« Previous entry
soundoff (6,504 Responses)
  1. Bumper

    Evolution, as society imagined from Darwin's work, is a false scientific theory. This was already proven by the recent Ardi discovery. However, more general theories relating to complex adaptation appear to be consistent with the Bible.

    January 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • TR6

      Typical raving Christian lunatic

      January 12, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • Bumper

      Dislike. I never stated any religious affiliation. I just state the truth. Speak the truth and it will set you free. My statement was actually based on science and not religion. Of course you wouldn't know that because you appear to be unintelligent.

      January 12, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Bumper, please supply the links to peer-reviewd scientific publications that the theory of evolution.


      January 12, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • BioHzrd

      I'd like the peer-reviewed publication that blew evolution out of the water too, since the rest of us scientists apparently didn't get the memo. As I see it the Ardi discovery doesn't disprove anything, another transitional species/species branch that falls in line with evolution. And the statement "However, more general theories relating to complex adaptation appear to be consistent with the Bible." flies in the face of science since how can you experimentally test how the hand of god molded beings and features like clay. Please don't say that your statements are based in science because they are not. They are more based on your ignorant view of science.

      January 12, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
  2. JDJ

    The most discouraging part of this article is that a significant number of the pastors did not believe in Creation.

    January 12, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • momoya

      You raise a good point, JDJ. If the bible is true and verifiable all pastors should be on the same page and preaching/teaching the same precepts. Because the bible cannot be used to verify one belief over another, just like belief in its words cannot produce a measurable affect, it should be left behind like other myths of the bronze age.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
  3. dugee

    BoldGeorge: If I were to come back from Starbucks with an empty cup and a receipt for coffee and proceeded to tell you that on the way back I beat up Mike Tyson and talked to Elvis, my evidence (cup and receipt) would not cover any other claims. That's how science works. We sweat the details over and over. You my friend are just too lazy to think. I am pretty sure a monkey would not want to be you.

    January 12, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      Dugee...I'll reply to the last past of your comment: I don't think a monkey thinks to want to be anything else but a monkey. And it will never "think" itself into another species.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
  4. smurfeater

    Religion is the why, evolution is the how. They are not mutually exclusive.

    January 12, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • wayne

      So evolution had to wait 3 billion years for a why? And a false one at that.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
  5. Antony

    10 out of 10 evolutionists reject pastors.

    January 12, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
  6. BoldGeorge

    Have you noticed something? If you have not, just do some thorough research on this: The bible and what it states in it can always be verifiable, whether its accuarcy in prophecies, historicity, geography, and its moral standard for living...always verifiable. Just last year I read an article about the archeological discovery of the ancient city of Philistine. Just a few days before this finding, the people of Philistine and perhaps even David were considered to be myth.

    You can't say the same for science, as scientific theories are forever changing. Text books are always rewritten, tests need to continuously be done to try to make a theory a fact, only to have this 'fact' change again and then need to be retested again. God's word can never be rewritten though some have tried. The bible stands the test of time. Do some research.

    January 12, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • momoya

      Bold George, your answers aren't even wrong. You're not even making enough sense to show that you have the ability to recognize a logical pattern. Don't worry about whether or not evolution is wrong or whether or not the bible is right, just go take some classes in logical reasoning.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • Primewonk

      "The bible and what it states in it can always be verifiable"

      Cool. Your bible says that the earth was created before any stars. Please provide the citations to peer-reviewed scientific reseach that verifies this.

      Your biblle says that vegetation existed on land on earth before our sun was created. Please provide the citations to ppeer-reviewed scientific reasearch that verifies this.

      We'll gey to the tuff ones after you answer these.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Get Real


      There is not a whit of verified evidence for any of the supernatural beings or events in the Bible. It is the chronicle of the history (enhanced by historical fiction), myths, legends and superst-itions of the culture of a primitive Middle Eastern group of people.

      The fact that there are some pearls of wisdom and some practical guidelines for beneficial human behavior which helped to civilize these primitives (wisdom and guidelines also found elsewhere in other cultures, btw), does not validate nor verify any sort of other-worldly existence.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      Momoya...logical reasoning is not how you or I can accept things in life, whether they are spiritual or natural. If evolotuion has it right, I have to accept that all this universe and its cpmplexity popped out of nowhere. Is that logical reasoning? By chance, randomness, purposelessness and chaos everything became orderly and organized and full of law (laws of nature). Let me give you a jist: The heart: its purpose is to supply blood flow through the body and into our vital organs. Without this purpose, there would be no life. How did this come to be by chance? Why did this responsibility lie in the heart and not the belly button? What I'm trying to say is that everything has its purpose and order. And it doesn't come from nothingness.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Primewonk

      " If evolotuion has it right, I have to accept that all this universe and its cpmplexity popped out of nowhere."

      This of course is a lie. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with cosmology.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      As for the historical proof of the bible, here is how that same logic plays out: The King Kong story is set in New York, I have just found out that there really is such a place as New York, therefore the King Kong story really happened and every word of the screenplay is true.

      January 12, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • EMP

      You know, the book "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer" is about Abraham Lincoln and it takes place in the United States. A quick check on Google...and, yep! Abraham Lincoln and the United States are both real. I guess everything in that book is the truth, too!

      January 12, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      EMP...you bring up a good point with Abraham Lincoln. How do you know he even eisted? Because you've read about him and the people who wrote about him were eyewitness accounts. Jesus Christ was written about before, during and after His life here on earth...and again, authors were eyewitness accounts (especially when He walked the earth). So how is it, that you believe in Old Abe and not Jesus Christ?

      You see, once again I prove that it all boils down to accountability. You can't be accountable to Abe Lincoln, but you will be accountable to God.

      January 12, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Chuckles


      You ran away! You didn't answer my reply and now we're discussing cyborgs. Oh well, in any case your point is stupid, We know that Abe Lincoln existed because not only are there a huge amount of verified things showing evidence he existed, not JUST eye witness accounts, but voting ballots, portraits, speeches. All independent and all without any motive to prove his existance. He was also a notable figure because he was head of a country.
      Jesus was an itinerant rabbi and carpenter who was unremarkable in anyway until his followers started making noise years later. Did he exist? There;s a solid chance a guy named Yeshua of Nazareth existed and roamed israel preaching messianic messages (it wouldn't be the first nor is it certainly the last) but to believe that the entire book is a blow by blow account of who jesus was, exactly what he said and the exact events transpired, written down centuries after his death by followers of his message and people with clear motive to shape a book to portray in a specific way is well... it's idiocy

      January 12, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      Chuckles....idiocy or not, you choose to believe what you waat to believe (or not). Your reasoning becomes a bit circular. You believe in Abe Lincoln not only because of eyewitness accounts, but because there's voting ballots, he ran a country, etc....and rightly so to believe he existed. I believe in Jesus Christ not only in that He walked the earth (or as a histrical figure), but that a whole Book of Books was entirely based on Him...from beginning to end. There were prophecies of His birth, death and resurrection written hundreds of years before He was born, and then there were eyewitness accounts of His resurrection and ascension...all written for us to read about. And then there are written prophecies of our times that we can clearly see them being fulfilled. Not to go too far, this very blog gives true fulfillment of the very prophecy of unbelief and unlove and rejection of the word of God. [Matthew 24:12 – Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.]

