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. DARK MATTER

    evolution are invented only of american ,,,lack of reseach

    June 1, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • DoNotWorry

      This makes no sense, please clarify.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
    • Jimmy The Foul Tempered Mutant Sea Bass

      Google Translator really sucks, doesn't it?

      June 1, 2012 at 11:50 pm |
    • James Ruston

      if you would like to be taken seriously, you need to write standard English.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:50 pm |
  2. GOD

    In related news, a new poll has confirmed that approximately 50% of the US population has below average intelligence. Coincidentally, these same individuals also believe the world was created less than 10,000 years before present, with humans existing in their current form the entire time.

    June 1, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
  3. Grad

    Why do people write essays in the comments section?!?!?!

    June 1, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
    • Neil

      😉

      June 1, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • Dr. Light

      That would be indicative of Stage 1 of the atheist tripolar shift.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
    • Jimmy The Foul Tempered Mutant Sea Bass

      Stage One is "You atheists use a lot of word things to explain yourselves, but I am just too stupid to comprehend an intelligent discussion."

      Stage Two is "You atheists use a lot of metaphors and similes, but I am stupid and I don't understand them."

      Stage Three is "I'm stupid and I don't understand why I piss people off."

      June 1, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
    • TNT

      Atheist just fool themselves like the one above.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
  4. Garrett

    how can the average person be that blatantly stupid?

    June 1, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
    • scoobypoo

      It's called brainwashing.
      Most people are indoctrinated from birth in the beliefs of the parents and the 'stupid' cycle continues.

      June 2, 2012 at 7:38 am |
  5. James Ruston

    Lord is this depressing.

    June 1, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
    • Janet

      It is depressing. To completely ignore solid evidence that supports evolution is beyond ignorant. For some reason, people find the notion that we evolved from another life form somehow threatening. The Catholic Church gets it as does almost every other major religion in the world.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
  6. Colin

    I’m pleased, , that you pointed out the flaws in the former, so allow me to address the latter.

    It is OBVOIUS to me that storks bring babies! I have never seen a woman giving birth, but I have seen a lot of storks, especially on margarine containers. If you ever go to the beach, you will lots of storks carrying babies. They look just like pelicans because they carry the babies in their mouths. If women gave birth to babies, there would be no need for a navel, but that is how the stork picks the babies up from HEAVEN.

    There is no REAL evidence that women give birth to babies. It is just a THEORY. If they did, why is it that men never give birth to babies? Why just women? Where do boys come from? It makes no sense. There is also the problem of the missing link, because there are only ever midwives and never “mid-husbands.”

    If women gave birth to babies, why are there still women and babies? And why is it you never see a half-woman, half-baby!! Explain that evolutionists and va.ginal birth believers! Bet you CAN’T.

    If you look at a stork, it is INTELLIGENTLY designed to carry babies. Why would that be if it didn’t deliver babies? And what about twins and triplets? What, do some women have 2, or even 3 uteruses? That is stupid. A stork can EASILLY carry two or three babies, but a woman couldn’t.

    Why is it that for every 50 boys born, there are 50 girls. What, can a va.gina count? Ha, how stupid. But a stork could. And, what about all the GAPS in the birth record. One time I took a peek at my mother’s va.gina, and it was so small and babies are SO BIG.

    You evolutionists are so dumb. Your think babies JUST HAPPENED in their mother’s womb. What, do you think they just appeared out of yucky, slimy blood and stuff ? Fred Hoyle once calculated that the chance of a baby spontaneously appearing in a woman’s uterus was the same as a storm blowing through a junkyard and creating a Boing-747. That’s harder to believe than that the stork brought them!

    You might like to think you came from a mere zygote, but I KNOW I came from a glorious stork.

    My father insists that I was born because he slept with my mother. I derisively call this the Big Bang theory, because he cannot tell me what happened BEFORE the Big bang. And what caused the Big Bang? It must have been a stork.

    You might ask, ok “what caused the stork?” Well the stork was always there.

    June 1, 2012 at 11:33 pm |
    • Bippy, the Lesser Squirrel God of Intelligent Design

      Kirk Cameron and his buddy Ray Comfort want to give you all proof positive of Intelligent Design. It's the ATHEISTS' NIGHTMARE!!! It's . . . a banana.

