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. Troll

    i
    a
    m
    v
    e
    r
    y
    b
    o
    r
    e
    d

    June 9, 2012 at 10:22 am |
  2. Troll

    i
    a
    m
    b
    o
    r
    e
    d

    June 9, 2012 at 10:21 am |
  3. Troll

    /
    .
    ,
    m
    n
    b
    v
    c
    x
    z
    '
    ;
    l
    k
    j
    h
    g
    f
    d
    s
    a
    \
    ]
    [
    p
    o
    i
    u
    y
    t
    r
    e
    w
    q
    =

    0
    9

    8
    7
    6
    5
    4
    3
    2
    1
    `

    June 9, 2012 at 10:21 am |
  4. חכם

    Man was created by God.
    God in-built in Man the ability to evolve.

    June 9, 2012 at 8:07 am |
    • SmokeScreen

      Guffaw!!

      June 12, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
  5. clgmm74

    @Wayne & Really-0

    Funny how you are quick to point out the character of Chad as dishonest but your basis for that judgment is that he is questioning the data presented. You have the right to question the data he presents but it is completely unacceptable and dishonest for him to question yours.

    Science questions science all the time it is how progress is made.

    June 9, 2012 at 1:59 am |
    • mandarax

      I can't speak for Wayne or Really-O, but as for me Chad is dishonest not because he questions data, but because he knowingly presents false data over and over, and he knowingly misrepresents the results and conclusions of scientific research (including quote-mining). Presenting false information once or twice might be simple ignorance, but Chad knows what he is saying is false (for example, even Stephen Jay Gould famously complained that the people twisting PE the exact way Chad does are either stupid or dishonest), and thus he is lying. Chad will often have some straightforward statement demonstrated to factually false, and then turn around an make the claim again in another comment to another person. Chad will take on additional identities (such as Rachel below) to congratulate himself and make it appear that others are agreeing with him. Chad is one of the most frustrating debaters to me because he is one (of several) who does not hesitate to be a liar, and apparently believes it is righteous to be a liar for Jesus.

      June 9, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • Chad

      Good example of how a lack of understanding causes so many incorrect conclusions. Point by point:

      @mandarax "because he knowingly presents false data over and over, and he knowingly misrepresents the results and conclusions of scientific research (including quote-mining)"
      @Chad "utter nonsense, give me an example. The problem is, you think anytime a Christian quotes someone like Gould, it is automatically quote mining because they are atheists and I am theistic.
      Well, that's a nonsense point of view, here's why: If I say Gould believes that fossil record does not reflect phyletic gradualism, but rather stassis and short periods of rapid change. I am 100% positive that Gould would agree with that statement, that is the entire point of his research.
      Where your failure to understand comes in, is what Gould DID criticize theists for, was claiming Gould as saying there were no "intermediate forms" WHICH I HAVE NEVER DONE
      Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. – Gould, Stephen Jay 1983 "

      It is your failure to understand what Gould was saying, and what the difference is in the "transitional forms" definiton between phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.

      In other words, I HAVE NEVER DONE WHAT GOULD CASTIGATED THEISTS FOR.

      simply put, it's your incomplete/absent understanding of the various aspects of "evolution" that is leading you to your erroneous conclusion..
      Do some reading and you'll understand.

      @mandarax "Chad will take on additional identities (such as Rachel below) to congratulate himself and make it appear that others are agreeing with him."
      @Chad "it's pretty weird of you (and so many other atheists), to think that any agreement with a theists is a sock puppet..
      really, really weird..

      you consider it inconceivable that someone else could agree with the data I am presenting??

      June 9, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • mandarax

      I suggest allowing Chad's record to speak for itself.

      June 9, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Chad

      I suggest that your fear of actually providing an example for your claim speaks volumes about your belief in your ability to defend it..

      June 9, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, Chard, it speaks to the lack of necessity. You hang yourself on your own retard without anyone else lifting a finger.

      June 9, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • mandarax

      No, Tom Tom, I'm afraid Chad's right – it's my fear. I am absolutely terrified to provide any examples.

      June 9, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @clgmm74 –

      I assert Chad is dishonest not because he questions the validity of "data" (your side really needs to stop misusing that term), but because he misrepresents the "data" and it's implications...as well misrepresenting the works of serious scientists, both living and dead.

      June 9, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @clgmm744 –

      I just realized mandarax already made my point...and more eloquently.