      January 12, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Chuckles


      I wanted to point out that it's not that I have the right or the belief to believe in Abe Lincoln, because of his status as historical figure and the fact that he needed to be elected by an entire nation should never have his existance questioned. It doesn't make sense to ever try to prove jesus's existance by questioning other historical figures existances because they do not equate.
      As for the veracity of the bible, what your saying is your belief and you are enti.tled to it insofar as it has no effect on my life. Why you believe it is concerning and a little sad because you've clearly been duped in my opinion, but hey go for it. If you really think that the prophecies in the OT relate to jesus (and ignore the ones that clearly point to jesus NOT being the messiah) as well as believing that the prophecies somehow relate to whats going on today except in the most va.gue liberal sense, so be it. Just know that fortune tellers to this day use the same exact techniques to convince you they know the future.

      January 12, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      Chuckles...I can't convice you to believe as I do, nor am I trying to. Something as deep as religion and spirituality is a matter of the heart, of the soul and of the mind. It wouldn't even make any sense to try to convince you because that would be like saying, "I have a mother and I love her...so you have to love her too."

      But one thing I can tell you is this, if you (or whosoever) sincerely wish to seek out God, He will undoubtly make His existence evident to you. And I don't mean He will appear to you in a nightly vision or dream or give you a revelation. He has already spoken and His speech can be found in the form of His word, the Bible. God's message to us is simply this:

      God gave man the Ten Commandments to reveal to us His holy standard of living. We cannot enter into His presence after we die if we don't fulfill all of His commandments and live up to His standards. Sounds difficult, if not, impossible, right? Well, I nor no other person will be able to. We are such a corrupt people (you at least have to admit that) and everyday we offend God with our own sinful way of living. If you can honestly admit to that, that is a start. You wanna know why? Because your heart will always be clouded. And it makes me sad to know that.

      James 4:6, we read: But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “ GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.”

      January 12, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      ...And since we cannot live according to God's holy standards, we cannot not even meet His first and most important commandment. This is when we need help, a Savior, a Redeemer. This is the very reason why Jesus had to come into the world to be punished in our stead. He died for us, but he also defeated death for us in His resurrection. This way we may know we have eternal life and a place in heaven. Without Him, we cannot do it on our own. That's why you'll hear many true Christians preach to put your trust only in Him, not in ourselves. Because we CANNOT.

      January 12, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • fred

      What makes you think a class in logic would help anyone on a matter of faith? Faith is what gives assurance of that which cannot be seen. How about this idea you and Colin go to church this Sunday and use what you have learned to explain the Hubble constant.

      January 12, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • WASP

      @boldgeorge: due some research. if you did some studying you would find at the sub-atomic level....meaning inside atoms particules act strangely. a particule of light "photon" shows signs of both wave form and particule like aspects at the sametime. next point, yes everything could have came from nothing due to the fact some particules tend to wink in and out of our existance.

      January 20, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
  7. Tom Wittmann

    Tom Wittmann

    You Evolution denyers call yourselves believers in GOD??? By denying that ha created a world where a marvelous instrument as evolution is contained?? By denying that He created Man and Woman, as well as anyting else, by evolution??

    People like you (evangelical, etc.) by their stupidity and lack of capability to undertand above, are responsible of the existence of atheits, which being stupid (but less than you) seeing the falacy of your position, are in turn incapable to see the glaring fact that anything cannot be created from nothing unless an eternal God exists,

    Meaning: it is against SCIENCE (LOGIC!!) not to bellieve in the existence of GOD, creator of the world and its laws, of which EVOLUTION is a part!!

    January 12, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • Russ

      Tom, do you even know what evolution is? And how it works? What mechanisms are involved? Hint: Pokemon is not Darwinian evolution.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
  8. FrankNStein

    The pious-ignorant pastors are correct. They say that HUMANS evolved from APES!!!!??????

    WHAT SLANDER! WHAT LIBEL! How DARE these vile pigs insult the Great Ape so undeservedly. If I was an ape, I would sue! Hey wait! I AM an ape............

    January 12, 2012 at 11:41 am |
  9. RightTurnClyde

    Man knows very little about how living things came to be including man. Pride makes man thing he knows things but actually we know very little (especially the egoists on this BLOG). So almost everything is merely a BELIEF. That being the case one BELIEF isn't any more defensible than another (which is why it is hard to understand the anger expressed here by non-believers)

    January 12, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • government spy

      What's frustrating is that people believe in an obviously man-made religion, and then use that to force others, believers and non-believers alike, to obey the rules of the made-up religion.

      And then, in places like this, you have believers of a supposed "God of Love," who professes above all things, to love each other, not to judge one another, and these same believers preach things like "IF YOUR NOT CHRISTIAN YOU GO TO..." you get the idea. The majority of atheists, or just people that call fraud on organized religion, are usually trying to show a little common sense, something that seems to be lacking in organized religion.

      I'm sure, like most people, you've been shown historical fact that Christianity was invented, pieced together from other faiths, including pagan religions, in order to keep people worshiping their old Gods in an acceptable format. You've probably been shown evidence upon evidence that Christianity is false. You know, I'm sure people once had faith that the Earth was flat, or that our planet was in the center of the universe, too.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • Russ

      Wrong. Faith has no proof. It's belief in the supernatural. Evolution is a scientific theory – by its very definition it is backed by proof; In fact; mountains of proof. Evolution has more proof backing it than the theory of gravity, cell theory, atomic theory, etc combined, yet you aren't getting bent out of shape about those scientific theories or attacking their foundations, are you? You only feel threatened because it makes your belief in creationism (using the Judeo/Christian myths) obsolete and unquestionably stupid if you decide to turn a blind eye and ignore the real facts.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • momoya

      Your "came to be" clause makes your statement ambiguous because you could be talking about abiogenesis, in which case you are correct. We don't know how life started although there's several plausible theories.

      Evolution is a word that describes a process, and that process is studied and verified and studied and verified and studied and verified. You don't have to have faith in evolution because its a process you can study and prove to yourself, just like you can prove to yourself that two plus two equals four.

      Creationism is a word that describes an event that cannot be proved nor disproved. The believer must accept that event on faith alone; there are no experiments that the believer can do to prove that creationism is not just an imaginary story.

      Evolution doesn't require any faith, just diligent study. Creation requires faith, and cannot be better defined by any amount of study. To the creationist: So are you too locked in to your faith to study evolution, or are you just to lazy?

      January 12, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
  10. hippypoet

    fred, i didn't agree with that, that was a twit pretending to be me.

    January 12, 2012 at 10:57 am |
  11. BoldGeorge

    There is not one shred of evidence for evolution. Evolutionary theory suggests that it is a process that takes millions and billions of years for things (living and non-living) to change/mutate to a superior state. Well, how convenient. No one can ever be a witness to that. Evolutionists (and by that I'm referring to scientists, not just your average joe schmoe who believes in evolution) can't come up with simple answers that back up their theories. For example, where do we get languages from? So, if animals are yet to evolve to humans, will a panda speak Mandarin and a tiger speak Bengali? Or a tucan bird will speak Spanish and a grizzly bear will speak a Native American dialect? Or even yet, a rattle snake will speak English with a twang. The Bible, (in Genesis) tells us how God confused and created languages for a perverse people who were disobeying Him.

    Just the other day someone tried to challenge me with an article about a new species of shark that was found off the coast of Australia. It read, "Evolution in action." What evolution? What action? If that shark would have shown signs of growing a hand, a finger or even feathers...that would've been something. But it is still a SHARK in all of its characteristics.