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4&w=640&h=360]

      June 1, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • guyfromVA

      my my, you evolutionists have vivid imaginations. It must come in handy when crafting all of those "just-so" stories you put in the biology textbooks.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:42 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Bippy – when the speaker talks of the "tab" at the top of the banana (installed by the intelligent designer) he fails to realize that primates learned that squeezing the other end is actually more reliable way of opening the peel than trying to break the peel at the stem end.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:06 am |
    • Bippy, the Lesser Squirrel God of Atheist Nightmare Fruit

      It's worse than that – wild bananas don't look anything like the domesticated ones. They are short, not curved, and they are filled with lots of big seeds that makes them hard to eat.

      The banana that Ray the Brain is holding is the product of thousands of years of intentional domestication by humans. It's inteligent designer? People. Not Almighty God, but people.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:41 am |
  7. concerned scientist

    This is like declaring you have a venereal disease. You can do it but it is certainly nothing to be proud of. Someday future historians may point at surveys like this and say, "Here is where it became obvious that the USA lost its technological prowess in favor of religious delusion.

    June 1, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
    • DARK MATTER

      no evidence ????? how about the bacteria where is it came from,,,to build the dna ?? your late

      June 1, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
  8. Reality

    ONLY FOR THE NEW MEMBERS OF THIS BLOG:

    What we do know: (from the fields of astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology and the history of religion)

    1. The Sun will burn out in 3-5 billion years so we have a time frame.

    2. Asteroids continue to circle us in the nearby asteroid belt.

    3. One wayward rock and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.

    4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.

    5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.

    6. All stars will eventually extinguish as there is a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the universe. When this happens (100 trillion years?), the universe will go dark. If it does not collapse and recycle, the universe will end.

    7. Super, dormant volcanoes off the coast of Africa and under Yellowstone Park could explode catalytically at any time ending life on Earth.

    Bottom line: our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?

    June 1, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
    • Reality

      Then there is this:

      As per National Geographic's Genographic project:

      https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

      " 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."

      June 1, 2012 at 11:34 pm |
  9. Charlie The Tuna

    These idiots are the Republican base, the Moron Majority, the people who need to turn on Rush every morning to find out what their opinions are.

    June 1, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
  10. geoff

    that's not a good thing people

    June 1, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
  11. Shawn

    I find it interesting that the online community, as represented in this comments section, is so diametrically opposed to either creationism, Christianity, or even religion in general. Clearly the polls are representing a wider and more fair range of the population: those practical folks who spend perhaps less time at the computer and answer the good old fashioned telephone. I, for one, am definitely not active in any online community, but am encouraged by this article as I believe it is evidence that ministries such as AiG and CMI (Creation Ministries International) have been doing their work well with the few but active Phd scientists they have on staff. I do not expect to be available for the inevitable overwhelming disagreement my comments will face. I would much sooner direct you to these "perpetrators" themselves so you can have an informed discussion with the most informed on the creationist side. E.g., check out the 7,000+ articles on creation.com if you haven't stopped by this world-class website yet.

    June 1, 2012 at 11:21 pm |
    • Rick James

      "World-class website" LOL

      "Practical folks" ,more or less, don't know how to use the internet.

      And creationism has no evidence. NONE

      June 1, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
    • Lynsey Pug

      Given that 25% of households no longer use a landline phone, I'd say the survey itself was flawed and did NOT sample the US population accurately. I wonder if those households that no longer use the outdated phones also no longer believe in myths.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • Buckhippo

      Just because a bunch of people believe something to be true, doesn't make it true. Remember the world was once thought of as flat? Even when Chris Columbo sailed around the world, many people still did not, could not, would not believe that the world was round. When Darwin proposed evolution, and despite the mountain of evidence today about our origins, people are easily led by those with an agenda and it became the typical "us vs. them" argument that is so pervasive in out modern American society. There will always be people who want to believe they know what happens after death and they will cling to their ideology in the face of scientific proof because it challenges one of their core personality traits (eg. to blindly believe that which cannot be proven). So again, people are easily led by things they don't know or understand much about. Religion is an easy gimmick for people to buy into because it's a way to align oneself with others who share the same delusional concepts in an acceptable format that society even rewards. And it's a way for some to control the many. True science and the search for the truth should free the mind, not ensnare it.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
    • Shawn

      For the sake of argument, I concede that the poll may not be a fair representation, as that is not the main issue in my mind. I am mostly concerned about those who blithely post blanket statements such as "there is no evidence for creation" without having done at least a brief check of the well-organized content at a site like creation.com where there is more than just casual comments being thrown back and forth and which are formed only in the minds of single individuals without the thorough peer-review that the aforementioned creationist literature goes through.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
    • concerned scientist

      How much money does Ken Ham and his entire family make at AIG?

