home
RSS
Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins
June 1st, 2012
03:46 PM ET

Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins

By Dan Merica, CNN

(CNN) - Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup on Friday.

That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution. Thirty years ago, 44% of the people who responded said they believed that God created humans as we know them today - only a 2-point difference from 2012.

"Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982," wrote Gallup's Frank Newport. "All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins."

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

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

Not surprisingly, more religious Americans are more likely to be creationists.

Nearly 70% of respondents who attend church every week said that God created humans in their present form, compared with 25% of people who seldom or never attend church.

Among the seldom church-goers, 38% believe that humans evolved with no guidance from God.

The numbers also showed a tendency to follow party lines, with nearly 60% of Republicans identifying as creationists, while 41% of Democrats hold the same beliefs.

Republicans also seem to be more black-and-white about their beliefs, with only 5% responding that humans evolved with some help from God. That number is much lower than the 19% of both independents and Democrats.

According to Newport, a belief in creationism is bucking the majority opinion in the scientific community - that humans evolved over millions of years.

"It would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution," writes Newport. "Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief ... that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature."

The USA Today/Gallup telephone poll was conducted May 10-13 with a random sample of 1,012 American adults. The sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Belief • Creationism • evolvution

soundoff (3,830 Responses)
  1. doug

    I honestly believe that the percentage of people who actually believe what they say they believe is about 20 to 30%. People say what they think will please God just in case he actually does exist and will provide them with a spot in heaven if they just believe in him. Deep down, they either know damned well or highly suspect that the evidence is in and its clear. Humans evolved like every other species – by natural selection. However, there's no corresponding potential catastrophe for denying evolution. " I Swear there ain't no heaven, but I pray their ain't no hell" is more than a line in a song. Claiming belief is simply a hedge against eternal damnation. It's like the joke about the little girl who was asked if she believed in God. She said she was unsure about whether God existed, and was then told that her uncertainty was the same as not believing in God. She said, well, then I do believe. Get it?

    June 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
  2. Lefty1963

    god said,..."Let there be light",........but before that, a little talking turd said,...."Let there be God".

    June 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
  3. Chad

    What triggered the big bang?
    What fine tuned the universe for formation of stars, planets, life?
    What created life on earth?

    "we dont know"
    "given enough time anything can happen no matter how improbable"
    "well, we're here arent we?"

    really? That's your answer?

    June 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • Gadflie

      We don't pretend to know everything yet. We leave that kind of delusion to the religious types.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
    • Failure to communicate

      Failing to answer doesn't nullify the statement of question. It's also way better than,

      "god did it"

      "god did it"

      "god did it"

      June 1, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • Voice of Reason

      It had to be a god, right?

      June 1, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • Rick James

      They're are better answers than "God did it." The reason being that at least you are being honest with saying you don't know, as opposed to being satisfied with an answer that is tenuous at best and horribly incorrect at worst.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • Chad

      Gadflie "We don't pretend to know everything yet. We leave that kind of delusion to the religious types."

      =>don't be so hard on yourself, we know an amazing amount. For example:
      In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.

      Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria - one of the simplest life forms in existence today - is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:
      -A cell wall of some sort to contain the cell
      -A genetic blueprint for the cell (in the form of DNA)
      -An enzyme capable of copying information out of the genetic blueprint to manufacture new proteins and enzymes
      -An enzyme capable of manufacturing new enzymes, along with all of the building blocks for those enzymes
      -An enzyme that can build cell walls
      -An enzyme able to copy the genetic material in preparation for cell splitting (reproduction)
      -An enzyme or enzymes able to take care of all of the other operations of splitting one cell into two to implement reproduction (For example, something has to get the second copy of the genetic material separated from the first, and then the cell wall has to split and seal over in the two new cells.)
      -Enzymes able to manufacture energy molecules to power all of the previously mentioned enzymes

      Obviously, the E. coli cell itself is the product of billions of years of evolution, so it is complex and intricate - much more complex than the first living cells. Even so, the first living cells had to possess:
      -A cell wall
      -The ability to maintain and expand the cell wall (grow)
      -The ability to process "food" (other molecules floating outside the cell) to create energy
      -The ability to split itself to reproduce