    To me, it's all about disobedience to our Creator and His commandments. It's about living a 'me' centered life rather than giving the glory to Him.

    January 12, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • Chuckles

      You poor person, it must be hard to go through life so clueless

      Now do you want to actually know what evolution theory actually is or do you just want to keep railing against something that actually doesn't exist and is not posited.

      Just as a taste, evolution theory neither states that species evolve to a superior point and stop, everything is constantly evolving forward.

      Oh and the shark evolution you are refering to, it's specifically showing adaptation to current rising global temperature.

      January 12, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      "Chuckles...You poor person, it must be hard to go through life so clueless"

      Clueless how? I've read all there is to read about evolution. I've read just as much evolutionary theory as the next smart atheist. Evolution does not make sense nor will it ever. Besides, Darwin wasn't a scientist nor did he ever claim to be one. He was just an observer, and a not so good one at that. Darwin himself has always doubted his own theories. Yet, scientists base his observatuons as fact. They claim that any other theory is just a theory but a scientific theory can be taken as fact.

      Adaptation has nothing to do with evolution nor mutaton nor changing of the species. By the way, where does thought come from, rationale, reason, consience and yearning. Another question, will a fax machine one day become a military tank? Or will it one day become organic, turning into a beluga whale? If you haven't noticed, it takes a driving force to build or create something. A baby doesn't just pop up in a women's womb, nor does a train pop out of nowhere and becomes a train. There is a driving force to that builds and creates everything.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • TR6

      Were you born this dumb or did you have to take special classes? A nice example of observable evolution is how some bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics over the last 50 years.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:05 am |
    • government spy

      It sounds like you are deliberately remaining ignorant. Comparing animals slowly adapting to their environments over time, to asking if a fax machine will evolve into a tank? Seriously?

      It makes about as much sense as water turning into wine, or bread and fish multiplying to feed hundreds, so I guess I understand why you would be so confused.

      Would it help if we explained that animals gain changes to their physical nature, to make living in a new environment easier, if it really happened just because of magic? Because an invisible man in the sky just wished it into happening? Would that make it easier for your little peanut brain to understand?

      January 12, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • Chuckles


      Buddy, in order to make the claim that you've read everything there is to know about evolution and then make the claim that a fax machine will "evolve" into a military tank shows that either a) the information you read was patently false and you've actually read material that is masquarading as information on the theory of evolution b) have serious reading comprehension issues or c) both a and b

      Darwin's scientist credentials does not bar him from doing science and using evidence he found to back up a theory. Secondly, adaptation has everything to do evolution and mutation. A mutation that allows for a specific creature to more efficiently deal its surrounding environment IS adaptation and if that gene is passed down, persists and becomes part of the species and a dominant trait IS evolution. I know this didn't make sense to you because you are so sure that evolution is clearly an inanimate object changing right before your eyes into something else, anything else must be terribly confusing for you.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • hippypoet

      oh george, evolution is for the living not machines but that was a great comparision – on par with any theist...moron! there is no grand force behind you , its just you and your choices. prayer is talking to yourself in hopes that you will answer but not know it was you doing the reply....god is a cop out for any wrong deeds one has done thru-out life... and the idea of an afterlife is like an adults dessert after dinner and hell the time out corner – i hope you behaved! stupid people you make this world hard to live in...grow up and stop being a friggin child! make believe is a chilrens game!

      January 12, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • RightTurnClyde

      Yes it is true. The idea of evolution is a mere surmise. They've dug down beyond the dinosaurs and there is no evidence. They cannot find how life began either. There is no evidence. (for that questions they searched moon rocks and Mars and have SETI - and yet (they cannot find the origin of life). That does not predicate the authenticity of Genesis however because that is obviously impossible as it is stated. It's just a make-do explanation for early bronze age folks (stone age too). No human has an genuine notion of how life began nor has any evidence of how life forms differentiated.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • J.W

      I know how life began, but I am not telling any of you. You all can just fight over it until eventually you figure it out for yourselves.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      Government Spy – "... so I guess I understand why you would be so confused."

      Nothing in my comment suggests nor hints that I am confused. It is my belief and my conviction that what the Word of God states (all of it) is true. The bible is infallible and has stood the test of time. Can't say the same for scientific theories. It takes faith to believe in God and His word. But I would also say it takes faith to believe in evolution or that there is no God.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • DamianKnight


      While I agree with you that there are some severe problems with evolution (specifically macro-evolution), there is definitely a basis for what the scientists are talking about.

      However, I have to say, the example of a panda speaking Mandarin, is simply ridiculous. The reason being, one, a panda's brain does not work in the same way as a human's so it will not develop a complex, verbal communication. Second, a panda's mouth, tongue and teeth are not formed properly to use verbal communication like Mandarin. Those aren't failures to evolve; that's limitations of the species. I bet you can't swing from tree to tree with the upper body strength of a monkey, or roar like a lion. Does that make you more or less evolved? Neither. It's a difference in the way your species has developed.

      That said, animals DO have a way of communicating with each other and that communication FAR predates any known language that is spoken today. For instance, I take my dog to a dog park. The other dogs come up to greet him. There is a posture he assumes, along with wagging his tail and everyone sniffs at each other. There is a social protocol for dogs and if a dog does something another dog considers to be rude, it is met with a growl, snapping of teeth or some other means of correction.

      Just because they don't communicate in the same manner we do, doesn't mean they don't have their own style of communication which is as effective as human communication.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • Chuckles


      Rude much? Just tell us already, I'm dying here!

      GS is right, you clearly are confused if what you posted is the extent of your knowledge. Damian may be correct that macro-evolution has some issues, as with most theories, but it doesn't invalidate them. You are free to question evolution, but to call if false because you haven't seen a fax machine "evolve" into a tank or you haven't seen any animal evolve into something else is just plain silly.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • Huh?

      There's been evolution in the past 200 years. When a living organism reproduces, genes are passed from one generation to the next, thus producing inherited traits in a species. Evolution is a gradual process of changing in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Most changes are extremely gradual, but can accumulate over time and can cause substantial biological changes to organisms.

      Stickleback Fish

      The stickleback fish is part of the Gasterosteidae family and can be found in freshwater environments in Europe, Asia, and North America. Sticklebacks have no scales, but are protected by bony armor plates. These creatures have intrigued marine biologists for years, as many populations of the fish have evolved with genetic changes and displayed major adaptations in their bony armor styles. This evolutionary shift occurs when there is an increasing in the frequency of a rare genetic variant in a single gene of the creature.

      These fish helped scientists discover that changes in a single gene can produce a major difference in the selector armor and body style of wild fish. It identified a specific genetic mechanism that controls a dramatic change in skeletal patterns. This finding has many implications towards the process of genetic evolution of organic species. It will help us eventually discover exactly how new animal types evolve in nature. The research is suggesting that evolution can occur quickly and only a few minor genetic changes can allow a migrating species to adapt and populate different environments.

      Darwin’s Tubercle

      Darwin’s Tubercle is a congenital ear condition which presents a thickening of the upper and middle thirds of the human ear. The feature can be seen in numerous primates and the phenomenon was used by Charles Darwin to support research indicating a common ancestry between primates. Today, the feature is present in approximately 10.4% of the population and very few newborns. The feature is thought to help animals control and regulate sound. As intelligence of the human species evolved at a rapid pace various visual and auditory organs were no longer needed and gradually removed themselves from our anatomy.