      June 9, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
  6. Creation

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzJVNQ16Exw&w=640&h=360]

    June 8, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You have to rely on cartoons to prove your point?

      Lame.

      June 8, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
  7. Creation

    We were created by Almighty God. We did not come from nothing.
    It is a beautiful world!

    June 8, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Who said we "came from nothing"? That does not equal "we were created by an invisible fairy."

      June 8, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
  8. Troll

    q
    w
    e
    r
    t
    y
    u
    i
    o
    p
    a
    s
    d
    f
    g
    h
    j
    k
    l

    z
    x
    c
    v
    b
    n
    m

    June 8, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
  9. Troll

    1

    z

    June 8, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Reported for abuse.

      June 8, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
  10. Troll

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    17

    20

    21

    June 8, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
  11. Troll

    q
    r
    s
    t
    u
    v
    w
    x
    y
    z
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20

    June 8, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
  12. Troll

    a
    b
    c
    d
    e
    f
    g
    h
    i
    j
    k
    l
    m
    n
    o
    p

    June 8, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
  13. Biblical

    All I know is that I am not a monkey. If we are all flukes of nature and just a better type of monkey, why not go into all out war, fighting and crime right NOW? I dont need no morals, ethics, ...

    With my slightly elevated understanding of reproduction, I will kill unborn babies with abandon. I will rob, steal, kill, plunder....

    June 8, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • mandarax

      "All I know is that I am not a monkey"

      Very good. And with your post you have demonstrated very well that that is all you know.

      June 8, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • wayne

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJct4M-FMY0

      June 8, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • closet atheist

      Rob, steel, kill, and plunder....

      You know atheists so well.

      "I don't need no morals, ethics..."

      But you DO need to get your GED....

      June 8, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • Cq

      Biblical
      "All I know is that I am not a monkey."
      No, you're an ape, like the rest of us. If you were a monkey you'd have a noticeable tail.

      Apes don't "go to war" or otherwise behave, on average, in any way that we could really call "bad" by our standards. So, the better question to ask is why don't we behave as well as other apes? I suggest you look at the kinds of things we have in our societies that apes don't have in theirs for the answer.

      June 8, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • Biblical

      Does Roger Waters also need a GED?

      http://www.lyricsmania.com/we_dont_need_no_education_lyrics_roger_waters.html

      June 8, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      Yes, We've all heard tales of the atheist Thomas Edison and his baby-killing campaign.

      June 8, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Cq, don't get too close to its backside.

      June 8, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Biblical

      It's important to note that _I_ have the moral high ground and history on my side!

      June 8, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
    • mandarax

      What exactly do you think gives you the moral high ground? Are you somehow morally better than others by denying basic science?

      June 8, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The idiot brays: It's important to note that _I_ have the moral high ground and history on my side!
      --

      Sez who? You're beyond laughable, you moron. You don't have any moral ground, high OR low, you friggin' jerk.

      June 8, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
  14. WhatsHappening

    Random changes can be for the good or for the bad. its 50-50. So why is it that 'evolution' unaided by a creator is able to avoid the 50% of bad? Miracle!

    June 8, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • wayne

      I don't understand therefore magic. Outstanding logic you've brought to the discussion.

      June 8, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • mandarax

      Wayne, you have hit the nail squarely on the head. That is the basis for the entire creationist argument.

      June 8, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • WhatsHappening

      @ wayne : you are putting words into my mouth. No magic here. Let me explain step by step

      1. Changes can be good or bad. (50% good, 50% bad)
      2. Bad change -> organism dies or becomes sick
      3. Good change -> organism survives or becomes better
      4. Assume 1 mutation per day, so every day something happens that could be good or bad for me
      5. so about half the organisms have harm done to them EVERY DAY

      We dont see this harm.

      I have published papers and a masters degree, and believe in the scientific method FOR SCIENCE. Also am humble enough to know that when I feel that there MAY be limits beyond which logican explanation wont work, I'm open to exploring the idea.

      June 8, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • wayne

      I'm sorry WH i mistook you for a creationist. Poe's law.

      June 8, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • ME II

      @WhatsHappening,
      I'm not certain that I'm understand your question, but natural selection is the mechanism that "prefers" the "good" mutations. In other words, as you hinted, the "bad" mutations die out and the "good" survive, of at least survive better and in greater numbers. What this means is that we don't see the harm because the unsuccessful species have gone extinct and we only see the successful ones. The epitome of 'confirmation bias', I think.

