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. Nasir Khan

    The almost intact Neanderthal skeletons prove the existence of a human like species at some point of time. There are thousands of fossils of extinct species related to modern humans before H.Sapiens arrived.
    Even if you subscribe to "intelligent design" you will have to concede that there was a substantial "experimentation" that took place before the modern humans came into existence (assuming you do trust carbon dating).
    This "experimentation" is the core tenet of evolution. It is as simple as that.

    June 4, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
  2. Spongee

    Found this article while googling "Carbon Dating is Flawed." Excerpts below.

    Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

    The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

    But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

    What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? – At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

    This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

    This is common practice.

    They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

    They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! – how’s that for an "exact" science?

    They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

    So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

    Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

    So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

    Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.

    I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.

    "We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."

    June 4, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • wayne317

      Go to youtube look up potholer54 and carbon dating. It will be explained to your satisfaction there. How unkind of you though not to share the link.

      June 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Darwin's Ghost

      You find a pile of nonsense posted by a creationist and use that as a scientific explanation! Wow! Radiometric dating is used to date fossils such as dinosaur bones.

      June 4, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • sam

      Sounds like a very poorly written article, based on the excerpts...misconceptions and hearsay passed off as fact.

      June 4, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • chubby rain

      If you date an object outside of the range or radiometric carbon dating, you get a nonsensical result. The half-life of carbon 14 is 5,700 years. To date older rocks, scientists typically use Uranium which has half-lives of 700 million years and 4.5 billion years depending on the isotope, which has confirmed, along with other methods, the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. This is another argument designed to exploit the ignorance of its target audience.

      June 4, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • ME II

      @Spongee,
      I think you answered your own question.

      "What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? – At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

      This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. "

      Why?

      "Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years."

      http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometeric-dating-does-work

      June 4, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • Spongee

      ME II,

      Yep, you're right on that one. Thanks for pointing it out.

      June 4, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
  3. wayne317

    Does anyone remember those cartoons where they show a paint brush painting the scence? That's the basic creationist belief. Except with them it's God and his magic wand, poofing animals into existance from nothing.

    Evolution is a fact and that is true no matter if there is a God or not. If we could just get these idiots to understand that.

    June 4, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
  4. ChristianPhysicist

    @Eric G

    That would be true if I was trying to establish the existence of God as fact. I am not. I only wish to argue against disregarding all belief in God as worthy of ridicule. I would love to hear your thoguhts on how we can difinitely define any variable relating to the initial conditions of the universe without making assumptions or speculations. As to your statement '[a]s an example, if you were to say "Well, it could be possible that a god exists and created the universe, but we have no evidence to support this hypothesis", your position would not be illogical.' That is exactly what I am saying. I agree.

    @Really-O?

    "Science-speak" is what people call knowledge that they do not know or are to lazy to look up. It is the internet so there is no way to prove who I am or if I am honest. This is adiscussion where who you are matters less than what you have to say. However, to set the record straight I am indeed a Physicsist, not just someone with a made up name.

    June 4, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @ChristianPhysicist –

      I'm calling you out. If you are "indeed a Physicsist (sic)", answer the following:
      1) Why do you assert that philosophy is a "science"?
      2) Can you point me to the physics reference that discusses "multiple dimensional bubbles"?
      3) Why, as a "physicist" do you not understand the difference between a theorum and a theory?
      4) Why do you use the term "theory" as only a layman (or christian) would?
      5) Why do you ask for "proof that God was not the First Cause"? Wouldn't a scientist, or even a philosopher, know that a negative cannot be proven?

      I could go on, but it seems pointless. I, sir, call shenanigans, and assert you are a fraud.
      .

      June 4, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @ChristianPhysicist –

      And my use of "science-speak" was with a nod to Orwell. Shall I assume you've also never studied great literature?

      June 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • ChristianPhysicist

      @Really-O?

      1) Why do you assert that philosophy is a "science"?
      The Science Before Science: A Guide to Thinking in the 21st Century by Anthony Rizzi. This is an interesting book which demonstrates the need for philosophical thought in the scietific community. I have read the book twice and met the author at a conference on Quantum Foundations a couple of years ago.
      2) Can you point me to the physics reference that discusses "multiple dimensional bubbles"?
      This was in relation to a comment by another individual (I'm The Best) when he was talking about membranes and other dimensions colliding to form the universe, not an actual physical theory.
      3) Why, as a "physicist" do you not understand the difference between a theorum and a theory?
      The only theorem I purposely spoke of (not including typos) was that of Gödel on incompleteness. The theories I speak of are the Big Bang theory and any other creation theory (including God) which has no experimental (or observational) proof to make it otherwise. I am not disputing the Big Bang theory (in fact I quite like it) but it is a theory nonetheless because, as you probably know, new developments and discoveries in cosmology provide new ideas about our universe on a regular basis.
      4) Why do you use the term "theory" as only a layman (or christian) would?
      I refer you to my earlier comments about the observable universe and the distance into the past of the cosmos that we can see. As a physicsict I am also not a cosmologist. A physicsist must pick an area of specialty and mine is solid state physics with an interest in quantum foundations.
      5) Why do you ask for "proof that God was not the First Cause"? Wouldn't a scientist, or even a philosopher, know that a negative cannot be proven?
      I am not a philosopher either, I misspoke earlier. If you proved that something else was the First Cause then God would not be, is what I intended to convey.

      June 4, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @ChristianPhysicist –

      I'll give you a pass on #2 and assume you intentionally used gobbledygo.ok (although I can't see why you would, especially if you were a physicist); however, your other answers confirm that you are a fraud...and you don't even understand why...priceless!
      .

      June 4, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • ChristianPhysicist

      Trolling: Why people can't have intelectual discussions on the internet. People love to criticize and appear more intelligent then they really are by ridiculing others yet they have no basis for their own lines of reasoning. "...[H]owever, your other answers confirm that you are a fraud...and you don't even understand why...priceless!" This is a great example because your lack of knowledge about the subject shows in your response. When someone doesn't know what they are talking about they write off everything that was said with a witty comment without actually adressing what was said.It is a good way to get laughs but also a great way to prove to everyone else that you are left without any other way of responding.