      Humans are also born with a third-eyelid that is useless and very small. It is represented in a small membrane that is visible in the human eye and used to function as a protective shield.

      Many people believe that the coccyx or tailbone is proof of what was a human tail. Darwin’s discoveries surrounding the tubercle were extremely important in developing the facts surrounding the theory of evolution.

      Toxic Australian Toads

      The toad problem in Australia is really bad. In 1935, Cane toads were brought to Australia from Hawaii to control the spread of beetles that were killing the sugar cane crop. It might have been a short term solution, but the lasting problem is horrendous. The toads have quickly expanded their range to cover more than a third of Australia’s total land area. They are spreading at a rate of 30 miles per year. A deadly chemical defense system has been devised to kill the pests, which is not good for crops and ground water.

      Experimentation on the toads discovered that the creatures that were leading the land expansion had legs that were 6% larger then others. A study was conducted that showed that newer populations of toads tended to have longer legs than older established species. This gives the toad an ability to jump higher, move faster, and cover more ground on a daily basis. The grave mistake to introduce toads to this environment is a problem that is getting worse every day. The toad species is evolving to its surroundings and gaining more defenses, which is not good for Australia’s economy.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • government spy


      Just because scientists haven't conclusively proven the origins of life, the universe and everything to your satisfaction, does not make God exist. Scientists do not claim to have everything explained in a neat box with a pretty little bow. In fact, quite the opposite. Scientists presume that we know nothing about the universe, and then study it, destroying old preconceptions as we move forward and find new evidence.

      Religion seems to work quite differently. Presuming to know everything, and anytime contradicting information is uncovered, steadfastly refusing to believe anything other than what was originally written down.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • hippypoet

      @DamianKnight well thats very true, and whats really interesting is that there is far less misunderstandings going on in the animal world then ours – they move and make noise and everything has a meaning but we have sayings that mean all sorts of different sh!t so we create confusion while they are completely in the loop to what the other dog meant. it makes us look a tad under devopled when compared thru the effectiviness of forms of communication between the same species.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:31 am |
    • Huh?

      Hypolimnas Bolina

      The Great Eggfly, also called the Blue Moon Butterfly, is a species of nymphalid butterfly that is found in many areas of the world including Madacascar, Southeast Asia, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. It is a black bodied butterfly with an average wing span of 7–8½ cm. The butterfly can be found in wooded country, forests, thick and moist scrub, and the greener parts of the uninhabited terrain.

      In the last ten years scientists have come to realize that a parasite was killing all of the male members of hypolimnas bolina on the Samoan islands of Upolu and Savaii. The pest would infect the females and then kill the males before they were hatched. The problem was so severe that in 2001 males inhabited only 1% of the population and the species was on the verge of extinction in this area of the world.

      In the span of one year and 10 generations in the hypolimnas bolina family, the male butterfly’s evolved and obtained a suppressor gene that prevented the killer bacteria from spreading. In modern days the male population has increased to 40% in the colonies on these islands. Evolution is often much more evident in insects, as a family generation and lifespan is much shorter then with primates.

      Brown Anole Lizard

      Anolis sagrei is a lizard species native to Cuba and the Bahamas. They were also introduced in many areas of the United States, including Georgia, Texas, and Hawaii. In a famous experimental study, a research group led by Jonathan Losos of Harvard University discovered that when a brown anole population was introduced to a new predator, natural selection occurred in a six month period of time.

      The goal of the study was to prove the hypothesis that evolution was not a prolonged occurrence. The scientists studied twelve different islands and introduced the predatory lizard to six, using the other six islands as a comparative sample. After six months, surveys found that anole populations dropped by 50% on the islands with the new predatory lizards.

      The anole survivors had longer legs then the species previously inhabiting the islands. In the next six months of study another genetic change was recorded and the legs of the anole lizard species began to become short and stubby, as they were spending more of their time in trees. Female species were also recorded as becoming larger in size, ultimately making them harder for smaller animals to digest.

      Darwin’s Finches

      The second voyage of the HMS Beagle occurred December 1831 to October 1836 and the mission of the voyage was to conduct hydrographic surveys around the coasts of the southern part of South America. A young Charles Darwin was the expert geologist on this voyage. Darwin spent most of his time exploring the land and exhausted only 18 months at sea. He spent time researching on the Galápagos Islands, studying the vast number of endemic species. Darwin had incredible observational skills and noticed that there were numerous different finch species on the island. One species of the birds would grow slightly larger wings and have curved beaks in relation to the geographic location on the island.

      Darwin recognized and recorded 14 separate combinatory species of Passerine birds in the area. The various niches of finches on the Galápagos Island are constantly evolving every year. The evolution of these birds can be readily studied and recorded. The medium ground finch that lives in this area recently downsized its beak, so that it could get small seeds more efficiently, after a larger finch species arrived on the island and began competing for food. Many scientists travel to this area because the experimental conditions are untouched and natural changes occur at an alarmingly fast rate.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:31 am |
    • DamianKnight


      I think the difference is, the complexity of the topic. My dog is not contemplating the Big Bang Theory, nor is he trying to discuss Mozart's 5th Symphony. He's contemplating if he can get away with stealing my socks and chewing holes in them. 🙂

      January 12, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • J.W

      I try not to be rude too much, but I saw an opportunity there. However, since you are dying I will stop. I don't want to be accused of murder. Here is a question I have about evolution. For instance one trait that has changed in humans is that we can now digest lactose whereas we used to not be able to right? That is technically just what we would call a mutation right? To what point does a species have to mutate before it is considered a whole new species?

      January 12, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • hippypoet

      @DamianKnight, doesn't that kinda state that in many cases the complexity of the species can easily lead to its downfall? and having a lesser complex species allows for ease of communcation between like species and therefore a longer species lifespan?

      January 12, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • DamianKnight


      I think that's a difficult question. Simplicity is not always best. For instance, if my dog broke his leg (and let's say I'm out of the picture), he'd just have to live with his broken leg and it would eventually kill him. Either he would be killed by something bigger who thought he looked tasty or he wouldn't be able to catch prey, probably in less than a year.

      Because humans understand bone structures and the like, we can set the animal's leg and that animal can continue living to its natural lifespan.

      The human brain is awesome and the fact that it is able to not only comprehend, but apply, abstract and complicated ideas, is what has led us to be at the top of the food chain. It's why humans dominate life on earth, for good or ill.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • Russ

      Your entire post just makes me want to face palm. The lack of education presented in your horribly constructed comment is solid proof why religion is so destructive. I fear there is no hope for you, I just hope for your kids' sake that they do not turn out like you and you give them the fair chance to think for themselves and explore reality – not live in a world of intellectual isolation and delusion.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • Chuckles


      Good question and I have a multi-pronged answer as best as I understand evolution coupled with history.

      The ingestion of lactose stems from humans figuring out domestication and introduction of dairy into the system (now whoever was the first person to look at a cows udders and think to themselves "I should totally drink the stuff that comes from those udders" is a different matter). So this was sort of a forced adaptation but I would say to your second part about mutation, an entire species doesn't really mutate, a specific member has a mutation at birth and that mutation (if it doesn't immediatly kill it) is actually beneficial and passed along then many generations down after it gets mixed into the general population and becomes the norm.
      The real difference here is that mutation is on the genetic level and there's no specific reason for the mutation, it just happens. Adaptation is a little more macro, is more defined as a specific trait aimed at solving a specific environmental constraint.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • DamianKnight


      The one thing you didn't mention, are traits that are negative that are not lethal and still passed along. For instance, I suffer from migraine headaches. Migraines aren't lethal (you may wish they were when you're having one!), but they are certainly genetic. Both my maternal and paternal grandmothers had them and my mother suffers from them.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • SeanNJ

      I don't know if this is being glossed over, or just completely missed, but not all mutations lead to viable new species.

