Pat Robertson challenges creationism
Pat Robertson: "There was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible."
November 29th, 2012
04:04 PM ET

Pat Robertson challenges creationism

By Dan Merica, CNN
[twitter-follow screen_name='DanMericaCNN']

Washington (CNN) – Televangelist Pat Robertson challenged the idea that Earth is 6,000 years old this week, saying the man who many credit with conceiving the idea, former Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher, “wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years.”

The statement was in response to a question Robertson fielded Tuesday from a viewer on his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club.” In a submitted question, the viewer wrote that one of her biggest fears was that her children and husband would not go to heaven “because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs.”

“You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.”

Before answering the question, Robertson acknowledged the statement was controversial by saying, “I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this.”

“If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” Robertson concluded.

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 in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.

The Gallup poll has not specifically asked about views on the age of the Earth.

Ussher’s work, from the mid-1600s, is widely cited by creationists as evidence that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Answer in Genesis, the famed Christian creationist ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, cites Ussher as proof of Earth’s age. They describe the archbishop as “a brilliant scholar who had very good reasons for his conclusions concerning the date of creation.”

For Christians who read the creation account in Genesis literally, the six days in the account are strictly 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.

Most scientists, however, agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old.

The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Charles Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution.

The question about Earth’s age has been in the news recently. Earlier this month, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that provoked the ire of liberal blogs and left the door open to creationism.

“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told GQ’s Micheal Hainey. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”

- CNN’s Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Christianity • Creationism • Evolution

soundoff (4,408 Responses)
  1. woodie

    It is hard to debate reality. But we all seem to try at one time or another.

    November 30, 2012 at 7:02 am |
  2. kamarasune

    Reality is that even the most brilliant that the world has to offer will not even obtain 1% of all the knowledge that there is to know about the world much less the universe...Who am I to say there is no God?

    November 30, 2012 at 7:00 am |
    • Mirosal

      You might be right about that 1%, but as long as we are trapped on THIS little rock floating around in space, our knowledge will always be limited. Once we get off this planet and explore, then we'll really learn the nature of the univierse. No "god" needed to do that.

      November 30, 2012 at 7:05 am |
    • nope


      November 30, 2012 at 7:07 am |
  3. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    November 30, 2012 at 6:59 am |
    • Mirosal

      NO, it doesn't change anything, nor can it change anything. To do so would invalidate your very core beliefs about your "god"

      November 30, 2012 at 7:03 am |
    • nope


      November 30, 2012 at 7:05 am |
    • Chadism can create delusions.

      Avert your eyes.

      November 30, 2012 at 7:14 am |
    • Earl

      You are an idiot. Stop posting the same cr@p on every blog. Your unoriginal ramblings make me want to smash your face in. Oh well, I wil just wait for you to finish pumpin your buddy in ha keister...then mess u up.

      November 30, 2012 at 7:49 am |
    • TrollAlert

      "Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to:
      "Salvatore" degenerates to:
      "Douglas" degenerates to:
      "truth be told" degenerates to:
      "Thinker23" degenerates to:
      "Atheism is not healthy ..." degenerates to:
      "another repentant sinner" degenerates to:
      "Dodney Rangerfield" degenerates to:
      "tina" degenerates to:
      "captain america" degenerates to:
      "Atheist Hunter" degenerates to:
      "Anybody know how to read? " degenerates to:
      "just sayin" degenerates to:
      "ImLook'nUp" degenerates to:
      "Kindness" degenerates to:
      "Chad" degenerates to
      "Bob" degenerates to
      "nope" degenerates to:
      "2357" degenerates to:
      "WOW" degenerates to:
      "fred" degenerates to:
      "!" degenerates to:
      "John 3:16" degenerates to:
      "pervert alert" is the degenerate.

      This troll is not a christian.

      November 30, 2012 at 8:45 am |
    • Jesus

      Prayer does 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.

      November 30, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • Smack

      Last year Thailand had a huge flood that lasted months. There were millions upon millions of prayers from Christians, Muslims, Bhuddist, etc., and the total number of prayers was probably in the billions over the duration of the flood. There were no reported miracles, not one drop of water miraculously changed direction or broke the laws of physics in any way.
      However, there was a report of an 80 year old woman who grabbed her grandsons toy shovel and filled a few small sand bags to block her sons front door.