      June 8, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • mandarax

      WhatsHappening, you may indeed have an advanced degree, but it is clearly not in the life sciences. Every step of your explanation is misunderstood:

      1. Changes can be good or bad. (50% good, 50% bad)
      On the contrary, the vast majority of "changes" (mutations?) are neutral and accumulate in the population with no immediate affect. Of the changes that are not neutral, most are indeed initially negative.

      2. Bad change -> organism dies or becomes sick
      In natural selection, bad change would mean the individual fails to reproduce at a rate that is competitive with other individuals in the population.

      3. Good change -> organism survives or becomes better
      Good change, organism passes on traits through successful reproduction.

      4. Assume 1 mutation per day, so every day something happens that could be good or bad for me
      If I understand you correctly, this is totally wrong. Mutations don't "happen" to you every day. They happen once when your initial genetic code is formed in the reproductive cells of your parents. Individuals do not change genetically over their lifetime.

      5. so about half the organisms have harm done to them EVERY DAY
      Again, this doesn't make sense due to everything that is wrong with numbers 1-4.

      So, if you have the critical thinking skills that typically accompany a legitimate Masters Degree, you should be able to acknowledge that you actually do not understand this process at all, and now proceed to find out how evolution via natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, bottlenecks, etc. actually does work. There are wonderful sources of info on the web – just stay away from those with a religious agenda. Sites associated with Biology programs at major universities are an excellent bet for valid information.

      June 8, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • WhatsHappening

      No its not in the life sciences. i'll revisit my objections

      June 8, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • mandarax

      @WhatsHappening, cheers.

      June 8, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • closet atheist

      WhatsHappening.... sorry to dogpile, but your logic is very flawed. I'm not sure if you're one of the half of the creationist population, but it's that same half-c.ocked logic that many creationists use to justify their beliefs....

      June 8, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • Cq

      Many times, mutations are neither "good" or "bad" in themselves. Something like being born with a slightly longer tail might have evolved to attract a mate more easily. However, if a fast predator migrates into one part of this species territory, suddenly this long tail becomes a liability. Soon, having a shorter tail becomes an advantage, enabling those individuals to breed more often. After a while, this one sub-population, the one being preyed upon by this fast predator that the rest are not being affected by, interbreeds enough that any individual finding itself amongst those living in the fast predator free zone wouldn't be able to breed with them any more, thus making it a separate species, see?

      June 8, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
  15. wayne

    @Chad""what we believe is that it is only thru divine, supernatural intervention that the necessary and coordinated mutations could have occurred that gave rise to the new species."

    Can you show me the difference between natural mutations and supernatural ones? Please site your source. Thanks.

    June 8, 2012 at 9:00 am |
  16. clgmm74

    Let's keep in mind that the majority (the very small majority) here does not represent SCIENCE or RELIGION as a whole. With the exception of a very small percentage the knowledge of ALL the scientific disciplines coupled with ALL the other disciplines purposely left out is actually very little as is already proven through every word you write. I'm talking about true knowledge not the crap that is googled and placed on here.

    Biology is not the only scientific discipline. The data, sourcing (dating), & framing provided in the arguments here illuminates how much is known about the interaction of the disciplines. Science continually asks why and what, not just how. If it didn't there would be no progress and no analysis.

    Observation can not be removed for if it were you would have no science, no history, and no religion.

    Realize this, regardless of which side you decide to be on there is a "need for compromise" as none of you have any idea how and who it will affect outside of this small sample. A sample contrived by convenience of redundant posters under various duplication of themselves with new aliases.

    No compromise will just end in one side against the other. When a precedent is set for all it should never be for the selfish wants of the few.

    Why can't we all learn to become culturally competent? Why is it ok for any of us to decide what someone else wants to believe or not believe?

    June 8, 2012 at 2:14 am |
    • Primewonk

      Compromise about what? The theoory of evolution is the single most confirmed theory in all science. 99.95% of the 400,000 professional scientists in the relevant fields all agree that the theory of evolution best describes the diversity of life on earth.

      What in the world is there to compromise about?

      These îdiots are in the vast minority of Christians world-wide. There are 2 billion Christians on earth. 90% of them (1.8 billion) belong to sects whose position is that there is no problem with a faith in the Christian god, and an understanding that evolution is a fact. Additionally, there 12,000+ professional theologian signers to the Clergy Letter Project who all state the same thing.