      For example, let's say that we find that the range of autism spectrum disorders are all due to a particular mutation on a gene. It could very well be an evolutionary dead-end, but if that gene mutation became a dominant feature of the DNA of our species, over time it would no longer be considered a "mutation."

      Voila! Evolution.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • J.W

      Another trait of humans that have changed is that we have generally gotten bigger. That may be partly because of the change in our diet. I wouldn't say that we are a different species than what we were like 3000 years ago. What has to happen for humans to say we are no longer hom.o sapiens we are something different. I guess the biggest difference between us and other humans were the size of the brain, so do we need to grow bigger brains to be a new species?

      January 12, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • hippypoet

      @DamianKnight, very true.. most dogs would end up dead when a broken leg in the wild. But due to our grand intellect we have and continue to destroy the planet, be it thru delepetion of resources or the destruction and changing of the natural environment and thereby forcing animals who once lived there to either leave, adapt, or die....these things would never have happened if we were still the apes were once were swinging from tree to tree happy in our ignorance of science and math and history. simple is not always best for the species but can be best for the surrounding species and or planet that said creatures live on. Knowing how to cure an illment is great but with 7 billion morons and only a few who know whats what, the idea of survival of the fittest is lost and its now intellect over nature.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • collin z

      EVOLUTION – In a few, easy steps.

      If you are on the top of a mountain and you see another person on a different mountaintop you may wonder how that person got there. You may wonder if that person is good or evil or if he or she speaks the same language or if that person is related to you.

      You may wonder as much as a 'scientifically minded person' wonders. You may stay on top of the mountain you are on for two thousand years... wondering, speculating and exploring endless possibilities with other 'wonderers' however, the 'scientifically minded person' sets out to investigate and discover facts.

      This person, seeking understanding of God's creation, might just trek to the bottom of your mountain, discover footprints that lead to the other person's mountain and, perhaps, to the other person's feet. The scientific person may even take biological samples and mathematical measurements and, just maybe find matches, correlations and similarities that are reviewed, double checked and verified to the point of being certain of matches.. in essence: undeniable. I have done things similar which have, to no surprise, lead me to believe in science without forcing me to disbelieve in God.

      I say to you, that the scientific, dedicated, hard working, courageous, adventurous, mathematically minded person no longer 'wonders' about where the other person, on the other mountain, came from... Like a child of God should do, the discoverer has discovered truth by working hard and telling this truth to his or her fellow beings.

      Not working hard and not doing the work to trace the footsteps, measure factors and sample the biology itself.. makes you less able to access and understand the great creator's planet and his work over time.. through nature...You have decided that swapping stories is a viable a way to discover truth. Sorry but if you keep on insisting you have 'guessed' right.. you are, in my opinion, a humongous fool and an extremely ignorant person to claim you know more that those who have done the trek, compared notes and told the truth. Another opinion of mine is: God is laughing at you.

      We need to intellectually evolve ourselves...

      January 12, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Damian – Very good point

      @Sean – Also very good point

      For those two reasons alone is why evolution is so beautiful in its own way.

      I see your question now, you're asking at what point does man as we know it become a completely different species than say jesus. I can honestly say I'm not equipped with enough information on classifications in science to really answer that question. You are right that if we change in significant ways (bigger brains, larger bodies, etc...) that at one point we'll have to reclassify ourselves, I am not sure when that point actually occurs.

      However, since the singularity is coming in oh..... 32 years or so, we'll all becomes pretty much human cyborgs and make a huge departure from the humans of today so the question is sort of moot.....

      January 12, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @J.W: "I guess the biggest difference between us and other humans were the size of the brain, so do we need to grow bigger brains to be a new species?"

      There's a very easy way to determine when you have a new species. You would declare a species to be "new" when it can no longer produce viable offspring with a member of the species from which it evolved. Given the timescales involved in this, you'll never be able to "witness" evolution in action except in creatures with lifespans that are tiny fractions of ours.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • hippypoet

      @J.W, you are partly correct.... when we first were ho.mo sapiens we were 7 feet tall compared to the barely 5 footer neno man... but in different areas of the world like the island in the indonesion acripelgo (sry can't spell) we found 4 foot tall adults – but in norse lands we find 7 foot adults...all the same species of human. its diet but to a different degree then what i think you are thinking... its like when dinos got friggin huge- its due to the amount of food avil. not ness. whats beening eaten by the said humaniod – see when a preditors size increases we , the food, should too or get smaller to better avoid being eating more easily. something sparks a achange in sharp and size and it has to do with diet but everything to do with the diet of that which would make us not here! i.e. things that would eat us or our food source.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Chuckles


      Nature will always find a way for population control. Think about it, regardless of what man does on earth, how many things are killed, if the earth becomes inhabitable for life as we know it, the earth will keep spinning around the sun, the moon around the earth and animals will adapt or die. If 7 billion morons want to keep doing what they're doing and crete catastrophe, those 7 billion morons will become 7 million morons pretty quickly. Sit back, relaxe, grab a beer and enjoy.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      What humans have done to this world has been singularly the best thing for humans, without consideration for other living things. Can anyone deny that humans are, by nature, selfish creatures? I think you'd be hard pressed. We have done what is best for us, but without regard to the rest of the world. And through our selfishness, we will inevitably make the world uninhabitable. That is assuming, the whole damn thing doesn't fly into the sun and we're incinerated far before impact.

      Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? I really think that this is what is going to happen. Think about it. You have the young, married, hard-working, stable, middle-class family with good values and they have one child because that's what they can afford. But then you have the hillbilly, trailer trash, chick who lives on welfare having a metric ton of mongoloid children simply because she can't afford birth control or Plan B.

      I wouldn't be surprised if within the next few generations, we see people beginning to devolve rather than evolve, at least, mentally.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • J.W

      Thanks for the answers everyone. I followed most of it except for the singularity in 32 years that will create human cyborgs.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • Chuckles


      I have in fact seen Idiocracy (HILARIOUS Concept, not as funny of a movie), and although I agree that we're headed towards an earth where idiots are out-procreating smart people, it's tough for me to really believe that we would actually get to the point in society that idiocracy portrays (using gatorade to water crops).

      Take a gander at http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ , It's a fascincating concept.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • hippypoet

      do you think its possible to be as one with nature now, having touched and lived with technology to the point where, like chuckles said, we will start to become that which has made life easier – a cyborg...a.k.a one with technology! do you think its even a wanted solution to the issue of man overtaking all things on this planet or will we not change our ways and infact faced with comeplete destruction from the earths own lack of resources just go to another planet and "create" life and all the same issues here there?

      January 12, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Primewonk

      BoldGeorge – You have made posts similar to this one numerous times. Folks have gone out of their way to explain why you are wrong, and give you the correct information. Yet you now repost the same inane drivel.

      "There is not one shred of evidence for evolution." This is your first lie. We have literal mountains of evidence for evolution. The theory of evolution is the single most confirmed theory in all science.