      Otherwise, it is not really a cell and it is not really alive. To try to imagine a primordial cell with these capabilities spontaneously creating itself, it is helpful to consider some simplifying assumptions. For example:
      Perhaps the original energy molecule was very different from the mechanism found in living cells today, and the energy molecules happened to be abundant and free-floating in the environment. Therefore, the original cell would not have had to manufacture them.
      Perhaps the chemical composition of the Earth was conducive to the spontaneous production of protein chains, so the oceans were filled with unimaginable numbers of random chains and enzymes.
      Perhaps the first cell walls were naturally forming lipid spheres, and these spheres randomly entrapped different combinations of chemicals.
      Perhaps the first genetic blueprint was something other than DNA.
      These examples do simplify the requirements for the "original cell," but it is still a long way to spontaneous generation of life. Perhaps the first living cells were completely different from what we see today, and no one has yet imagined what they might have been like. Speaking in general terms, life can only have come from one of two possible places:
      Spontaneous creation – Random chemical processes created the first living cell.
      Supernatural creation – God or some other supernatural power created the first living cell.
      And it doesn't really matter if aliens or meteorites brought the first living cell to earth, because the aliens would have come into existence through either spontaneous creation or supernatural creation at some point - something had to create the first alien cells.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
    • Failure to communicate

      Chad,

      Instead of copy and pasting, please say it in your own words and use citation to back up your claims, please.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Chad, first of all, the theory of evolution says no such thing. It doesn't cover abiogenesis at all. Second, what makes you think that early life was even as complex as "one of the simplest life forms in existence today" which is obviously not a valid assumption at all. And, since this is true, your entire argument falls apart.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • chubby rain

      Chad, read up on "RNA World Hypothesis."

      June 1, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
    • Chad

      @chubby rain "Chad, read up on "RNA World Hypothesis.""

      ok, here ya go:
      While the experiments carried out by Stanley Miller and others who have built upon his work show that life may have arisen from a primordial soup, that possibility remains theoretical. There is no evidence for pre-cellular life on Earth; what's more, critics of the RNA world hypothesis point out that the experiments that support the concepts were conducted with biologically created RNA. RNA can act as both a template for self-replication and an enzyme for carrying out that process, but these findings have been carried out in controlled laboratory experiments. This doesn't necessarily prove such delicate actions could happen in the seas of the ancient Earth.
      For reasons like these, the RNA world hypothesis has been largely abandoned by proponents of abiogenesis in favor of other hypotheses, like the simultaneous development of both proteins and genetic templates or the development of life around undersea vents similar to those currently inhabited by today's extremophiles. But there is one criticism that any abiogenesis hypothesis has difficulty overcoming: time. DNA-based life is thought to have developed on Earth beginning around 3.8 billion years ago, giving pre-cellular life forms about 1 billion years to carry out random processes of encoding useful proteins and assembling them into the precursors of cellular life . Critics of abiogenesis say that simply isn't enough time for inorganic matter to become the theorized precellular life. One estimate suggests it would take 10^450 (10 to the 450th power) years for one useful protein to be randomly created .

      June 1, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
    • Failure to communicate

      Chad

      You aren't doing what I asked. The fact that you can't articulate in your own words these theories means you don't understand it, and by copy and pasting you are hoping to mask your ignorance as well as use the deniability that whenever someone disagrees with you, you can say that you never said that, because you didn't, because you didn't say anything.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • Chad

      It's a funny irony that the very people that are supposed to be "on the side of science", actually hate it when data is presented.

      Why do most atheists prefer emotional vs rational discussion?

      June 1, 2012 at 11:24 pm |
    • Failure to communicate

      Chad

      I have yet to state any views or disagree with you, I only ask that you present your arguments in your own words instead of copying and pasting, can you do that?

      June 1, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
    • Chad

      @Failure to communicate "I have yet to state any views or disagree with you, I only ask that you present your arguments in your own words instead of copying and pasting, can you do that?

      =>easily 😉

      To think that living organisms just spontaneously formed into self replicating life, or that the entire universe, time and space, just spontaneously created itself
      is
      ludicrous

      but, I like how others have stated it much more eloquently:
      Probability calculations could be made, but I prefer a variation on a much-used analogy. Picture a gorilla (very long arms are needed) at an immense keyboard connected to a word processor. The keyboard contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also a huge excess drawn from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer. The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne. With similar considerations in mind Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth "would have been a near miracle." I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above.
      (Robert Shapiro, "A Simpler Origin for Life," Scientific American, February 12, 2007)

      June 1, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
    • Failure to communicate

      Chad

      Thank you for finally using your own words, now lets go a step further. You find it ludicrous because of the odds of it happening? The fact that it contradicts genesis? Please go a step further.