      June 1, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
    • DoNotWorry

      hmmmmmm, I haven't had a landline telephone in YEARS and I am 58. Come one, folks, a land line is outre.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:49 pm |
  12. infonomics

    Dear Future Americans:

    We tried to proselytize the Creationists with "On the Origin of the Species" but they complained about the reading. Ironically, we tried the same using the Bible. Again, they refused to read it. Your problem now. Good luck.

    June 1, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
  13. doug

    Much of this discussion has gotten way out of hand. Secular people who believe in evolution, as I do, telling people who believe in God that they are unintelligent and ignorant, and vice versa. Sad really. Are we really at the stage where each belief system can only exist in the absence of the other? Many religious people are highly intelligent, and that should be self evident. Lincoln, Eisenhower, FDR? They were all religious to varying degrees. Washington? Jefferson? C'mon. I do have a problem with lack of tolerance of many evangelicals and fundamentalists, but I find no justification for trying to convince believers in God not to believe. And they should not try to force their beliefs on me. It's the American way to let everyone believe what they wish, or not believe what they wish. There is little to be gained from this type hatred toward each other. Science and Religion can exist side by side. If we want it that way.

    June 1, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Unfortunately, the problem in this country has been government support of religion to the detriment of science. Attempts to teach "creationism" in science classes as if there were actually any evidence supporting it continue. And, this is a dangerous path to take.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
    • chubby rain

      Evolution is basis of modern biology, medicine, bioengineering, etc. To simply chose not to accept this is purely idiotic. I'm just calling it like I see it.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:35 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Doug, I am 100% with you on this. Thank you.

      I am embarassed by self-professed aethists, particularly on these forums who spout all kinds of hateful animus and vitriol. I understand why they might be frustrated, but there's just not place for the abuse. And the so-called "Christians" who respond in kind should know better.

      People who follow the precepts of their faith deserve respect, not ridicule. At the same time, I don't appreciate proselytism, hypocrisy and uncritical thinking.

      I must confess not to understand how (mostly) Evangelicals want to accept the Genesis account as categorically factual when they are happy to "interpret" other parts of the Bible. The Genesis account is remarkably consistent with scientific theory if you take the "days" as arbitrary units of time. The sequence:

      First emptiness, then
      Light (big bang)
      Waters
      Dry Land
      Vegetation
      Aquatic creatures
      Birds
      Land creatures
      Humans

      Sounds familiar to me. If a 'day' can be an arbitrary length of time, it almost sounds like evolution!

      June 1, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
    • Gadflie

      I'm not, actually, per science your steps would be in this order (give or take),
      1, 2, 4, 3, 6, 5, 8, 7, 9

      June 1, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
    • Donald Gordon

      So true, I know some very highly intelligent people who happen to be very religious. Just because I disagree with them on various issues, such as this one, doesn't mean I think any less of them. That is the problem with this country these days, there is n't substantive debate, just name calling and little interest in learning why others have differing opinions. This is common on both sides of the issues.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:55 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Gadflie, it's close enough, given a bronze-age allegorical context, for believers to feel that evolution could be the mechanism designed by God.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
    • ArthurP

      Except genetics shows us that land creatures came before birds. Specifically dinos evolved into birds. Genetics do not lie.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:07 am |
  14. ArthurP

    Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve

    http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve

    June 1, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
    • government cheese

      The questions weren't on their, just an article.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:21 pm |
  15. government cheese

    I would like to see the questions. Media on both sides has a way of skewing the truth.

    June 1, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Ask and ye shall receive.

      Did you click on the first link in the article? It links to Gallup . com and you can look at the questions, the answer data and the demographics.

      It's all there, plain to see.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
  16. Colin

    n reality, it took about 4 billion years of Earth history for human beings to evolve. The process is well understood. Starting with a "simple" organism (and I say "simple" because even the simplest of organisms are complex, but I’ll come back to that) all of the offspring of that organism will all be slightly different to their parent, and to each other. No boy is identical in EVERY respect to his father.