      " Evolutionary theory suggests that it is a process that takes millions and billions of years for things (living and non-living) to change/mutate to a superior state." This is lie number two. Non-living things do not evolve. There is no superior state. That would imply a direction. And, as you've been told many times, evolution is simply a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time.

      Your problem, and that of your fellow fundiots, is that you get your "sciency" sounding information from the "Pastor Dave's" of the world. And "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as you are.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      I dunno...they already think, for some reason, that Abstinence Only education works...

      January 12, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Chuckles


      Fair. The funniest part is that those who think that absteinence is 100% effective are the same people who worship the very example of when abstinence failed.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      Here's my thing about it. Ideally, abstinence is the best policy for children. No doubt.

      But let's be fair. We're dealing with the primal urges of nature with a bunch of people who do not have the part of their brain that understands action/consequence completely. On top of that, you throw in alcohol and narcotics and it's an uphill battle.

      I have never understood what is so wrong about teaching about safe se.x. To me, it's like trying to tell someone, "Well don't drive at all!" and hoping they never will. Or you can teach them about how to operate a vehicle safely which will significantly lower the number of accidents and casualties.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • J.W

      That is scary Chuckles. If I am gonna evolve I want to do it naturally. I dont want to be a machine, unless that is what I naturally evolve into.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • Chuckles


      Preaching to the choir. I honestly don't understand the idea when christians also believe the whole "go forth and procreate" thing. I guess it's mainly a premarital thing, but I think it's more of our puritan roots really wrecking havoc in our modern society.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      Well the whole "go forth and multiply" thing was God telling people to populate the Earth. Of course, when He said this, how many people were around? Less than 1,000? Who knows. In any case, from my understanding, it is intended to be for those within the confines of marriage. It is not permission to run around and sleep with everyone and everything in an attempt to mass produce children. You're a person, not a factory.

      January 12, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • Chuckles


      Just fear of the unknown. Think of the application of smarter than human intelligence.... sure it could absolutely destroy us, but hey, it could also cure cancer, global warming and crime with one simple solution. Not to mention ever since I was a wee young one reading sci-fi my dream has been to interface directly into complete virtual reality and see where that goes, I think it would be a very interesting experience.

      January 12, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • hippypoet

      oh noone even tried to answer my question – and its the type i love best, the mental master.bation ones where no answer is wrong because its in the realm of theoreticals... well anyway heres my question again in hopes of random answers that inspire thought. – do you think its possible to be as one with nature now, having touched and lived with technology to the point where, like chuckles said, we will start to become that which has made life easier – a cyborg...a.k.a one with technology! do you think its even a wanted solution to the issue of man overtaking all things on this planet or will we not change our ways and infact faced with comeplete destruction from the earths own lack of resources just go to another planet and "create" life and all the same issues here there?

      January 12, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • J.W

      I think to be one with nature we would have to get rid of all of our technology. We love our fancy cars and houses more now than we do any of the beautiful trees or lakes or anything in nature now.

      January 12, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Chuckles

      "Being one with nature" is a load of bull in my opinion, it's the sort of thing that's thought up by people who can consider what life is like when you aren't searching for water on a daily basis while simultaneously protecting yourself, searching for food, creating a sustainable way to live and protecting the meager things you do own and control. Nature has an endless amount of beauty and i think we should do everything in our power to preserve it instead of the as.sasination that is currently happening around the globe (so don't think I'm a hater) and having spent 3 days in the woods with just a tarp, a sleeping bag, 2 water bottles and a journal I can attest I have never found the same peace and serenity before or since, but it was in part because I knew it would end and I would return to creture comforts I've come to expect. We have a better chance of becoming cybornetic and complete integration with technology, in which case we have alternatives without figuring out intersteller space flight to start over.
      a) tech advances enough for us to literally merg into nature much like human and robot could merge. This would mean a direct conribution to controlling earth's environment much like a computer and trying to create a sustainable world. pretty unlikely in my opinion, but if we set our minds to it and use superior technology we could find a way to reverse the effects we've set in motion and see where it goes
      b) The matrix way – literally create a virtual paradise where we interface with virtual reality for a majority of the days and nights. The air outside becomes unbreathable and we take to living full time inside, growing food and taking in nutrients at the most basic level through ivs or pills (there's that pill thing again I know!), everything else (jobs, money transfer, personal life) would all happen within our own virtual matrix.

      Distrubing? Maybe. Pragmatic? I think so.

      January 12, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • hippypoet

      @J.W – ok so you saying that material wealth is just too much to give up.. i understand that. but that is a very narrow-minded view of the topic... that will allow for the continued misuse of earths resources and the eventual end of us.

      @chuckles – your saying that peace with nature is a near impossiblity but a beautiful thing in theory, but the human race is too up tech's @ss to pull itself out... – again i get that, but that means technology is the true king of the planet and not us – judgement day anyone. but i love your idea of once we are cyborgs having the power to intergrate ourselves with nature – made me think of avatar, minus the technology but keep the intergratation into nature by use of a new limb. This theory takes away from the need to use earths resources as much or perhaps at all.
      the matrix idea is one i have fiddled with for years after the movie came out – it totally blew me away with the thought of life like that, never really touching anything or expierencing anything yet having access to everything via a virtual world.

      If we have the power to do anything like these ideas, i fear it will be as an after-thought to the worlds destruction due to a lack of resources and a war for them. Perhaps if we had the ability to go to distant planets and not just go for a day but stay there, we could then force by default of living in a different environment evolve into a different type of human maybe requiring less things to survive or just more animal like and therefore having a new reverence for the old nature we left behind.

      January 12, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Chuckles


      Unfortunately, it's a pipe dream to believe we'll ever be able to go and colonize another planet, except perhaps mars in the most basic sense (we'd have to haul most of earths resources to mars just to have any sort of colony whatsoever). It's not even that we're really far away from the tech to build a ship fast enough to take us to another planet, it's that we don't think it's even possible at this point unless we create a ship that can last, in space for longer than all of human history and then some just to get to the nearest star which, as far as we know doesn't even have a planet because its a binary star. We're most definitly stuck on our solar system, and stuck on earth, starting over on another world is not an option. Even if it were there's no such thing as a return trip once you get into a ship to go to space into another planet. The colonization of mars, if it ever happens will most certainly be a one way trip for anyone on board.
      For my two theories, I think if we could create a robot specifically designed to target and eat greenhouse emissions and spew ozone we could really start working towards fixing the environment. Sadly there's a greater chance the matrix is really the only way

      January 12, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      Can I just have a robot that goes out and does everything I don't want to do? I mean, can I lease my robot to a company and it will do the work for me, while I stay comfy in bed at o'dark thirty when I normally get up?

      And when it gets home, can it prepare dinner, mow the lawn and take care of the laundry? Meanwhile, I'm free to be off in Tahiti and enjoying the natural confines of the ocean, the air, and a Pina Colada?

      That would be ideal.

      January 12, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • hippypoet

      an interesting thought about the matrix – the religious nut jobs would totally say that the matrix is god and we are now one with god, and indeed all things would be possible thru the matrix. In nearly every way i can think of the matrix, it can be turned into a yes thats what i meant by god kinda thing when referring to the matrix as an all powerful creation... just an odd concecpt to ponder?

      i do love your idea of an emissions eating cyborg/robot thing that spews ozone as its waste material. totally cool!

      January 12, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Chuckles

      The real quandry I've thought about is, lets say we create a synthetic organic AI, meaning we actually create life within computers (think Tron, as geeky as that sounds) would that a) point in favor of there being a god that MUST have been around to create our universe or b) put man on par with god/ demote god to in essence being a cosmic geek in his basement who decided to make the universe for kicks (if that isn't actually exactly what god is already that is).