      Again, what is there to compromise about?

      If people purposefully choose to be ignorant about science – when we hide our evidence in plain sight (schools, colleges, libraries, museums, the freaking internet ) – then they deserve to be mocked and vilified.

      June 8, 2012 at 8:35 am |
    • Biblical

      Amen, brother. we can have Evolution drive the micro processes, but development of whole new kinds of animal / plant or other big changes (macro evolution) I dont believe. This way science works hand in hand with faith.

      e.g. driving a car to your workplace. Science is powering the engine. Nobody disputes that. But you need an intelligent agent (human at steering wheel) to make left turn, right turn, hit the gas, break, etc.

      June 8, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • Troll

      a

      June 8, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • ME II

      "driving a car to your workplace. Science is powering the engine. Nobody disputes that. But you need an intelligent agent (human at steering wheel) to make left turn, right turn, hit the gas, break, etc."

      Can we open the nominations for 'Worst Analogy Ever'?

      June 8, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • clgmm74

      Primewonk

      Allow me to be direct, compromise allows for objectivity.

      1) Asking repeatedly for scientific data for months, yet providing few to back up your own data. If you decide to put up some now make sure you include dating of the data. Journals and periodicals are not the only kind of scientific resources. It would be wise to include something a bit more substantial. Do be careful with your bias as it will render all of what you claim invalid.
      2) Providing your own0 primewonk bible filled with quotes from people who share only your point of view only reinforces your lack of objectivity.

      What happens when people react in violence on all sides and all of sudden it is your group they choose to hide behind? Think about it. Historically what has happened in the midst of groups who can not come to a compromise? Are you gonna be held accountable for the actions of others or at the very least the influence you may have on those actions?

      3) You didn't read my post thoroughly or you would have seen the error you were going to make before you made it. I'll grant you a little leeway to reread and reply with a different response.

      June 9, 2012 at 1:13 am |
  17. Rachel

    Chad and other believers-Intelligent and thought provoking posts! Kudos!

    🙂

    June 7, 2012 at 11:47 pm |
  18. mandarax

    I'm not sure if anyone is interested, but this letter that I wrote to a preacher that writes essays against teaching evolution seems appropriate for this discussion:

    ...my question is this: why do you feel you must go out on a limb that you are not qualified to be on in order to attempt to undermine overwhelmingly clear scientific consensus? In your essay, you are so committed to this that you encourage your congregation to reject what is considered fundamental knowledge – the knowledge that guides the research into the medicines they use, the animals they breed, their children’s vaccinations, their own genes, etc. etc.

    I doubt you would claim that you understand your church members’ physical health better than a medical doctor, and I doubt that you would write essays discouraging them from believing what they are told at the hospital (and there is plenty in modern medicine that clearly contradicts the views on health presented in the Bible). So why would you assume a level of expertise in life sciences (which encompasses medical research) that qualifies you to dismiss the accumulated knowledge of generations of professional scientists who have committed their lives to investigating these processes?

    It occurred to me in reading another of your essays on the age of the earth that you concede that if you ask your children to believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old that you will be forcing them to eventually make a choice between rational thought and their faith. I agree, and this same logic applies to evolution. So why stubbornly wage this war of denial regarding evolution? The Bible is much clearer about how long it took to make the earth (6 days) than it is about HOW the earth and the life it supports were actually made, and yet it is apparently okay to admit that the amount of time specified in the Bible cannot be taken literally by a rational person, but interpretations about the way life was created (the Bible does not describe this at all) must be stubbornly and dogmatically held to traditional misconceptions that have been just as thoroughly disproved.

    My point is that Christian leaders that fight against the understanding of the evolution of life do harm to the public in general and to yourselves. Harm is done to the public because science education is suppressed in the homes of church members and in public schools, budding American scientists and doctors begin their careers with the unnecessary handicap of not having an adequate primary education and often have to “catch up” to the international peers they are competing with for jobs and resources. It puts America at a disadvantage on the global playing field with regard to innovation. All this, of course, trickles down to limiting the knowledge, health, and well-being available to us all. The cancer that fails to be cured as a result could be mine or yours. Finally, harm is done to yourselves because denial of such a solid body of evidence – evidence that grows stronger and stronger every year for almost 200 years – puts you in that losing position of forcing your church members to make that same eventual choice between rational thought and faith. Why not encourage them to honor both?