    Those organisms with the traits that best suit it to survive are more likely to pass on their genes (and that advantageous trait) to their own offspring. A slightly faster lion, taller giraffe or better sighted hawk is more likely than its slower, shorter or more myopic brethren to live long enough to breed and pass on the favorable genes that gave it the edge. No rocket science there.

    So far, easy, but here is the key and the thing creationists don't seem able (or, perhaps, willing) to grasp. The way in which any child will differ from its parents will generally be small (such as eye color, height etc.) but, given enough time and enough generations, and provided some external element is selectively favoring specific traits, such as acute eyesight, the differences will add up. Over thousands of generations, so much cu.mulative change builds up that the great-great-great etc. grandson will be so different from its great-great-great etc. grandfather as to amount to a new species.

    If, for example, a dog breeder only ever allows the fastest male dogs to breed with the fastest female dogs, after many years of such selective breeding the resultant dogs will differ so much in body shape, leg length and, perhaps, lung capacity from their ancestor as to be considered a separate breed. No one set of offspring will differ greatly from its parents, but it will differ a little more from its grandparents, and even a little more from its great-grandparents etc., until we go all the way back to the original dog, which will be quite different in appearance.

    We see this around us everywhere. Ever heard of greyhounds, the most obvious example of breeding for speed? Very different to bulldogs, aren’t they. All breeds of dog alive today descended from wolves. In fact, it is likely that they all descended, ultimately, from a small pack of wolves that were domesticated in either the Middle East or Manchuria some 10,000 years ago. In any event, every last one of them, from the Teacup Chihuahua in Paris Hilton’s purse to the Great Danes of European car advertisements, are the cu.mulative result of selective breeding down different paths from the original wolf.

    Now, what are the chances of two wolves giving birth to a Chihuahua or Dalmatian? Virtually zero, but this ignores (like your 747 example does) all of the intermediate steps – the generations – the tint steps – required to get from a wolf to a Chihuahua. It took 10,000 years, about 5,000 generations – 5,000 baby steps. I could not jump from New York to San Francisco, but I could certainly walk there in little steps.

    Evolution is, in fact, a work in process, as dog breeders all over the world, along with horse breeders, wheat farmers, rose growers, cattle farmers and all other professions that depend on the traits of plants or animals to make their living, selectively breed for desired traits. Why do you think horse breeders pay thousands of dollars for the fastest stud horses to breed with their mares?

    Even the most cursory of research into any branch of horticulture or animal husbandry quickly reveals that the size, variety, health, longevity and resistance to disease of most of our domesticated plants and animals were the thing of dreams as recently as 100 years ago. Indeed, biotech companies like Monsanto would quickly fall behind the competi.tion if they did not spend millions each year on Darwinian selective breeding programs.

    You really think that people in the 1500s ate fruit and vegetables of the size, nutritional value and taste we do today? Hell, there are hundreds of types of apple today. They did not exist a few centuries ago. Why do diseases “build up” a resistance to antibiotics. Individual bacteria don’t, but antibiotics sometimes only kill 99% of the bacteria, leaving a few individuals to breed and pass on the trait that allowed them to survive the antibiotic to their offspring. Gradually, these survivors and their descendents will outnumber the original, weaker disease. A new, more resistant strain of the disease has just evolved. Or did your all loving god create the new, virulent strain in an effort to kill people?

    Now, to go back to the point I left open at the start of this post, what evolution does not explain (nor attempt to) is how the first complex living things arose. However, the more we understand biological processes, the more we are seeing that there is a natural tendency for non-living organic compounds to clump together into increasingly complex forms. Experiments show this all the time. While explaining this process would take a while in an already long post, suffice it to say that no step in the process of gradually increasing complexity of organic molecules into simple life seems to be too complex to have happened without divine intervention. It just took a long, long time – hundreds of millions of years, and a big, big "Petri dish" – the entire Earth-before it occurred, perhaps even more than once.

    Finally, even if we were to assume that [the Christian] god created the first living cell, where does that get us? We immediately bump into the question of what created that god? God was always there, right? But this is the same as saying he "just happened" and God is even less likely than a 747 or a simple cell is to have "just happened." In fact, why is “God” considered an explanation for anything. It isn’t. It’s a cop out, a shrug of the shoulders. When a person attributes something to God, it usually means they haven’t got a clue, so they invoke a magic act by some unreachable, unknowable sky-fairy. All we have done is put a halo on a question mark and walked away from the challenge.