      I'll do you one better, instead of having your pet robot do that (it could create some resentment then you'd have an I,Robot/Matrix/Terminator/Bender/(insert dystopia of human killing robots) on your hands, and that would be no good. Instead, we'll create a world where all your work could be done faster than conscious thought and you could spend the day, instead of at home, on a nice warm perfect beach, or the top of a mountain, or the bottom of the ocean, really anywhere you want without the contraints that we now have. You could also probably fly if you really wanted to, so that would be neat.

      January 12, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • hippypoet

      @DamianKnight, that reminds me of two things, either the movie Real Genius where all the kids in cl@ss instead of coming to cl@ss they just bring in a recorder then leave – a later scene has the teacher using a recorder to do the teaching as well and another movie I ROBOT where the robots do the humans jobs... i love Real Genius – i am a huge Val Kilmer fan. the saint was great!

      January 12, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • DamianKnight


      Done. Where do I sign up?


      Val Kilmer does rule, but his best role, by far, is Doc Holliday in Tombstone.

      "Why, it's the drunk piano player. You're so drunk, you can't hit nothin'. In fact, you're probably seeing double. "

      "I have two guns, one for each of ya. "

      January 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • hippypoet

      Chuckles, yeah creating an AI is nothing short of god-like even to the point where we are now – talking about how there is no god and we are it... the AI might one day kill us off, then years later it doesn't program the information into its creations and then we get a "who are we", what are we", how did we get here" type questions, then the AI creates real organic life which then takes over and just simple forgets that it too was created and then we ask all the same questions again.


      January 12, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • hippypoet

      I love the scene where he pulls out his little shot glass and twirls it like a pristol and then puts it back....that is one of my favorite movies of all time!

      January 12, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      Me too. Kurt Russel did an amazing job as Wyatt Earp.

      "You gonna do something or just stand there and bleed?"

      Forever I didn't realize that was Billy Bob Thornton he was smacking around!

      January 12, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • hippypoet

      did you know that Wyatt Earp was the only brother to have lived to the end of his days and mostly in peace...death was natural to boot!
      I have watched that movie and done a shot for every one done in the movie – i tried the same thing with Wild Bill but i was drunk by the first hour – i made it to the end of the movie but i wasn't walking thats for sure! 🙂

      January 12, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • hippypoet

      maybe poker's not your game...i know, how about a spelling contest!

      January 12, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      Yup! Wyatt got a little upset with people trying to write stories about him! It's great!

      "Nonsense! I have not yet begun to defile myself!"

      January 12, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • hippypoet

      good stuff... this is making me wanna not come in to work tomorrow in favor of a scotch night and i think some cards are in oder – omg i love playing cards when i drink...if the possibility arose i think i would jump at the chance to hang with you and chuckles while drinking, smoking and playing cards – the conversations over cards would be one to record! sounds like a truly enjoyible night! plus the star wars theme would slowly take over the conversation and i know my share as well, i just keep it on the "down low" ... lol 🙂

      January 12, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      Hahahahaha! I'm fairly decent at cards. My best game is poker, but even that's not awesome.

      We could also do drinking games. Like, watch Die Hard and any time someone swears, we do a shot. We'll be done after twenty minutes, I believe.

      January 12, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Chuckles

      So when's the party gentlemen? Cards, brewskis (only fat tire of course), star wars, smoking, drinking games, talk of god, sprituality and the nature of the universe.... sounds pretty awesome to me.

      By the way, I am not too shabby at cards myself, though I have a terrible poker face, but I'm sort of godlike at Euchre.

      January 12, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      Well, Chuckles, seeing as you're moving to CA here soon, I think it needs to be out here. This is also beneficial to me, since I don't have to go anywhere. 🙂

      Let me know time and place! But I'm not discussing theology with ya'll over cards. I'm not gonna get bullied by a couple of atheists whilst drunk.

      But I do believe a spirited discussion about who is the bigger bad as.s, Voldemort or Darth Vader would be in order. Perhaps Voldemort vs. Palpatine would be a better conversation though.

      January 12, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • J.W

      Oh I am a brilliant poker player. I will come and play with you guys.

      January 12, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      Sure, JW, you can come too. Do Mennonites drink?

      January 12, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • J.W

      Hey that gives me an idea. If me or Damian or fred or George or one of us wins then God exists, but if Chuckles, Colin, David Johnson or SeanNJ or one of the other countless atheists win then God does not exist.

      January 12, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • J.W

      I drink a little bit. Honestly some Mennonites do not drink at all and some do. Personally I do not see what tenet of Mennonitism that drinking could violate, unless you are a violent drunk.

      January 12, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      I get invited to play too? Awesome! Count me in.

      January 12, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
    • J.W

      Well I say we should invite everyone, but it would be up to whoever is hosting if we were going to have it at someones house. I was just giving a scenario of who all may be there. Me, George, Sean, fred, Damian, Chuckles, etc, drinking, smoking playing cards, Oh no wait we need some girls. We can invite tallulah and heavensent and sue as well.

      January 12, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • WASP

      @george: if you don't believe in evolution, or adaptation......then explain to me this. one why are there so many different pigmentations to human skin? along with that explain how humans from different regions physically look different; meaning density of bones, muscle build, hair on bady, etc?

      January 23, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  12. Stevie Wonder

    AW Dayum. I taught I b on duh terlit but I wurnt an I doo doo in my bess reclinuh.

    January 12, 2012 at 8:40 am |
    • ......

      Still suffering from low self esteem issues. Seriously go get some professional help.

      January 12, 2012 at 8:44 am |
  13. Pops

    My GOD has shown that Evolution is a True Thing!
    Those followers of a false religion do not understand the power of my GOD! They will die as others die!
    My GOD has SPOKEN!

    January 12, 2012 at 8:40 am |
  14. Rainer Braendlein

    Jesus Christ, Lord and God, has confirmed the book of Genesis by his following remark, Matthew 19:

    3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    By this passage Jesus said that Adam and Eve were created by God.

    January 12, 2012 at 7:48 am |
    • Mike

      You are not bright.

      January 12, 2012 at 8:20 am |
    • Pops

      Your Jesus is not a follower of my One True GOD. Your religion is not the One True Religion! Beware!
      My GOD has already kicked YOUR god's ASS! My GOD WINS!
      And today is First Holy Day! So KISS MY ASS! HOOAH!

      January 12, 2012 at 8:38 am |
    • think for yourself

      Quoting scripture doesn't prove anything. I can quote the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster, but that doesn't make it true.

      January 12, 2012 at 8:46 am |
    • Jimmy

      And the Greeks use to believe that their gods created Deucalion and Pandora as the first pair. Myth is still myth. All your story illustrates is that Jesus probably didn't know that Adam and Eve were myth, which kinda hurts your idea that he was actually God, right?

      January 12, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • Primewonk

      Your bible is not a science book. Your god is totally ignorant about science, and gets most science wrong in the bible.

      January 12, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • government spy

      You're basically saying that God exists because some guy wrote down in a book saying that God exists. Something isn't true just by you wanting it to be, or by writing it down.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Tom Wittmann

      You call yourself a believer in GOD??? By denying that ha created a world where a marvelous instrument as evolution is contained?? By denying that He created Man and Woman, as well as anyting else, by evolution??