    Thank you for your time, and I hope that I have made my thoughts clear without offense. If you wish to better understand the processes of evolution (including what actual scientific controversies do exist), how we know what we know about the age of the earth and procession of life on it, or other science issues, I would sincerely be happy to try and help.

    June 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
    • wayne

      The Pastor knows that evolution is a threat to his bank account. You won't get an answer back from him.

      June 8, 2012 at 9:08 am |
    • Sim34

      Yup, lots of people employed in the effort to discredit science. Lots of books published, lots of guest lecturers being paid to speak, textbook companies churning out censored books, and "creation museums" charging entry fees. Creationism/ intelligent design is a big business in itself.

      June 8, 2012 at 10:21 am |
    • WhatsHappening

      Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT the same. do not combine them with "/".

      I am open to ID, have a masters degree and published paper. Creationism is nonsense.

      June 8, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • mandarax

      Intelligent Design and creationism are indeed the same thing. ID is creationism dressed up with better vocabulary. Don't just take my word for it – the federal courts found that to be true as well (Kitzmiller v. Dover is the classic example).

      June 8, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • Primewonk

      WhatsHappening wrote, " Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT the same. do not combine them with "/".

      I am open to ID, have a masters degree and published paper. Creationism is nonsense."

      Two words for you to explain – Cdesign Proponentsists

      Two More words for you to explain – Wedge Docûment

      These 4 words show that you are a liar, and you are a creationist.

      Sorry.

      June 8, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • ME II

      A very interesting development in that trial was the "discovery" of the "missing link" between creationism and ID, now known as the "cdesign proponentsists". More at: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists
      or in the court doc.uments at: http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

      June 8, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • ME II

      @Primewonk,
      Beat me to it. Nice.

      June 8, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • closet atheist

      "I have a master's degree and published paper."

      In my experience, if a person has to tell you how smart they are, they usually aren't very bright at all.

      June 8, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • OTOH

      @closet atheist,

      In fairness, it's very tricky on blogs like these. We ask folks for their credentials - and then don't believe them when they present them...

      June 8, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
  19. Wayne

    @ Chad

    "what we believe is that it is only thru divine, supernatural intervention that the necessary and coordinated mutations could have occurred that gave rise to the new species."

    So God's evolution got to a point where no new species were able to evolve so God had to wave his magic wand to allow more evolution to continue? That's the stupidest thing I've heard.

    http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html

    June 7, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
  20. Cq

    Chad
    I would pick "A" because I have seen the science and no intelligent guiding hand was needed for evolution to work. I can't prove that none was at work, but why complicate the matter by assuming some random ancient myth happens to be real in this case when ancient myths usually don't, and the simpler answer works better. I say better because, had an intelligent designer been guiding evolution, then this would open many more questions. Questions like "Why are there so many cases of bad design?" and "Why is there so much suffering in the natural world?" Questions that are easily answered through evolution being completely natural.

    June 7, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
    • Wayne

      He knows evolution works, but he also know what that does to his Jesus. He needs to find a way to put his Jesus into evolution, to keep his beliefs in tact, to avoid having to wake up to reality.

      June 7, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
    • Cq

      Wayne
      I think most of them actually know that evolution is the way life developed, but they're using it as a way to keep their group unified. Evolution is billed as what the "godless", educated, "liberals" believe. Thus ridiculing it is their way of thumbing their noses at their enemies, and greatest rivals for people's hearts and minds. It's just one of their preferred battlefields, I think you probably know the other major ones already.

      June 7, 2012 at 8:40 pm |
    • Chad

      you guys crack me up

      define evolution in such a way that it differentiates between theistic and non-theistic. Then from this day forward, I want you to always use the term "non-theistic evolution"

      the reason you wont do that, is you love to create this false dichotomy of "it's either science or religion"...
      you love to think that all Christians are young earth, snake handling, "science is the devil" people..

      sorry... just not so..

      June 7, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
    • Cq

      Chad
      Evolution happened and happens. That's a matter for science. If you want to imagine that some god has been tinkering with the process that would be a religious belief, because no god was necessary for evolution to have occurred. Actually, having an "intelligent designer" added to the mix actually raises more questions than it supposedly answers, so why would there need to be a separate category?