      Science-speak, really? It was called newspeak.

      June 4, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
      • Murray Daw

        We seem to have been at the same conference, and have quite a few other things in common, but I am only guessing at who you are. Do you know how to contact me directly?

        September 20, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @ChristianPhysicist –

      Dishonesty is despi.cable and you are dishonest. The more you write, the more you expose yourself. Anyone with a 101 courses in philosophy and science can see you're a fraud. You even site an apologist (Anthony Rizzi) as your "justification" for claiming philosophy is a science. No wonder Chad thought your post was great. Fraud.

      June 4, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • chubby rain

      @CP - If I grant that the universe had a first cause (it appears to), and if I allow you to call this first cause "God" (Instead of "Pikachu", "Rock", or "Tom Cruise"), then that is all that argument proves. It does not prove that God is sentient, omnipotent, omnipresent, involved in the universe, pink, Chinese, etc. It does not prove that God talked to Muhammad, Jesus, Joseph Smith, Siddhartha or anyone else. It doesn't prove that God cares what we do or even knows that we exist. Merely, "God" is a loaded word and by using it for the first cause, you are invoking all of the connotations of the word.

      June 4, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...and yes, I do realize I typed "site" instead of cite. And I through in an extra "a" in my text.

      June 4, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...and "through" instead of threw. I admit I'm a lousy proofreader.

      June 4, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
    • closet atheist

      I'm always impressed by how much religious types twist logic and obfuscate the argument to try to justify their insane position.

      Clearly, there some on here who are very adept at this skill. I find it incredible (and sad) that the more weak-minded will read their babble and find validation for their faith position, regardless of how baseless it is.

      June 4, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @closet atheist –

      And then there are those like ChristianPysicist and Chad who take it one step further and just flat-out lie.

      June 4, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • ChristianPhysicist

      @Really-O?

      Would you like for me to discuss time-independent perturbation theory and how it is used in quantum mechanics? Or perhaps write the Hamiltonian for an arbitrary physical system? Maybe I should write about thermoelectrics and semiconductors. There is always employing tensor calculus to work out problems related to general relativity. I could talk about the work of Antony Valentini who I also met at the Quantum Foundations conference. But the sad thing is none of that would prove anything to you. I am not out to prove anything, just to encourage people to not label all Christians as ignorant and stupid. I don't have all of the answers but neither does anyone else here (or science for that matter). I just wish I could express my belief in a creator without being ridiculed, which does nothing more than sidestep the issue anyways. My premise it that it is possible that God exists therefore it is not stupidity if I choose to believe in a divine creator.

      June 4, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @ChristianPhysicist –
      I have never asserted that all christians are "ignorant and stupid" – that position is untenable. I have not, and do not, assert that you are "ignorant and stupid". However, when you make untrue claims about your qualifications in an attempt to lend a veneer of authority to your arguments, you are engaging in dishonesty. You have the opportunity to drop the charade. I'm not saying you have to repudiate your current assertions, just stop pretending to be something you're not.

      ...contingent olive branch at your feet.

      June 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • Really-O?

      I have not, and do not, assert that you are "ignorant and stupid"
      should read –
      I have not asserted, and do not assert, that you are "ignorant and stupid"

      I'm a bit of a stickler for the written word – a heavy burden for one poor at proofreading.

      June 4, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • ME II

      @Really-O,
      You may be barking up the wrong tree here. I have no idea if @ChristianPhysicist is actually a Physicist and not sure it matters, he hasn't, I don't think, attempted to use an appeal to authority and just seems to be saying God is a possibility. Any science minded person should be able to accept that as a possibility, even if they consider it unlikely.

      Additionally, I want to encourage any believer to accept valid evidence and follow and the scientific method, because so many do seem to ignore or misunderstand it. While I might disagree with CP's argument about first cause, I don't disagree with the possibility. Basically, I would suggest you "pick your battles" for those more in need.

      Just my opinion though. take it or leave it.

      June 4, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Phony Physicist: What other evidence do you have besides the Bible that backs up your claims/beliefs?

      June 4, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @ME II –

      If you read ChristianPysicist's post below (June 4, 2012 at 11:45 am) – you may not have seen it as he started a new thread – you will see that he is making factual claims and trying to smuggle-in an appeal to authority (his own) by misrepresenting himself as a physicist, which he clearly is not. This is dishonest and should not be given a "pass".

      June 4, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
  5. ChristianPhysicist

    Science and Religion do not always have to be at odds. However, the ignorance of most Christian about anything related to Science has created a stereotype which I find unfortunate and unfair to the educated individual who has somehow reconciled his/her faith with science. As a Christian I have no problem with evolution or theories involving the origin of the cosmos. And as a Physicist I have no problem with the existence of God and the validity of religion.

    Personally I try to rely on philosophic thought to guide my reactions to the proposed theories of creation from science. For instance the comment earlier about the First Cause is a good point. If you study philosohy (an recognize it as a science) there has to be a First Cause from which everything else in existence was caused. Origionally (pre String Theory) this was the Big Bang. The Big Bang Theory is a great example of how a belief in God and Science can be reconcilled. Before the Big Bang there was nothing, or at least nothing definable because there was no time or space. However philosophically nothing cannot produce something. So there had to be something outside of time and space and definition. Now whether that something was God or it was multiple dimensional bubbles floating around is entirely a matter of belief (again no time or space or physics as we know it so no definition). It is a very complex matter which I cannot fully expound upon here but our observable universe is only so big and even if it were larger we could not observe what was before the Big Bang because we cannot "see" that far into the past. Plus Gödel's incompleteness theorem established that there is a limit to how much we can know by theory. So what happened before the past of the universe that we can see and certainly before the Big Bang is entirely theory and cannot be relied upon as a "fact" due to the inconsistancy in large mathematical systems. And to anyone who disagrees please provide a rigorous proof that God was not the First Cause and I'd be happy to hear you out. My main point is that scientifically minded and educated people have every right to challenge and ridicule the ignorance and stupidity exhibited by some Christians. But not every Christian should be painted with the same brush as the cliche goes.