      What you quoted is saying the improbability of a gorilla recipe in english is likened to this situation. I say, if you give that gorilla billions of years to do so, without breaks for sleeping, eating, or any other type of rest, but types, nonstop for billions of years, you still find it highly unlikely that it wouldn't arrange the 26 letters in the alphabet into that pattern?

      June 1, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
    • Chad

      @Failure to communicate " I say, if you give that gorilla billions of years to do so, without breaks for sleeping, eating, or any other type of rest, but types, nonstop for billions of years, you still find it highly unlikely that it wouldn't arrange the 26 letters in the alphabet into that pattern?"

      @Chad "The atheist appeal to "given enough time, anything is possible!!"

      well, lets see if your faith is well placed.

      Lets say the "recipe" is a very simple one, it is merely 5 sentences, 12 words each, 5 letters per word, a total of 300 letters (5*12*5 = 300).

      Now, the odds of getting 300 letters in the correct order, is 26^300, meaning 26 raised to the power of 300.
      This is because the odds of getting the correct first letter is 1 in 26, the odds of getting the first 2 letters correct is 26*26 or 1 in 676. The odds of getting three letters correct are 26*26*26 = 1 in 17,576, and so on.

      The odds of getting all correct is 26^300 = 31 045 909 791 601 741 129 555 173 577 283 326 254 391 330 447 279 049 076 124 613 323 118 618 321 370 751 156 293 628 071 919 296 141 560 543 201 311 214 193 643 050 190 537 148 919 138 637 621 764 342 483 350 536 838 153 797 998 080 495 631 306 142 989 861 503 359 218 896 025 937 124 900 322 045 860 202 810 745 026 696 275 415 498 874 707 215 060 413 210 235 730 162 226 975 366 105 545 531 902 719 446 991 564 593 872 797 256 659 234 209 800 207 747 879 015 021 754 561 068 846 662 930 734 290 361 297 812 412 595 434 872 430 004 830 679 752 931 153 203 429 376

      BUT
      the gorilla has billions of years!!!
      so, lets see how many sequences of 300 letters the gorilla must try, to randomly get a correct one.

      If the gorilla bangs out 1 BILLION sentences, every SECOND, it will take him this many years:
      984 459 341 438 411 375 239 572 982 536 888 833 536 001 092 316 053 052 895 884 491 473 827 318 663 456 086 894 140 920 596 121 770 090 073 034 034 475 335 922 217 471 795 318 014 939 708 194 500 391 377 579 608 600 905 434 994 865 566 198 354 456 588 973 284 606 773 810 756 783 901 728 193 875 122 406 228 143 868 172 763 680 095 727 888 990 837 785 807 021 680 941 217 243 003 745 102 280 945 672 230 054 273 357 238 482 916 560 731 678 392 954 329 904 839 390 593 434 838 560 586 724 084 674 351 893 005 213 489 200 750 647 831 203 408 160

      now, the earth is estimated at 4,500,000,000 years old..

      so, lets alternativly figure out how many gorillas, working the entire age of the earth, all banging out 1 billion recipes per second, to actually land on a correct one. AND the answer is:
      218 768 742 541 869 194 497 682 885 008 197 518 563 555 798 292 456 233 976 863 220 327 517 181 925 212 463 754 253 537 910 249 282 242 238 452 007 661 185 760 492 771 510 070 669 986 601 821 000 086 972 795 468 577 978 985 554 414 570 266 300 990 353 105 174 357 060 846 834 840 867 050 709 750 027 201 384 031 970 705 058 595 576 828 419 775 741 730 179 338 151 320 270 498 445 276 689 395 765 704 940 012 060 746 052 996 203 680 162 595 198 434 295 534 408 753 465 207 741 902 352 605 352 149 855 976 223 380 775 377 944 588 406

      so, now that you know how utterly improbably it actually is for that to happen, how confident are you in the "given enough time, anything can happen"

      hmm?