    Frankly, would any believer, absent having been taught it from when they were too young to question it, possibly conclude the existence of a creator-god as a thinking adult, based on what we know in science today? Much less the one that is straight out of late Iron Age Palestinian mythology.

    PS: The sky-fairy analogy is not original. It is cited in Dawkins as being from an unnamed blogger.

    PPS: I did not distinguish between “breeds” and “species” but that is simply a matter of degree of exactly the same process. Accepting one but not the other is like accepting the existence of inches but denying the existence of miles.

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

      This is all an excellent expose of natural selection, which is an essential factor in the creationist theory. There is one large vacuum in the argument, however. Where is the generation of the novel information required for evolution in the sense of goo-to-you-via-the-zoo, even provided eons of time? Cf, creation.com/train

      Selection, yes. But selection of already existing information. A plausible theory for the generation of information has yet to be supplied.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Shawn, there are actual several mechanisms. Mutation being the most commonly discussed.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:30 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Shawn, So your reason for believing god created life is that scientists haven't answered every question yet?

      June 1, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
    • Jesus

      Amen to that!!

      June 1, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
    • Bud in NC

      Colin. I am familiar and agree with everything you wrote. You summed it up better than I possibly could. Thank you.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:50 pm |
    • Shawn

      GodFreeNow, your assessment is basically accurate. I find it ironic that forensic science so readily recognizes evidence of intelligent plan and purpose, while our modern origins science ignores the overwhelming evidence of design in something like the most compact information storage system in the known universe, i.e., DNA. The existence of information in all other sciences and in all of practical life is taken as irrevocable proof of intelligent involvement but somehow origins science must differ.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:51 pm |
    • Jesus Galileo

      @Shawn

      It's called DNA, my doubting friend.

      God is a human construct, something To give us hope and understanding for things beyond our comprehension.

      Society would function poorly if the trashman, the butcher, the fruit picker...etc etc knew the ugly truth...that this is it. You get one life, you die, and then you are worm food. God/religion motivates the masses–provides meaning and hope to their miserable livelihoods and existences..."reap the rewards of my labor and faith in heaven...blah blah."

      Humans, life in all forms has evolved over billions of years. In a few billions of years, our sun will explode in a supernova and destroy everything our planet ever was (of course, I doubt humans will still be around by then). And you know what, the cold, calculated, innate universe will keep on going–governed by the laws of physics and science (of which evolution and natural selection is a small chapter). And, the universe will for sure host life again, in some other corner of oblivion...

      And maybe those folks will become intelligent enough to gather and live in communities...and the smartest beings won't want to work as hard, or labor as hard..and will want to slower, less bright ones to do all that....and then...maybe God will be reborn....

      June 1, 2012 at 11:51 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Shawn, what brilliant design are you pointing at? As I mentioned before, your designer lacks imagination because it's basically copying and recopying the same design and it's full of flaws. Like, why was the eye built backward? Why do we have a wandering nerve? Why is the path of the vas deferns so jacked up? There are so many design flaws, your designer needs to go back to school and get some lessons from Apple.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
    • Shawn

      GodFreeNow, your questions are all quite legitimate but also quite possible to answer. The only problem may be your motive in asking these questions. If it is only to refute or tear down the creationist position or if they are only posted to continue the argument, I will decline the pleasure of answering them. If, however, they are honest questions, you may check out informed answers from people like eye specialists themselves at creation.com. For starters, see http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins

      June 2, 2012 at 12:08 am |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Shawn, No one need tear down creationists. Their theories have enough holes to be self-destructive. Your article was interesting if it weren't completely based on the fact the photocells must regenerate. Flaw. Clearly you can see that, or do you find entropy part of the perfect design as well. While the eye may have adapted over time to make use of certain flaws, there is no scientific evidence that says they would not have adapted otherwise if they were built in reverse. What you find in the construction of the eye is exactly what you would expect if you look at small changes over a long period of time beginning with a very basic photoreceptor. Again, there is nothing in this article that discounts that either.

      I particularly found this ti.tle telling, "Evolutionists dogmatically hang on to dud argument." Evolution science has changed and grown over its lifespan. Dogma is something that wouldn't change because it is true. For example, we would never have taken a genetic evolution position if we clung dogmatically to the simplistic but accurate view of natural selection presented by Darwin.

      Compare this to the story of god which people have clung to for thousands of years... now, which one sounds like the definition of dogma?