    I believe in God and I believe that because He created everything in the universe (and beyond) there will never be any scientific fact discovered that disproves His existence. But it does thrill me when scientific facts challege preconcieved notions about how the world "is supposed to be" proposed by ignorant Christians who are unwilling to open a book and expand their minds.

    June 4, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • Jeff

      Very well said...not that I expect the majority of this board to respect your statements...

      June 4, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • Chad

      Well said!!

      That was pretty much exactly the topic in the Craig-Krauss debate. Great listening:
      http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/03/william-lane-craig-vs-lawrence-krauss.html

      June 4, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • I'm The Best!

      Science may not say that there is no god, but the way I look at it is science does say no god has been needed since the big bang (or whatever theory, the beginning of the universe). Solar systems formed, life began, evolution, us. My point is, to then say there was a god that started it all is, in my opinion, poor science. I'm not saying its impossible, just very very improbable.

      Saying there's a god that did this raises more questions than it answers. Like where did this god come from, and why can't we detect him?

      Science may not show that its impossible for a god to exist, but in my opinion, it makes it improbable enough that its silly to believe one exists.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
    • Chad

      "Science may not show that its impossible for a god to exist, but in my opinion, it makes it improbable enough that its silly to believe one exist"

      what calculation are you using to say it is "improbable"?

      June 4, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • Jamest297

      This is no more than an extra long paragraph intended to give christians a cloak of intelligence and credibility where there is none of either as it relates to this topic. When every christian or other believer tries to support their belief via science, they go off the rails. If you would only say that you believe because of faith, your would have an unassailable position. A very weak position, but unassailable. When you jump to science to explain or reconcile with creationism, you embarrass yourself and you make guys like me wet our pants for the chance to mock you and pull your pants down in public.

      I have an IQ of 73 and even I know baloney when I hear it, see it or read it. What you wrote is baloney. If I live to be 13 years old, I'll never understand how deeply mentally ill and deluded so many people can be.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • Jeff

      @I'm the Best!

      ...I respect your question, but I feel it really isn't answerable. We go into a circular conversation where nobody can ever "prove" the other one is wrong. Where you choose to put your faith in science, I put mine in God. For reference, 1 Corinthians 2:14-16.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • Jeff

      @James...well then let's have it. The Big Bang did occur, what happened prior? Disprove that God was not the catalyst.

      Again, you're like I'm The Best! in that you lean towards science where Christians lean towards God.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • The Dog Delusion

      I'd also like to hear what probability theorem I'm the Best used to determine the probability of God.

      Jamest297: "I have an IQ of 73" -> It certainly shows.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • Get Real

      Jeff
      "The Big Bang did occur, what happened prior?"

      Why is it so painful for you to say, "We don't know (yet... if ever)"?

      If ancient Middle Eastern Hebrew supernatural fantasy scenarios give you personal comfort, fine; but way too many believers assert, declare, proclaim and insist that they are the one and only truth, yea, Truth, and even TRUTH.

      "Disprove that God was not the catalyst."
      - Huh?

      June 4, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Get Real...it's not painful for me to say anything. I choose to believe that answer is God. Why is that so painful to you? You can no more prove the non-existence of God than I can prove His existence. That's why it's called faith.

      Here's the thing though, you are fully content with your statement that we may never know the answer to what existed before the Big Bang, but so disparaging to someone that believes that an "Intelligent Designer" kicked the whole thing off. Why?

      Truth is, if you even considered that there was something more out there that could have the ability to create this universe (fully using science in the process), you would need to really re-asses quite a bit of your belief system.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      I used my own, that's why I used "in my opinion" and the like. I give credence to verifiable science other than the bible. In my opinion, god creating the universe holds the same probability as Zeus creating it, or a flying spaghetti monster. There isn't any proof for one thing over the other. But the lack of hard evidence for there being a god at any point in history until the big bang leads me to believe there wasn't one ever and that in the beginning, there was no god.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Jeff

      @I'm The Best!

      I appreciate your position and the way you speak on this board. Thank you for that. My question to you is that what is the origin then? Are you content with a reply of "We may never know," as was suggested by Get Real? That answer coming from a scientific mind is very troubling to me. Science should see everything as explainable at some point. The truth...in my opinion...is that prior to the Big Bang, there had to have been something (as something cannot come from nothing). The very fact that there was something leads me to a someone.

      I call Him God. If you want to call him Zeus or a Spaghetti Monster, so be it. In the end, we're both talking about an Intelligent Designer.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • I'm The Best

      My answer for the origin is we currently don't know, but I believe we will someday. Or at least have a very good idea about how it happened. I think once science gets an equation for the theory of everything, that this will help us understand not only the universe we live in now, but also how it began. We may not be able to get it down to only one possibility, but maybe narrow the field of theories. The more we learn about our universe here, the more likely we'll be able to narrow the theory for the beginning of the universe. We will only be able to say for sure once we are able to simulate it, which may never happen. But I believe that yes, we will someday know how this universe began, I doubt it will be our lifetime though.

      And by the way, something doesn't imply that someone caused them. The planets orbit the sun without any help, stars are born without help. If we couldn't see the cloud that makes up a star before it was a star it would appear that something came from nothing, but in reality, it happened all by itself without any godly interference and came from that cloud. The universe is similar, could have easily happened on its own, we just can't see the cloud yet.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • Jeff

      @I'm The Best!