      June 2, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • Primewonk

      So we now have evidence that Chad chooses to be ignorant about cosmology, abiogenesis, evolution, physics, chemistry, mathematic, statistics, probability, and logic.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • Failure to communicate

      Chad

      Easy, it only has to happen once, that's it. You can keep throwing improbabilities out there and think to yourself that it is so improbable that is can't be correct. but your mere existence, in the here and now with your exact genetic signature is about 10^2685000. With those odds, should I suppose that you shouldn't exist because the odds are against you? I'm not saying that you you are supposing isn't improbable. It is, clearly because thus far we have not seen any other life and if it was an event that occurs all the time, Mars would be teaming with life too. Consider though that since it only has to happen once, and indeed we are here, you won't make me doubt that it could happen even if its unlikely. I think you also ignore the other huge variable in this, which is there billions, most likely trillions of habitable planets out there in the universe. We know there is large amounts of water as well. This "life" experiment is being literally trillions of times all over the cosmos and maybe only 1 out of million, maybe even just 1 in a billion yields life because it's the right variables mixed at the right time, when you look at the size and scope, those aren't bad odds at all.

      June 2, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • Failure to communicate

      Also, could you please site where exactly you got your numbers from? I don't doubt them, but they seem awfully precise.

      June 2, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • Chad

      @Failure to communicate "Easy, it only has to happen once, that's it."
      @Chad "Classic, classic, classic atheist logical fallacy.
      It's called "begging the question"

      For example, "well, of course that automobile just appeared out of nowhere just by a random collision of molecules. After all, it's there isnt it?"

      Obviously you are presupposing that your "purely random" hypothesis is correct when you say something like that.. An easily identified and well known logical fallacy 😉

      ==================
      @Failure to communicate " You can keep throwing improbabilities out there and think to yourself that it is so improbable that is can't be correct. but your mere existence, in the here and now with your exact genetic signature is about 10^2685000"
      . With those odds, should I suppose that you shouldn't exist because the odds are against you?"
      @Chad "another logical fallacy. Obviously chance assembly of molecules and existing biological processes are two completely different mechanisms for producing complexity.
      right?

      ==================
      @Failure to communicate " This "life" experiment is being literally trillions of times all over the cosmos and maybe only 1 out of million, maybe even just 1 in a billion yields life because it's the right variables mixed at the right time, when you look at the size and scope, those aren't bad odds at all.
      @Chad "arent bad odds?
      based on what calculation?
      or just faith 😉

      the math is simple, you just need a big number calculator, here's one: http://world.std.com/~reinhold/BigNumCalc.html

      June 2, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • Failure to communicate

      Chad,

      So far, I have been cordial and respectful, I would hope you would be the same instead of using winking emoticons like some sort of 8 year old (unless you are 8 years old).

      The "begging the question" fallacy is only committed when I ask the question. In this instance my claim is not " well doesn't it only have to happen once in order for it to work?" but rather, The odds, albeit enormous by some peoples standards, become null and void because we know it's happened once already. Your automobile analogy is clearly asinine as we both know. If you really want me to go more in depth as to why, I will, however I know that's just one of the ways you stonewall arguments so I don't think it's necessary.

      Could you please tell me how showing you the odds of your own specific birth is another logical fallacy, and which one? As far as I can tell, you keep as/serting that since the odds are too high for life not to have been created by something, then clearly that something must exist (and I as.sume that something in your mind must be the one from the bible). If we want to talk logical fallacies, my friend, you just committed a whopper right there.

      I like your little "faith" comment, as if you win a secret victory by claiming that I must have faith in order for this to be correct. The trick you are playing here is that by trying equate my "faith" with yours, it makes them both equal. This is not the case however as you well know. In science "believing" something to be true does not mean that it one day can not be turned on its head and proven false, nor does this have any greater implications on my life. I simply presented the odds and in my opinion, and in lots of others as well, the odds really aren't that bad, especially when it's entirely possible to stretch the conditions of life to include all sorts of environments. Do I think there's alien life out there? Absolutely, because in my mind the odds of other lifeforms on the trillions of other planets and planetoids around the galaxy and universe could each be a good incubator and harbor alien life, and maybe only 1 out of a billion of those will actually have something, but again, when you're talking ratios comparing billions to trillions, the odds are highly reduced.

      June 3, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Chad

      @Failure to communicate "The "begging the question" fallacy is only committed when I ask the question. In this instance my claim is not " well doesn't it only have to happen once in order for it to work?" but rather, The odds, albeit enormous by some peoples standards, become null and void because we know it's happened once already."
      @Chad "actually, you just begged the question again!
      You do so when you assume that chance was the reason "it happened once already"
      see?
      You ignore the other possible cause for "it happening" namely God.

      Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion. Such arguments are essentially of the form "a is true because a is true"

      see how nicely your claim fits the definition?

      =========
      @Failure to communicate "Your automobile analogy is clearly asinine as we both know. If you really want me to go more in depth as to why, I will"
      @Chad "please do.. my argument is sound"

      =========
      @Failure to communicate "Could you please tell me how showing you the odds of your own specific birth is another logical fallacy, and which one?"
      @Chad "as I said, you are comparing two different processes, organic and inorganic. It's a faulty comparison.

      =========
      @Failure to communicate "As far as I can tell, you keep as/serting that since the odds are too high for life not to have been created by something, then clearly that something must exist (and I as.sume that something in your mind must be the one from the bible). If we want to talk logical fallacies, my friend, you just committed a whopper right there."
      @Chad "something doesnt come from nothing (when that "nothing" is a true nothing, as in the absence of everything"
      God doesnt have a beginning of an end..
      what is the logical fallacy there?

      I like your little "faith" comment, as if you win a secret victory by claiming that I must have faith in order for this to be correct. The trick you are playing here is that by trying equate my "faith" with yours, it makes them both equal. This is not the case however as you well know. In science "believing" something to be true does not mean that it one day can not be turned on its head and proven false, nor does this have any greater implications on my life. I simply presented the odds and in my opinion, and in lots of others as well, the odds really aren't that bad, especially when it's entirely possible to stretch the conditions of life to include all sorts of environments. Do I think there's alien life out there? Absolutely, because in my mind the odds of other lifeforms on the trillions of other planets and planetoids around the galaxy and universe could each be a good incubator and harbor alien life, and maybe only 1 out of a billion of those will actually have something, but again, when you're talking ratios comparing billions to trillions, the odds are highly reduced.

      June 3, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
    • Rachel

      Don't you DARE attack my darling for using emoticons@@@@!!! 🙂

      June 3, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
    • Rachel

      Chad, I adore you! Stop spending all your time and effort here, and give me children!!!! We will PROVE that evolution is non-existent! We'll show them all!!!

      June 3, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • Chad

      missed the last bit...

      @Failure to communicate "I like your little "faith" comment, as if you win a secret victory by claiming that I must have faith in order for this to be correct."
      @chad "you do, right? you have zero evidence and the data says what you are claiming happened is mathematically impossible.. that fits the atheist definition of faith I would say!

      @Failure to communicate " I simply presented the odds and in my opinion, and in lots of others as well, the odds really aren't that bad, especially when it's entirely possible to stretch the conditions of life to include all sorts of environments"
      @Chad ".. think you should review the previous posts again. your odds are virtually zero.. 😉

      @Failure to communicate "when you're talking ratios comparing billions to trillions, the odds are highly reduced."
      @CHad "you need to look at those numbers again, count up how many billions are in that number. you'll be surprised..

      June 3, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • Rachel

      Oh, Chad, (pant, pant) when you talk numbers, it makes me HAWT.

      June 3, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
  4. John in Montana

    The most selfish, opinionated, threatening, intolerant, racist people I have dealt with in life profess to be religious. I choose science.

    June 1, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • Chad

      false dichotomy: belief in science vs belief in God...

      June 1, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
    • Lefty1963

      I couldn't have said it any better. Most believers are ignorant and racist people with a collective IQ of 3.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
    • Fred

      That's funny. The most selfish, opinionated, threatening, intolerant, racist people I have dealt with in life profess to be scientific. I choose God.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
  5. keyser

    Now THAT'S scary.

    June 1, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
  6. danachilton

    It isn't the 'opinion' of the vast majority of scientists that humans evolved over a long period of time; it's scientific fact. A near majority of American's also think scientific fact is really just opinion.

    June 1, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
  7. Primewonk

    @ guy fromVA – the theory of evolution is the single most confirmed theory in all of science. If you have evidence that falsifies Toe, this would be a lovely time to post it.

    June 1, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
  8. guyfromVA

    Be warned, atheists. God mentions you in the bible, and it's not a pretty picture.

    Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
    The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
    Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
    He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
    Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
    Psalm 2

    June 1, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
    • Gadflie

      WOOHOO! A work of fiction mentioned us!!