      June 2, 2012 at 3:02 am |
    • Shawn

      GodFreeNow, if the evolution of the eye really is so cut-and-dried where is the detailed explanation or description of each intermediate form? Even further, if the backward wiring is really such a bad design it wonders me why the scoffers cannot come up with a superior device. Optic devices (e.g., the camera) that depend on the marvellous function of the human eye are the best that intelligence as we know it has been able to come up with. Also, according to such logic, the octopus eye is superior to the vertebrate one. Yet there is a reason we refer to the eyes of an eagle as a better expression of speech than "the eyes of an octopus". The regeneration of photoreceptors, far from discrediting a designer, are yet another evidence of how nature outshines the best of man-made devices by self-repairing. The emergence of that first photoreceptor, simple though it may have been, is still a huge hurtle that needs to be overcome on the way to evolutionary faith. (Both positions are clearly faith positions as we are now delving into the realm of what cannot be repeatedly tested in the lab and are investigating the unseen, unrepeatable past.) But, alas, it appears as though you are an insincere questioner. If you were really interested in investigating and thoroughly refuting our position, you would have checked out further articles (cf http://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers) written on this topic, which it appears you haven't.

      June 2, 2012 at 8:34 am |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Shawn, This is another straw man argument that relies on reductive logic at best. You assume that just because man in his less than 400 years of optic study and less than 50 years in optic technology cannot build a better camera than the eye, therefore there must be a great designer. Give man the 4 billion of years of evolution in optics that the eye went through and I guarantee he will surpass that. What we see as visible light is actually only about .7 of the light spectrum. It is extremely limited and we have already built many telescopes and cameras that can see beyond that range. As a professional in the field of camera optics, this happens to be my area of expertise. In fact it is not the eye that is so wonderful, but the brain. Next time you go into the woods and find a magical scene, take a photo. The camera will see what is really there. The sticks on the ground, the blue plastic bottle, the garbage can. All of these things your brain excludes. Cameras are already available that can capture a full depth-of-field for later adjustment. The eye cannot do this nor can the brain. It can only recall what it was focused on. Try again.

      June 2, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
  17. John Steel

    46% of Americans are idiots. Yeah, flying spaghetti monster!

    June 1, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
    • Shawn

      Indeed, if God were as much of a myth as the flying spaghetti monster, then why all this hype about Him and the proponents of His existence/creative act? Why so much concern devoted to something harmlessly non-existent? Is there a chance some of you are actually beginning to feel threatened?

      June 1, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
  18. kevink41

    Obviously this is a landline-phone survey.

    June 1, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
  19. Sanity

    “Let me tell you, these past two years, they have deepened my faith,” Obama told a ballroom full of applauding believers at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.
    “The presidency has a funny way of making a person feel the need to pray.”
    He detailed how, after a non-religious upbringing, he came to define himself as a Christian.
    “A call rooted in faith is what led me, just a few years out of college, to sign up as a community organizer for a group of churches on the south side of Chicago,” he said.
    “And it was through that experience, working with pastors and laypeople, trying to heal the wounds of hurting neighborhoods, that I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace him as my Lord and Savior.”

    June 1, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
    • Robert Johnson

      Hey, the guy's a gifted politician. Regardless of what he actually believes, he'll try to identify with as many voters as possible. It's called "pandering". They all do it.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:24 pm |
    • adrifter

      No one could get elected president of the United States without proclaiming a Christian faith. It's just a sad political fact.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
    • doug

      This is interesting. Many secular people, or atheists, or progressives (and i count myself in at least two of those categories), believe Obama is lying when he says he believes in God. And the MAJORITY! of conservatives think he is lying also! The guy can't win no matter what he says! Again, being a "progressive" or secularist, should not require that you hate all belivers, and vice versa. Conservatives are guilty of the same destructive rhetoric. They accuse all progressives of being devil worshipers who want to destroy the morals of America. This rhetoric should be condemned by conservatives. When Romney plays up to these people, he destroys all of his credibility in my opinion.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:32 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @doug, Man... I really hope you're right and Obama doesn't believe in god.

      June 1, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
    • James Ruston

      I am glad Obama professes Christianity rather than Islam or national socialism, but that has nothing to do with the evolution/creationist argument

      June 1, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
  20. Evan

    This is really disturbing.

    June 1, 2012 at 11:05 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.