      ...that cloud...came from? See, it's circular...a truly pointless conversation. I don't doubt your belief that we "just can's see it yet," as being completely sane in your mind. You do realize it makes you look just like the Christians that are mocked on here, right? A cloud we cannot see (yet) vs. a God we cannot see (yet). Difference? Exactly.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Jeff, who has yet to figure out how double negatives work, says, "Well said."

      June 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yes, there is a difference, Jeff. You are simply unable to admit it because that would endanger your entire view of the world. You can't accept that there are mountains of evidence that evolution has occurred and will continue to occur. There is no evidence of a god except the Bible.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      I'm The Best,

      If the universe started with the cloud then we would have to find out where the cloud came from. If you keep going you eventually get to where the ChristianPhysicist is, a First Cause.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Tom...or should I call you pot? It's kettle calling.

      You cannot say one thing and then not apply it directly to yourself as well. It makes you sound unintelligent. Come on. We both know you're smarter than that.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You're simply another believer who can't get his mind around the idea that simply because we don't yet know everything, it must then follow that some sky fairy did it all.

      Where is the logic in that?

      June 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How would you know how 'smart' anyone is, when you can't figure out how to write a simple sentence without screwing it up twice?

      June 4, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why do you insist there "must" be a "first cause", and how do you come to the conclusion that if there was one, it was a 'god'? Where's the evidence that supports such a claim?

      June 4, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Tom...and you're nothing more than a non-believer who has an ego problem that says everything has to have a man made answer.

      I believe that God is the catalyst to our universe...why does that threaten you? You are content...just as Get Real and I'm The Best! to put your faith in an imaginary cloud that "we just can't see yet," but then slam my point of view because I can't give you proof.

      Come on.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Tom...and my grammar is upsetting you? Focus there big guy...I'm not an English major and you know what I'm talking about. Your focus on my sentence structure is amusing though...

      June 4, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I don't give a ripe sh!t what you 'believe', Jeff. You have no evidence for it other than the Bible. You cannot get your head around the idea that your 'belief' does not equal fact and should not be treated as such. You claim to "know" when in fact you do NOT know. You simply believe. There is no evidence that a god did anything. None. Unless you can show any, you've got zip. I don't need to show any since I don't claim that I "know" what happened.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • I'm The Best

      There is a difference, one is a supreme being, the other is a random collection of particles (or energy). The universe likely started with a very tiny ball of energy (like when stars finally ignite). Me and you both agree that this energy had to come from somewhere. The cloud is an example of this somewhere. My example is something that might naturally happen all on it's own, this cloud could be two mulitdimensional branes that smash into each other, or maybe the collapse of a higher dimesion, these are things that could happen naturally and still yield enough energy to create all the matter in our universe. Just saying god did it, I think, is a cop-out. You would still need to explain where this god came from, whereas two branes coming together to create our universe would just be the way pre-universe worked. They are two very different scenarios.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, so it requires one to have a degree in English to be well-educated enough to write a simple grammatical sentence? I don't have an English degree. I just have an education; your writing (and the fact you have yet to figure out where you screwed up) indicates that you do not. I have no time for people like you who dream you have made a single valid argument when you can't even communicate effectively.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Tom...angry much? Take it easy, don't want you to stroke out on here!

      Where am I trying to prove anything on here? Please tell me. I'm simply offering up my explanation, same as you. I feel like God is the answer, you feel like a cloud is. Neither can be proven. That's just fine with me.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • Eric G

      Your position is based in one of two positions.

      1. You do not understand that you cannot insert an unverified variable (your god) to show cause of an event without verifiable supporting evidence. This is an argument from ignorance.

      or...

      2. You do understand that your claim of knowledge (your god created the Universe) without verifiable supporting evidence is illogical, but deny this fact because it does not support your position. This is intellectually dishonest.

      As an example, if you were to say "Well, it could be possible that a god exists and created the universe, but we have no evidence to support this hypothesis", your position would not be illogical. You are not wrong because you "believe". You are wrong because you claim fact based on a unverified hypothesis. As a member of the physics community, you should know the difference.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's hilarious that Jeff who can't write is arrogant enough to assume that others are somehow "threatened" by his beliefs. When will you goof-balls figure it out? No one is trying to take away your right to believe whatever you want. It is you who are attempting to inculcate children in the public schools with religious belief as if it were fact when it is not. It is you who are attempting to regulate the personal lives of others to align with your religious tenets.

      You can go on your merry way thinking a god started whatever you want; keep it out of the secular government and out of the public schools.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • ChristianPhysicist

      I believe that there are two categories in the universe. The spiritual and the physical. The physical (such as solar system formation, evolution, etc) are mathematically determinable and can be predicted with physical theories. There is no express need for God in this categories except to create the universe (since it had to be created before there were any physical laws to guide the creation). The spiritual is more related to the soul of man, religion and knowing God. This category cannot be described by physical laws and is not subject to them. This is just how I reconcile Science and Religion and it may not be correct at all. Again it is simply my opinion and belief.

      @Jamest297

      I do not claim that I can use Science to support the existence of God, just the unknowable nature of things prior to the creation event. Science ends where experimental (or observable) proof to corroborate it ends, again see Gödel's incompleteness theorem. All I posit is that there is no proof for or against God's existence through science and that it is a matter of belief. Also here I am just talking about God and not distinguishing between religions or putting forth proposed definitions about His nature.

      @I'm The Best

      " If we couldn't see the cloud that makes up a star before it was a star it would appear that something came from nothing, but in reality, it happened all by itself without any godly interference and came from that cloud."

      Absolutely. No one said God had to interfere with gas clouds to make a star. Yet your point about not seeing the cloud is interesting because the cloud of gas (and gravitational forces) could be said to be the cause of the star formation even if it is unseen. That is causation, there is a cause for everything even if it is unseen. But that chain of causation cannot extend infinitely backwards (look up the nonexistence of infinities in nature), there has to be a First Cause which by definition was not caused by anything else but from which everything is caused.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • I'm The Best

      Sorry if I made my cloud example unclear, I meant more 'happened naturally' than 'came from a cloud of particles'

      June 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Don't bother peeing on my leg and trying to tell me it's raining, Jeff. Doesn't work.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • Jeff

      @I'm The Best!