      June 1, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • Voice of Reason

      It's 2012 brother, act like it!

      June 1, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • Rick James

      All of that just for being skeptical of extraordinary claims? God is so brutish that he makes Hitler look like a wimp.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • Failure to communicate

      What a laugh, every religion says something about the nonbelievers....how do you think they convince people to believe? by telling them what will happen to them if they don't

      June 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • danachilton

      Why are so many fundamentalist Christians so eager...delighted...at the prospect of others going to hell? Your warning comes off as more pious self aggrandizing than genuine concern.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
  9. thegadfly

    Dinosaurs will greet you when you fold the hand of God. Anything can happen, spoil the child and spare the rod. Pieces make up universes, snakes attack your toes. The in-between is sunshine if you just wipe off your nose.

    June 1, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
  10. John

    Many of you continue to rebel against your Creator in defiance and arrogance. Rage on! It doesn't change the Truth, only your destination.

    June 1, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • Voice of Reason

      Your destination is the same as mine Big Bad John! It's called death, nothing more.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:14 pm |
    • guyfromVA

      sorry, Voice, but you'll found out when you die that there is a God. But then, it will be too late to repent.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • Voice of Reason

      @guyfromVA

      And you know this how? Be careful with your answer and make sure it's your own and not something out of your bible book.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • Fred

      Voice of Reason? That's funny. More like the voice of self-delusion.
      Lizards morphing into birds?
      Fish morphing into humans?
      That's hilarious. Doesn't matter how many millions of years you want to name, all creatures reproduce after their own kind.
      That fact is inescapable.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
    • chubby rain

      ^ says the guy who believes in talking snakes, rib women, and parthenogenesis.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:40 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      yeah um speaking as the god/goddess of rebellion,... the god of Abraham is not the creator,... he is no more the creator then Krishna sorry India but its ether one of two Gaia or an accident there the only two that has not been compromised by what we know now

      Gaia created the universe by a virgin birth or bang
      he.ll maybe the universe went bang out of her black hole.,,,

      do you see the gift of being va.gue and over broad it allows you to evolve,... yes evolution in a natural part of nature,... what Gaia is nature,...she did that,.. by being the goddess of the life all things that happen are her,... unlike banking on a what could be, its allot easer to bank on what is and Gaia is,...yup no miracles or supernatural here just the splendor of the natural

      celebrate life don't mourn it

      June 1, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      hey fred do you have a dog or a cat,... are the sabers or dire wolfs,... if not guess what

      June 1, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
  11. MashaSobaka

    All we can do is make sure that their children have the opportunity to learn the truth.

    June 1, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • Voice of Reason

      That is definitely the key, we have to get to the children before they do.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:12 pm |
    • Rationalist

      Or make sure they don't have children.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:12 pm |
    • guyfromVA

      Sorry, but I've put all three of my boys through private christian school, precisely because I didn't want their minds polluted with the dogma that is evolutionary theory.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • thegadfly

      Oh, I don't know about that. I think humanity is headed toward greater stupidity. The academics (including yours truly) certainly don't have the momentum. I mean, we're just apes. There's no reason to think we're going to continue to get smarter when intelligence is a liability. The good news is that the computer technology we've already realized will eventually be our god.

      And the people bowed and prayed to the neon god they made. And the sign flashed out its warning in the words that it was forming. And the sign said, "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls." And whispered in the sounds of silence.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Yep GuyfromVA, maintaining ignorance gets more expensive all the time.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • Jen

      And all three of my kids will not be going anywhere near a Christian school. Any bets on who's kids will be more successful??? I will put everything I own on my amazing beautiful intelligent kids!

      June 1, 2012 at 10:23 pm |
  12. John

    Mankind has not learned from the past judgments of the Father for the wickedness of man continues. The children think they are above the Father. Each day that He holds back His judgment is a gift to you for He loves us in longsuffering patience waiting for the children to turn back to Him.

    Genesis 6:5 – "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

    June 1, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • Voice of Reason

      SHUT THE F*UCK UP!