      June 8, 2012 at 12:28 am |
    • wayne

      @Chad

      "define evolution in such a way that it differentiates between theistic and non-theistic."

      This is just as silly as saying define photosynthesis in such a way that differentiates it between thestic and non thestic. You could play the same stupid word games with any theory in science. The only reason you apply thestic to evolution is because, like i said before, you know that evolution the real way it describes life on earth, does not need a magic man to explain any aspect of it at all.

      "Then from this day forward, I want you to always use the term "non-theistic evolution"

      Only if you promise to use the term theistic gravity, germ theory, and atomic theory. Deal?

      "the reason you wont do that, is you love to create this false dichotomy of "it's either science or religion"...
      you love to think that all Christians are young earth, snake handling, "science is the devil" people.."

      Wrong, i'm well aware of the thestic evolution position. You people are more dishonest than creationists. They know if evolution is true their belief folds. You pretend it doesn't. The fact you slap thestic on to evolution but nothing else shows your agenda. Quit being a coward and take the final step and embrace reality.

      sorry... just not so..

      June 8, 2012 at 8:45 am |
    • Cq

      Chad
      While accepting evolution requires no resort to faith whatsoever, believing in "theistic evolution" requires much faith as none of the evidence, and therefore none of the science, supports the idea that any intelligent creator was involved in the process. "Theistic Evolution" is no more science than "Social Darwinism" is.

      June 8, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • GodFreeNow

      @chad, I have one question that has been bugging me. It's a simple "yes/no" question. Do you believe that living beings shared a common ancestor? If you've stated this, I'm sorry if i missed it.

      June 8, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Wayne – "You people are more dishonest than creationists."

      Well done. That is precisely the reason I assert Chad is one of the most dishonest posters on this blog. There are plenty of fundamentalist that simply (honestly) say, "I believe the bible is the inerrant word of god and that's good enough for me. Done deal." I don't agree with them, but at least they're forthright. Chad, on the other hand, attempts to per.vert and bend to the point of breaking the words of his holy books (and the works of legitimate scientists) in a futile attempt to make them appear not to be in direct conflict with modernity, which they are. That makes Chad one of the lowest of the low.

      ...although, I think I may see some slow, incremental changes in Chad's position (kicking and screaming aside). Perhaps there is hope.

      June 8, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Really-O?, I know where you're coming from. I think Chad presents a somewhat intentionally slippery perspective on evolution. That's why I think rather than arguing particular points that will allow lubricated maneuvering, we should just get to the heart of his beliefs so we can limit our discussions to there.

      June 8, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • clgmm74

      @CQ What happened to your usual tactic of concerning yourself with what was useful?

      It is everyone's right to question. Chad often asks why to go beyond to determine a root cause. A root cause is a common approach to analysis in science. Why is that difficult to accept? You can disagree with the result of his question but you can not deem it wrong to ask.

      June 9, 2012 at 1:47 am |
    • clgmm74

      @GodFreeNow

      I agree with the concept of discussing the heart of someone else's beliefs. I agree only to the point it allows for understanding to take place. I don't believe it should be intrusive. In a post you made recently you elaborated on some of the experiences you had growing up. The elaboration helped. It allows for identification with you as an individual rather than a label.

      June 9, 2012 at 2:10 am |
    • Cq

      clgmm74
      Until some actual evidence surfaces to suggest even the existence of God, supposing that he had a hand in evolution and the origin of the universe is just wild conjecture. We'd be just as valid working on the model that the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, or that Galactus from the Marvel comics really was the only survivor from the last universe, and is out there sucking planets dry right now. There have been thousands of imaginative explanations for how things came to be; science is actually looking for the true explanation. Chad cannot provide proof to support his idea, therefore it's only a distraction from the real work of science, see?

      June 9, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Cq, Agree. I call it the "magic bunny" test. Anything that is claimed to be done by god, I just replace with magic bunny and see if there's any more or less validity to the statement, but Galactus sounds cooler. 🙂

      June 9, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • Cq

      GodFreeNow
      I use to have the Fantastic Four comic where Galactus was introduced. I'd be worth at least $1000 today. He's very god-like, not really good or evil, just a force of nature. Before this the "bad guy" in comics was very black and white, with no grey areas.

      Magic Bunny sounds good, but you could sub in any of the old gods to also get the point across. God just happens to be the most popular these days.

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