      I can respect that. You're right too...there would need to be an explanation of where God came from. I cannot answer that. Here's the thing though (again) for you...you cannot prove where your explanation came from either. You can hypothesize, but in the end, it's still an unknown.

      While I may not share your viewpoint, I appreciate your reasoning just the same.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Why is everyone letting ChristianPhysicist's dishonesty slide? After reading his post, it's clear he's a christian, but I can't for the life of me see how he could be a physicist. Adding "physicist" to your handle and adding some science-speak to your post only fools those who are easily fooled.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Neither can be proven." You don't know that at all. You have yet to show any evidence that supports your belief; therefore, it is unlikely you will ever prove it's fact. There is much evidence that backs up my opinion, and our understanding of the universe has grown over time; it is far more likely there will be more discoveries that will support my opinion than it is there will be any more for yours, since all you have is the Bible.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Tom...whatever. It's a circular conversation that nobody can win. You can put the burden of proof back on me all you want, but your faith in science demands just as much.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • Get Real

      ChristianPhysicist,
      "there has to be a First Cause which by definition was not caused by anything else but from which everything is caused."

      Perhaps... according to what we know (or think we know) now. We don't know what we don't know.

      The default stance for an hypothesis is NOT that it IS true until disproved.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And science has provided far more evidence to back up what I believe. You have nothing but the Bible. Not a single thing that even comes near meeting any burden of proof.

      Can you show ANYTHING else that supports your belief?

      By the way, ever find that double negative? Why not prove and post a correction?

      June 4, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • ME II

      @ChristianPhysicist,
      In general, well said!

      "So what happened before the past of the universe that we can see and certainly before the Big Bang is entirely [speculation] and cannot be relied upon as a 'fact'... "
      I think science would agree that we don't know what happened before the Big Bang.

      "However philosophically nothing cannot produce something. So there had to be something outside of time and space and definition. "
      This I don't necessarily agree with, mainly because no matter what, or who, is outside time and space, it is either arbitrary, e.g. God, a singularity, or the Great White Handkerchief, or it is just another step which itself needs a cause, ad infinitum. However, I don't think either (any) case is provable.

      "And to anyone who disagrees please provide a rigorous proof that God was not the First Cause and I'd be happy to hear you out. "
      This kind of statement however, doesn't seem to be consistent with the rest of your comment, in that you seem to be implying that the default answer is 'God' and anyone disagreeing with the idea that we don't know what happened before the Big Bang must rigorously disprove God. My alternative, to which I have no more evidence than you, is that there is no evidence of a God before or after the Big Bang so why suppose that there is one.

      Like I said, in general, well said. I think we could agree that, while supporting scientific theories, like evolution, the evidence does not fully support either 'God' or "no god'.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • ChristianPhysicist

      @Eric G

      That would be true if I was trying to establish the existence of God as fact. I am not. I only wish to argue against disregarding all belief in God as worthy of ridicule. I would love to hear your thoguhts on how we can difinitely define any variable relating to the initial conditions of the universe without making assumptions or speculations. As to your statement '[a]s an example, if you were to say "Well, it could be possible that a god exists and created the universe, but we have no evidence to support this hypothesis", your position would not be illogical.' That is exactly what I am saying. I agree.

      @Really-O?

      "Science-speak" is what people call knowledge that they do not know or are to lazy to look up. It is the internet so there is no way to prove who I am or if I am honest. This is adiscussion where who you are matters less than what you have to say. However, to set the record straight I am indeed a Physicsist, not just someone with a made up name

      June 4, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Tom...I can assure you, my sentence structure and grammatical errors are far more concerning to you than they are to me!

      ...and where has science backed up your points on the beginning of the universe? I think Get Real and I'm The Best! would love to hear those right along with me!

      We all get to a point where it's unanswerable. You lean towards science and tout the things science has discovered today as your crutch. I lean towards God and see that there is an obvious design to how everything has come together over time. I disagree with your point, but don't think you're an idiot for thinking it. You disagree with mine and then tell me I lack intelligence because of my belief. Whatever.

      As I said before...hello pot, it's kettle calling.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • ChristianPhysicist

      @ME II

      I think that we are in agreement and that is my only reason for writing this post. I wish for people to see the belief in God is not always ignorance of Science. My comment about disproving God's existence was earnest. I don't think it can be proven either for or against the existence of God (or insert outside force here) but I would be interested to see someone try.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @ChristianPhysicist –

      I'm calling you out. If you are "indeed a Physicsist (sic)", answer the following:
      1) Why do you assert that philosophy is a "science"?
      2) Can you point me to the physics reference that discusses "multiple dimensional bubbles"?
      3) Why, as a "physicist" do you not understand the difference between a theorum and a theory?
      4) Why do you use the term "theory" as only a layman (or christian) would?
      5) Why do you ask for "proof that God was not the First Cause"? Wouldn't a scientist, or even a philosopher, know that a negative cannot be proven?

      I could go on, but it seems pointless. I, sir, call shenanigans, and assert you are a fraud.

      June 4, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Get Real

      "The default stance for an hypothesis is NOT that it IS true until disproved."

      Maybe I have to call myself out on that one?

      I am not a scientist, but I realize that the scientific method sort of takes the tack that an hypothesis *can* be true until disproven, but any intermediate seeming confirmations along the way are not fast-forwarded to validate the premise.

      Help me out... anyone?

      June 4, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Get Real –

      Scientific rigor requires that the null hypothesis is maintained until necessary and sufficient evidence is acquired.

      Cheers

      June 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • Wisdom

      Tom Tom are you reading this??? Christian Physicist THANKYOU for taking the time to provide understanding and solid reasoning to this subject matter.