      June 1, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Yep, some of us decided to follow this mythical cosmic playground bully. I'll pass.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
    • sick of christian phonies

      Get off your soapbox, no one cares what you have to say.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:12 pm |
    • Abolish All Religion

      Crawl back under the rock from whence you crawled out. And take your sky daddy with you. Imbecile.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
    • guyfromVA

      well said, brother.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
    • thegadfly

      My god says my stapler is the cure for all mankind's ills. May the lord of Swinglines be gracious to you all.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
  13. thegadfly

    This just in: 46% of Americans are just plain stupid. Details at eleven.

    June 1, 2012 at 10:05 pm |
    • victor

      46% of Americans are plain RET*RDS (and FYI, I'm a devout Catholic ... but even I have some sense in my brains **rollseyes**)

      June 1, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • thegadfly

      Devout Catholic = idiot. Look around.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:23 pm |
  14. Gadflie

    Here's an interesting fact. Every single scientific advance was done by someone who did not accept "God did it" as a sufficient answer to the question that they were asking.
    Obviously this does not mean that people of faith haven't advanced science. Only that "God did it" has never actually been shown to be the correct answer to any question.

    June 1, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
    • Evangelical

      The vast majority of scientists until recently were either Christian or Jewish. You argument doesn't hold water.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Evangelical, you might consider a reading for comprehension class. Let me see if I can make this clear to you. Which scientific advancement was brought forth by answering "God did it" to a question? Was it Gravity? Did Newton theorize that "God made that apple fall"? Or Pasteur, did he think that "God just put those germs there"? Which one exactly?

      June 1, 2012 at 10:12 pm |
    • sick of christian phonies

      Evangelical: Sure, many scientists were christian or jewish. They just weren't stupid, like fundamentalist evangelicals.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:15 pm |
    • guyfromVA

      This is a strawman fallacy. Christians, in general, ascribe direct miraculous intervention by God as an explanation for every thing that happens. Set up a strawman and knock it down. Nice try.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • thegadfly

      The search for truth is inspired by faith. Alas, the answers found confound that faith. There's no invisible man in the sky. There's just forever, and the stains it leaves upon eternity. Embrace the now, the never, and the ever. And do drugs, before they do you.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
    • Greg

      It isn't that they didn't accept that "God did it", it's that they understood "it" could be described. They fully understood God did it, but they could in some measure describe how he did it. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind – Einstein : Science simply uncovers what God put in place

      June 1, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
  15. John

    Denying Him is futile you senseless ones. It is you who do not see or hear...but He sees and hears everything about you!

    Psalm 94:8-11: "Understand, you senseless among the people; And you fools, when will you be wise? He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see? He who instructs the nations, shall He not correct, He who teaches man knowledge? The Lord knows the thoughts of man, That they are futile."

    June 1, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • Gadflie

      One of the funniest problems with Christianity. The idea of an omniscient God AND free will coexisting. Obviously impossible but Christians just don't care about the possible, only their myths.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • Rick James

      He even watches when people wack off? What a perv

      June 1, 2012 at 10:05 pm |
    • thegadfly

      Life is futile, oh sensible one.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • Voice of Reason

      Keep your delirious and delusional bulls*hit to yourself. It's simpleminded nonsense!

      June 1, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • Jen

      Ha ha Rick. Better not do that now...or it's straight to hell for you.....

      June 1, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
    • Bizarre

      It seems as if you are not really a believer in the Bible, John. In Leviticus 14 "God" spoke to Moses and told him the correct treatment and cure for leprosy. It is the dangedest, silliest thing you'd ever want to read. This was the LORD speaking, John, THE LORD – how dare anyone search for a better treatment!

      Briefly:

      Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly away. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally find another pair of birds. Kill one and dip the live bird in the dead bird's blood. Wipe some blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle the house with blood 7 times. That's all there is to it. Saith THE LORD!

      June 1, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • Rick James

      Jen, it's sort of weird. He usually doesn't make any noise so I can't tell that he's there.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • thegadfly

      Then he is certainly a merciful lord. For he hath heard my farts, and did not guffaw. Peace be unto you all.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • guyfromVA

      keep preaching the word, brother. However, they won't believe unless God gives them the ability.
      "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" John 6:44

      June 1, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • LKT12012

      Edgar Allan Poe – "Nevermore". See I can quote fiction also.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
  16. GodFreeNow

    Yeah, I think if god says you can't have any other gods before him, and science is contradicting god, christians must choose: science or god. After all, no man can serve 2 masters. If you choose science, you are saying that man knows better than god. Be people of your conviction and stop using our technology, medicine, vehicles, etc.