      People like you (evangelical, etc.) by their stupidity and lack of capability to undertand above, are responsibly of the existence of atheits, which being stupid (but less than you) seeing the falacy of your position, are in turn incapable to see the glaring fact that anything cannot be created from nothing unless an eternal God exists,

      Meaning: it is against SCIENCE (LOGIC!!) not to bellieve in the existence of GOD, creator of the world and its laws, of which EVOLUTION is a part!!

      January 12, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • Primewonk

      @ Tom – science is moot on the existence or nonexistence of your god and all other gods. Any god worth his or her salt claims omnipotence and omniscience. This means they claim supernatural powers. Science only deals with the natural realm.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • truth

      amen ranier...every knee shall bow....it is mind boggling that there are people who actually believe they come from monkeys, or fish or whatever the "new" evolution theory is this month....primordial slime maybe? LOL....absolutely ridiculous....what a lonely, hopeless, joyless existence for the non-believer (and all you have to do to know this is true is read their posts....sad)

      January 12, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • ......

      "what a lonely, hopeless, joyless existence for the non-believer (and all you have to do to know this is true is read their posts....sad)"

      Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot. By the way, lying is a sin.

      January 12, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • truth

      of course lying is a sin....and every knee shall bow...so sorry

      January 12, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • ......

      "of course lying is a sin....and every knee shall bow...so sorry"

      So you worship a tyrant, doesn't mean the rest of us have too. You're still lied in your other post, now repent quick you hypocrite.

      January 12, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • truth

      some day you will realize it is not all about YOU or ME....Jesus is coming soon, morning or night or noon, many will meet their doom, trumpets will sound...all of the dead shall rise, righteous meet in the skies, going where no one dies, heavenward bound...and EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW...all glory and praise to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Creator of ALL who was and is and is to come!!

      January 12, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
  15. MarcSK

    This is why no one takes America seriously.

    January 12, 2012 at 7:47 am |
    • think for yourself

      That's because we are one nation, UNDEREDUCATED

      January 12, 2012 at 8:48 am |
  16. Steve Hansmann/East Central Minnesota

    Southern baptists have a lot to answer for, including their enthusiastic support, biblically supported of course, of slavery, segregation, and the murder/lynching of slaves and abolitionists. Now they make a concerted, and largely successful effort to dumb down their members by denying evolution. If they're going to "teach the controversy" regarding evolution, they had better teach the controversy regarding gravity...they're both theories. In the fantasy world of literalists theory has come to mean an opinion. I despair for their children.

    January 12, 2012 at 2:20 am |
    • That's about right

      The Southern Baptist Convention was specifically started in 1845 to embrace slavery in the South. It was born in support of Southern slavery.

      Even religion is still fighting the Civil War in the South. Still losing.

      January 12, 2012 at 3:15 am |
  17. Dr.K.

    These guys end up shooting themselves in the foot. Twice I have had students in class come to terms with the fact that they have been misled. One was surprised to learn that the male skeleton did not have one less rib than the female, as she had been told in Catholic school. Another actually began quietly sobbing as she inspected casts of hominid fossil skulls, having always been told there are no "transitional" fossils. The former had apparently already questioned much of what she had been taught, but the latter had a substantial crisis of faith, realizing that if she had been lied to then perhaps it was all lies. I guess these charlatans are banking on the hopes that children will not go out and explore the real world.

    January 12, 2012 at 12:24 am |
    • Jimmy

      Problem is, when most of these evolution deniers set out to "research" evolution they latch onto descriptions put out by other evolution deniers. If someone says that there isn't any real evidence to support evolution they like what they hear so much they never bother to check if it's actually correct. In short, they look for reassurance of a treasured belief, and not the truth.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:36 am |
    • Dr.K.

      Exactly. Their (mis)understanding of evolution comes from other anti-evolutionists instead of reliable sources.

      January 12, 2012 at 8:56 am |
    • Jimmy

      Yes, it's like getting reliable information about Judaism from Skinheads.

      January 12, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • Chris

      Jimmy, even if that's true, how does that make creationists any different from evolutionists? Most times, I see great ridicule from the "scientific" community when someone has doubts about evolution. Evolution requires greater faith than Christianity does, but you may not realize it.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • Primewonk

      All too often these folks are told to get their "sciency" sounding information from non-science websites and groups. And groups like AIG tell their followers (and it's right on their statement of faith webpage) that, " By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "

      That may be an acceptable way to practice religion, but it's a terrible way to practice science.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • MarkinFL

      Chris your statement bears no resemblance to reality. Their is evidence for much of evolutionary theory and there is absolutely not one shred of evidence for creationism. The best arguments ever trotted out for creationism are just the real or perceived holes in the only functional theory.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • Primewonk

      Chris wote, " even if that's true, how does that make creationists any different from evolutionists? Most times, I see great ridicule from the "scientific" community when someone has doubts about evolution. Evolution requires greater faith than Christianity does, but you may not realize it."

      The problem is that the vast majority of the creationists are "debating" from a position of ignorance. They CHOOSE to be ignorant about science in general, and biology in particular. You are a good example with your statement that evolution requires faith. This goes to show that you choose to be ignorant about the scientific method.

      Another issue is that for most of the creationists – this isn't their first rodeo. How often do we see "creationist A" post "it's just a theory"? Or, "if we evolved from monkeys, why are their still monkeys?" And folks like us explain to them why they are wrong – even giving links to real science sources. Only to see the exact same creationist repeat the same lies just an hour later on the same thread.

      In all honesty, if you do not want to be mocked, do not post religious drivel claiming it's valid science.

      January 12, 2012 at 11:42 am |
  18. Dr. Gary Hurd

    I can hardly understand why I read the entire comment file.

    I had the idea of tabulating the creationist "proofs" It might be interesting to see just what parts of the real world they cannot understand. My impression is that "why are there still monkeys" is fairly high frequency.

    January 12, 2012 at 12:11 am |
    • Jimmy

      Whenever you hear the old "why are there still monkeys" line just try asking why, after the Reformation, there are still Catholics. 🙂

      January 12, 2012 at 10:19 am |
  19. mickey1313

    why would anyone whith half a brain care what protistant preachers think? they are rich old white pedarasts (mostly)

    January 12, 2012 at 12:01 am |
    • Jimmy

      They have an amazingly powerful, persuasive hold over a sizeable number of voters who could help pass legislation that could seriously affect you. That's why you should care!

      January 12, 2012 at 12:41 am |
  20. Reality

    What is being taught in some Catholic schools (plus some added comments):

    "The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic?

    Yes, this story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon]).

    Original sin is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin?

    Yes, I teach Original Sin as symbolic of the sins of our origins – in our
    families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
    profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
    patterns of sin in particular families and societies.

    Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist?

    Yes, the old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer accepted.

    Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.
    Yes, but, since baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is
    persons volunteering to teach other people's kids the basics of Catholicism.)"

    And if there were no Adam and Eve, it follows that there was no biblical Noah. see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark#Other_flood_stories

    As per National Geographic's Genographic project:

    " DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

    "Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

    Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

    It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

    January 11, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
    • mickey1313

      if you take christianity as metaphor, it looses all of its power, because it is not devine truth. If it is not devine truth there is no reason to follow it. Thus your argument kills faith not bolsters it, thanks because I believe that anyone who puts there faith in the unknown is a tard.

      January 12, 2012 at 12:07 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 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
« Previous entry
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.