      June 4, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • Chad

      Great job CP! well said

      ChristianPhysicist " I don't think it[God] can be proven either for or against the existence of God (or insert outside force here) but I would be interested to see someone try."
      @Chad "That there is by neccessity a force external to our universe to have triggered the creation of our (or if you want to posit a former, then whatever first cause you get to) universe can certainly be proven.

      I dont think that the force can be proven to be the God of Abraham, but certainly He is the only other force outside our universe claiming responsibility.

      June 4, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Wizzer, if by "this" you mean your idiocy, then, no. And I don't believe that Mr. Physicist is anything of the kind. You seem to think that you have come up with something air-tight that will "force" me to "admit" that I have no more evidence than you do. But that isn't the case. You have nothing whatever, other than the Bible. If you did, you'd cite it. If you did, science would recognize it as having some basis in fact. It doesn't because the ONLY basis you have is your belief. I'd respect that, if any of you had the guts to come clean and say that indeed all you have is your belief in the Bible. You never do. You continue to pretend that you have something that holds water. You don't, and your denial is what is disgusting.

      June 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Get Real

      Really-O?,

      Thank you. That helps. Above all, I want to try my best to keep it real.

      Cheers to you also.

      June 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And Jeffy, the very fact that you find your own grammar and writing "unconcerning" is indicative of your lack of respect for any educational rigor in any field. You're a lazy guy who doesn't care enough to write accurately and correctly. Why should I take your word on anything concerning science when you can't even understand how deficient you are in terms of basic English literacy?

      June 4, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • Get Real

      Chad,
      "I dont think that the force can be proven to be the God of Abraham, but certainly He is the only other force outside our universe claiming responsibility."

      There is no verified evidence that any god, "God", or other supernatural being(s) spoke to Abraham or any other ancient Hebrew claiming anything.

      June 4, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why don't any of you step up and state that the only thing upon which you base your claims is the Bible? Are you embarrassed?

      June 4, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • Cq

      ChristianPhysicist
      We can't "disprove" a great many things that people believe in, like other gods, elves, Santa, ghosts, magic, and so on. Just because we can't prove that something doesn't exist doesn't mean that we aren't justified in coming to believe that it never did. Humans have a huge capacity to create fantastic things completely out of our imaginations. Would it have been impossible to have just invented God was we supposedly invented all of the other "false" gods?

      June 4, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • Shadowflash1522

      Congratulations on your understanding of Descartes, but his argument has been proven flawed. I believe Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the counterarguments, so I will direct you there.

      Relatedly, no one has addressed my pet alternative theory to Infinite Regression: that time is a actually looping–it only appears to be a line because of the scale, much like the horizon appears linear because the Earth is so huge. In terms of regression, the theory goes that if you arbitrarily declare some moment (like the Big Bang) to be the "beginning of time" and you wait long enough the results of that event will loop around and eventually produce another "starting" event, and so on and thus forth throughout eternity. the universe is not created, nor does it contain some "creator"–rather, it is eternally self-creating and self-sustaining. The universe is it's own First Cause, if you will.

      Thoughts?

      June 4, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @ChristianPhysicist, Well stated. I personally appreciated the "always" part of your first sentence, "Science and Religion do not always have to be at odds, " because while they don't always have to be, they often are as you must know. The more territory that science claims the farther away or smaller a region god occupies. God used to be the reason for everything. Now intelligent people like yourself are forcing god in the exile in the most distant regions of space before the big bang. Notably, I think most atheist still allow for a possibility of god, and I wonder if our space for him is really much larger than your own.

      Still as Krauss says, god should be our last resort, not our first. So I wonder how one can arrive at the conclusion of god without making reductive assumptions about the existence of god or the nature of god. We could just as easily say that we are all the product of a 12 year old boy having a dream and he is the product of a 5 year old having a dream. This is to me the biggest conflict you will find between religion and science. Religion requires a finite answer, while science continues to explore the questions.

      June 4, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
  6. Ricky

    I always knew that half of the people I met were M O R O N S. Unfortunately, in the age of internet and social media, these m o r o n s do organize better and influence politics. In the past the hardly ever voted. So sad.

    June 4, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • Jeff

      Ricky...there is no need to disparage against the democratic party in here...they're just misguided!

      June 4, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • mickey1313

      Jeff, i do believe he is refering to the christian right, aka the main branch of republican voting base. But nice try.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Jeff

      @mickey...again...

      ...obviously I said this in jest...this post is just to confirm...

      June 4, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
  7. sally

    Well, I have always suspected that nearly half of all Americans were uneducated idiots.

    This confirms my theory.

    June 4, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • Jeff

      Don't be so hard on evolutionists...they're doing the best they can with what they've got!

      June 4, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
    • mickey1313

      Jeff you do know that ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand. And to believe without proof is ignorant.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Mickey...there is no proof to how anything began. There is proof of how it evolved, but that's not the point of what we're talking about above. Neither of us can prove or disprove God's existence. I believe he did, you do not. Neither of us has one bit of proof to back it up. We both have our reasoning, but neither is going to convince the other their point of view is incorrect.

      ...and you know I know sally was referring to Christians, right? Obviously I was just throwing her statements back on her. I don't appreciate being referred to as an idiot. You may not agree with my opinion...the feeling is mutual...but I'm not questioning someone's intelligence in the process. There are enough questions in the scientific community (Christians and non-Christians alike) questioning Darwin...people so hung up on his theory should really check out those opinions before throwing stones in their glass house.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
  8. Rob S

    One can't prove Spirit using Science, nor can one prove Science using Spirit. The two exist totally independent of one another and are unrelated to each other. But my faith says there is a link.

    June 4, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      "The two exist totally independent of one another and are unrelated to each other."

      LOL only you can't prove spirit exists. You have faith that it does, which is just believing in something in the absence of proof.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • Cq

      Then one can't disprove science using "spirit" either. Evolution is good, solid science and will remain so until other good, solid science disproves it, not the exercises in word play and outright efforts to misrepresent evolution that creationists use.