    June 1, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
    • KidIndigo

      Awesome! So when you get appendicitis or have a heart attack, pray to God... don't go to those evil, heathen, science-taught doctors. I'd encourage ALL evangelical science eschewers to do the same. I think your pastor/minister/holy man (likely not a holy woman, God forbid) will take care of you.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
    • thegadfly

      I once saw the distance, and here all things for sale, though not a child would buy the tale. It makes for so much madness, veer from the shining light. Too much forever for one night. Every time you get away, every time you find a way, the sky reminds you of today. Away remains a distant day.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • Russ139

      "Heathens! Remove thyselves from these temples of blasphemy, where the work of the Devil is practiced, and where pretenders to the High Throne dispense their sorcery on the ill and infirmed. Or pray, you'll be damned forever to the fiery depths of Hates. Oh yeah... and one other thing... the Gift Shop now has extended hours and is open until 11."

      June 1, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
    • guyfromVA

      another logical fallacy from GodFree: false dichotomy. Christians believe both in the bible and science. They just don't elevate fallible science over the infallible word of God.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
    • chubby rain

      @guyinVA - isn't that choosing God over science. It is a scientific fact that life evolves. To ignore that is to reject science and believe that God created this world as a farce, as an illusion. Not my idea of a benevolent God.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
  17. Desert Bloom

    Man devised the myth of God/Jesus, and Man continues to foist this myth on to others with the tactic of fear. Thank goodness I am a woman and able to see through this stupidity. There is only one God, "Mother Nature", and she is showing her wrath for man's ignorance in ruining our beautiful earth with all the polution we are creating. That is the only Creationism.

    June 1, 2012 at 9:55 pm |
  18. jamie

    Just think of how many more problems could be solved if more people learned science. Anyone who works against science in a religious context should not be allowed to use a cell phone or post comments with a computer. They should have to live like people did 400 years ago. No cherry picking.

    June 1, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
    • Russ139

      ... or get on airplanes. What self respecting creationist could seriously believe that a 747 sitting there on the tarmac could actually lift off the ground. Must be the work of the Devil.

      Seriously, these creationists WANT to believe in God's hand. Or, feel they have to believe in it. That's what religion does to you. Nothing wrong withthat... until it starts winning out over knowledge. Many a man has smacked his wife rationalizing it with the belief that God madew the male superior.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
  19. Voice of Reason

    Incredible! Just incredibly disheartening. Beyond disgusting. There are no words that describe this injustice to humanity. Ignorance is no excuse for the religious believers. They are ruining our society and if they are allowed to continue to do so we are in a heap of trouble. I know evolution takes time and we won't be around to see the extinction of religion but we have to continue to fight this ignorance with education. I think that's our only hope for our future people.

    June 1, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
    • Puzzled in Peoria

      Be sure to tell everybody your view the next time you're taken to a Christian hospital critically ill.

      June 1, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
    • Voice of Reason

      @Puzzled in Peoria

      I'll do my best to stay away from hospitals that use prayer to heal the wounded. Oh yeah...go f*uck yourself!

      June 1, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • KidIndigo

      I'm sure they will, but hey, the ONLY reason those hospitals exist is because our nation can't bother to establish a NATIONAL (NOT faith based) health care system. And, oh, BTW, those "faith-based" hospitals impose their own values on care given, and you know it, so go away.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:05 pm |
    • thegadfly

      Puzzled in Peoria: I'm certainly glad religious folks make a point of providing medical services, but that certainly isn't going to sway my reasoning on religious philosophy. And by the way, why is it that even religion-based hospitals turn away people in need who don't happen to have a health care plan? Don't try to tell me they don't - I've been there.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
    • Fred

      There was a time when religion held more sway in our every day lives. America was #1 back then. There was no drug war. We didn't need metal detectors or armed guards in the schools. The dollar was the strongest currency in the world.
      Then the liberals started making "improvements."
      Yeah, well, we see how that worked out.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:34 pm |
    • LKT12012

      Fred – apparently you didn't pay attention in history class. A liberal (FDR) led this nation out of the great depression and into the role of a world superpower. Tsk, tsk.

      June 1, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
  20. science 101

    That percentage would actually make America the dopiest country.

    Pop the champagne!

    June 1, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      Just one above Turkey in the list, in fact.

      June 1, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.