      June 4, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
  9. Peteyroo

    "Intelligent Design" brings you cancer in little children, MS, eyes that need glasses, arthritis, mental illness, etc. The list goes on. If God is so wonderful, why did he create such crap?

    June 4, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • The Dog Delusion

      Is this where I just post a link to a refutation of the problem of evil?

      June 4, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
  10. Joe from CT, not Lieberman

    The first question they should ask in any survey like this is "Have you read any book other than the Bible in the last six months that was not written by an evangelical minister?" If the answer is No. Thank them for their time and end the survey. If the answer is yes then ask if they have more than a 9th grade education (the average level achieved by a high school drop-out). Again, if the answer is no, thank them for their time and end the survey. If they answer yes to those two questions, then you can ask them the rest of the questions. Bet you get a lower number of "Creationist" and "Intelligent Design" responses.

    June 4, 2012 at 10:06 am |
    • Evangelical

      I'm willing to bet that you have not read ANY books written by an evangelical minister. Hence, you don't know what you are talking about.

      June 4, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      BWahahha! Wow, you're dumb, Eva.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
  11. RFBJR

    Obama subscribes to Black Liberation Theology. Is that any better?

    June 4, 2012 at 10:02 am |
  12. shep

    Mormons don't subscribe to creationism. They believe they are descended from space travellers from the planet Kolob. Seriously. If Americans truly knew what Mitt Romney believes in, he couldn't be elected dogcatcher. Educate yourself. Google the Book of Mormon. The Mormon church is a cult. Do you want a cult member in the White House??

    June 4, 2012 at 9:29 am |
    • I'm The Best!

      All religions are cults, best way to pick a president is to find the guy who's least involved in their cult, and who won't destroy the country. I've yet to find a candidate who fits both of these.

      June 4, 2012 at 9:35 am |
  13. I'm The Best!

    Well, 50% of people are of below average intelligence, so I guess that explains most of them.

    June 4, 2012 at 9:23 am |
  14. Pastapharian

    The fact that there is so much ignorance and blind stupidity rampant in our society today makes me fear for the future of our species as a whole. People should be required to take a test before being allowed to breed.

    June 4, 2012 at 9:08 am |
  15. Reality

    As noted previously on p. 34:

    "The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:

    3.8 billion years of si-mple cells (prokaryotes),
    3.4 billion years of stromatolites demonstrating photosynthesis,
    2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
    1 billion years of multicellular life,
    600 million years of si-mple animals,
    570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
    550 million years of complex animals,
    500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
    475 million years of land plants,
    400 million years of insects and seeds,
    360 million years of amphibians,
    300 million years of reptiles,
    200 million years of ma-mmals,
    150 million years of birds,
    130 million years of flowers,
    65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
    2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus H-o-mo,
    200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,
    ~60,000 years, the great migration from Africa
    25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.
    13,000 years since the disappearance of H-o-mo floresiensis from the fossil record."

    Some added references:

    1..^ Moskowitz, Clara (29 March 2012). "Life's Building Blocks May Have Formed in Dust Around Young Sun". Space.com. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
    2.^ Planetary Science Inst-itute page on the Giant Impact Hypothesis. Hartmann and Davis belonged to the PSI. This page also contains several paintings of the impact by Hartmann himself.
    3.^ "Because the Moon helps stabilize the tilt of the Earth's rotation, it prevents the Earth from wobbling between climatic extremes. Without the Moon, seasonal shifts would likely outpace even the most adaptable forms of life." Making the Moon Astrobiology Magazine. (URL accessed on August 7, 2010)

    June 4, 2012 at 8:55 am |
    • Robert Brown

      I read something where they estimate the 4.6 billion years for the start of the universe from the observable light. What is the basis for the 2.5 million year appearance of species h-o-m-o?

      June 4, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • chubby rain

      The universe is about 14 billion years old, from the measurement of background radiation and other techniques.
      The NASA website has half a million years for humans from the fossil record and 6 million years for the divergence between the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees from analysis of genomes.

      June 4, 2012 at 10:44 am |
  16. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things .

    June 4, 2012 at 4:36 am |
    • Pastapharian

      Only for gullible sheep. Sorry to be yet another person to break that to you. And teaching Your religious mythology to children is harmful to our advancement as a species, and should be considered abuse.

      June 4, 2012 at 9:10 am |
    • guyFromVA

      no, teaching the unsubstantiated "just-so" fairy stories of evolutions to young minds is true child abuse.

      June 4, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • Pastapharian

      VA: two words for you: blind ignorance

      June 4, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • Pastapharian

      And prayer changes nothing. Just ask the children butchered in Syria how it worked out for them and their loved ones.

      June 4, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      VA, you're simply wrong. Evolution is substantiated. What is not is your belief that complex organisms "had to be" created by some 'intelligent designer'. There is no evidence of that at all, other than the Bible.

      June 4, 2012 at 10:20 am |
    • Jesus

      Prayer doesn’t not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!

      June 4, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • Evangelical

      You are so right, guyfromVA. There is no proof for evolution – it is just a theory. Even the article says that evolution is an opinion.

      June 4, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why do boneheads use that canard "just a theory", when it reveals their complete lack of any understanding of science?

      Look up the scientific definition of the word "theory", Eva, and get back to us when you have friggin' clue what you're talking about.

      June 4, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • SweetGenius

      Tom Tom I spoke to your science teacher...she said you failed miserably.

      June 4, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Do tell. Is that the best you can do?

      What sciences did you study, SweetCheeks? Where did you get your degree and in what discipline?

      June 4, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • Cq

      Tom
      Heliocentrism, the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, is still "just a theory". So, it's not surprising that about 20% of all Americans still think that the sun revolves around the earth. ( Gallup 1999 poll )

      Check here for a list of more dumb things some of us believe in:
      http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/galleries/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html#slide6

      June 4, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
  17. mickey1313

    To reaffirm the truth, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Name one piece of evidence to support a belief in god.

    June 4, 2012 at 2:18 am |
    • Personal

      Testimony = evidence.

      June 4, 2012 at 4:35 am |
    • Pastapharian

      Testimony=opinion, lies, or just wishful thinking. It has nothing to do with evidence.

      June 4, 2012 at 9:11 am |
    • ME II

      "absence of evidence IS evidence of absence."
      Umm... no, it's not
      However, it does work both ways. Lack of evidence against there being god(s) is not evidence of god(s).

      June 4, 2012 at 9:17 am |
    • ME II

      ...and testimony is evidence of what was seen, or believed to have been seen, not what actually happened or how it happened. In addition, hearsay is not evidence.

      June 4, 2012 at 9:19 am |
    • guyFromVA

      there are plenty of logic arguments and evidence in favor of the existence of God. Since the universe began to exist in the finite past, it needs to have a cause (something outside of time and space). The most plausible explanation for that cause is God. Secondly, the fine-tuning of the constants of physics to support life. Third, the complexity of life and information content in the DNA molecule had to come from some information source (ie., an intelligent designer). Third, there exists absolute moral laws, therefore, there must be a moral law-giver (God). Fourthly, the so-called evidence for evolution is unconvincing: there aren't any transitional fossils in the geological record. Evolution can't explain how the first protein, DNA, or first living cell formed (at least not convincingly). Most of their so-called evidence is just genetic variation which is just as consistent with biblical creationism as evolution, and therefore is no case against creationism.

      June 4, 2012 at 9:29 am |
    • I'm The Best

      @ VA

      "Since the universe began to exist in the finite past, it needs to have a cause (something outside of time and space). The most plausible explanation for that cause is God."
      Plausability is a matter of opinion, sure it's possible, but to me, it's more plausible that it's either always been and just expanding and contracting forever, or the result of a dimensional collision, or many other possibilities, none of which have a god.

      "Secondly, the fine-tuning of the constants of physics to support life."
      We don't know if they need to be as fine as they are, we know they are constants, but if they were different we can't say that life wouldn't have arose. Plus there's also the possibility that many other universes exist in other dimensions, which isn't that unlikely, and we just happen to be in one that had the correct constants. This is actually a prevelant theory having to do with string and multiple dimensions. The math for this works out suprisingly well.

      "Third, the complexity of life and information content in the DNA molecule had to come from some information source (ie., an intelligent designer). "
      Evolution explains this.

      "Third, there exists absolute moral laws, therefore, there must be a moral law-giver (God). "
      What absolute moral laws? There are none. You mean like killing? Honor killings used to be the norm and in fact were encouraged. There are no absolute morals, just morals of individual societies.

      "Fourthly, the so-called evidence for evolution is unconvincing: there aren't any transitional fossils in the geological record."
      Yes, there are, they're called transitional fossils. Just typing half of that into google probably would have shown you that this is true.

      "Evolution can't explain how the first protein, DNA, or first living cell formed (at least not convincingly). "
      If you choose to not believe it, that's up to you. But to many, it makes perfect sense and is just as plausible as any other theory. The weight you give each of these theories is up to you, I choose to believe that there was no god to intervene so the theories without god make more sense to me.

      "Most of their so-called evidence is just genetic variation which is just as consistent with biblical creationism as evolution, and therefore is no case against creationism."
      Now, I may not know the bible as well as most, but where in it does it talk about genetic variation? And how does the bible explain the transitional fossils left by early ho.mo-sapiens, or dinosaurs?

      June 4, 2012 at 9:55 am |
    • Pastapharian

      VA: you clearly have no grasp of any scientific field at even the high school level. There are so many holes in your parroted argument that I wouldn't know where to start. Go get a GED, then we can continue this discussion.

      June 4, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Pastapharian

      @I'm the best: great post, but likely all beyond guyfromVA's grasp or ability to comprehend. Nice job either way.

      June 4, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • terre08

      @guyFromVA Well that leads to the question what created god?

      June 4, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • The Dog Delusion

      I ate a cheeseburger for lunch. I burned the wrapper though. I guess that means I didn't eat the cheeseburger after all! Still on the diet!

      June 4, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
  18. mickey1313

    These numbers just provide how ludicrously foolish Americans are. No wonder Americans believe whatever their favorite news station tells them, not to mention believing politicians. Thiests are all foolish.

    June 4, 2012 at 2:16 am |
  19. IslandAtheist

    If they don't accept biological evolution, why do they vaccinated their children?

    June 4, 2012 at 1:48 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Are you sure they do?

      Do you think they have a clue as to how vaccines work?

      Look at the replies from bozos like "Wisdom". I doubt it could tell you anything about vaccines or their action.

      June 4, 2012 at 10:18 am |
  20. GodFreeNow

    A question for the religious people who are using science to justify their position:

    If you are using the scientific method as one of the justifications that your position is right, then you must see it as some kind of authority. How is it then, that you feel perfectly comfortable using it to explain your position, but when it doesn't concur with your point of view you abandon it or dismiss it as flawed? You either trust the system or you don't. If you don't, all of your arguments must be faith-based, otherwise what credibility should we feel in a system that you yourself find to be incredible and flawed? However, if you choose to base your argument on the scientific method, then you must accept that the system is some kind of authority with good reason. That is, that as a society, we agree that this is the most direct route to find the truth about the world around us. So then it would follow that if science firmly disagrees with your point, the likelihood of your perspective being flawed is higher.

    June 4, 2012 at 1:10 am |
    • Pastapharian

      I always love this post. Well said.

      June 4, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • The Dog Delusion

      God is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

      Science leads to knowledge of certain things such as "the universe began to exist". Then philosophy helps understand the implications of such.

      June 4, 2012 at 12:25 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.