      The single 80 year old woman did more to help than the billions of prayers that did absolutely nothing.

      Which had

      November 30, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
  4. LakeRat1

    They insist that God gave them a brain, but then they refuse to use it.
    With every move they make, they are using devices that were created by science, yet they believe that a book of fiction, created by men, can disprove science.
    The Bible did not tell electronic designers how to make their iPhone, or the fuel injection system in their cars, yet they don't seem to have any issue with believing the existance of these things.
    I guess we should celebrate that Pat Robertson has taken a teeney-tiny baby step towards reality.

    November 30, 2012 at 6:34 am |
    • nope


      November 30, 2012 at 7:06 am |

    Darwin was right, GOD created all living beings through Evolutionary Creation miracle!
    Please, see the clear PROOFS here:


    November 30, 2012 at 6:21 am |
    • Mirosal

      First, you have to prove your "god" is real. Yeah, good luck with that.

      November 30, 2012 at 6:36 am |
  6. 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

    We might be seeing macro evolution before our very eyes. The photo of Pat R above makes me think of John McCain – two confused old white dudes doddering towards irrelevance.

    November 30, 2012 at 6:10 am |
  7. Earl

    I stated it below:

    Considering the prophecy in II Samuel 7:12-14 that if the descendant of David commits a wrong or an iniquity he will be punished with the ROD of men, Maestro Evangelista says Jesus was also punished by men, what is the proof?

    As you can see, even the bible states that Jesus was punished by dudes rods, meaning schlongz! So, don't commit a wrong or you will get a monster donger up your keister!!

    November 30, 2012 at 5:57 am |
  8. Jack Paulden

    So do Catholics really believe, after a lifetime of practice, that when they get to heaven and kneel before their god, he will put the real thing in their mouths? Isn't that what all the practice is for...a taste of the real thing...Wow....talk about pulling the wool over the lambs own eyes....Wow, if you can get people to cut off a piece of their private area ...or bow and believe what is in your mouth from a man who doesn't mate with women...or bow to a black rock 5 times a day....then anything is possible to create...over time! Me, I believe in going to the dirt when I die...and that no man can make a blade of grass, unless he has an element of grass to start with....that is reality..many rely on blind faith but realize that the thing being placed in their mouth isn't really about any god, but man's deception. Science however cannot prove what gravity really is...but they keep looking under every rock to find it....and throw rock(et)s at each other just like they did long ago. So from man one, to man now to the last man over time...not much has changed...with man...but technology has created a lot from the dust that creates computers...and no mating took place there.... Dick Cheney mated...but the Pope never wears pants and has not mated....So Dick proves evolution exists even if the species would appear to be neanderthal at best, and the Pope proves creationism....billions bowing to men who don't mate, but exist! Wow, perhaps the Matrix is true...and one day man will pull his head out of his own creation...and realize he has been duped....for at least 6000 years, or longer.

    November 30, 2012 at 5:53 am |
  9. SixDegrees

    Good to hear, but Robertson is wrong to give credit to Bishop Ussher for this idea. Although Ussher did an extensive compilation of events and ages mentioned in the bible and based his estimate on this, he was not the first to do so; examination of the biblical texts and adding up lifespans, rules of kings and other chronological clues to arrive at a date for creation has a very long history, stretching far back in Judaism many centuries before christianity. Not to say that the idea has any real merit in our scientific age, but its provenance is very old.

    November 30, 2012 at 5:43 am |
  10. Eric of Reseda, CA

    BRAVO, PAT! Faith needn't conflict with science here.

    November 30, 2012 at 5:32 am |
    • thewiz71

      Hear, Hear! What the majority of Christians have actually been saying for a very long time.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:54 am |
  11. Zortar....the lesser known god of Blortan

    Bow down to me, Zortar! I am all knowing. You remember that passage in the bible....Luke 3:12. It says "Zortar shall rule the heavens and the Earth (and the magical kingdom of Blortan). He will punish the pillow-biters and the a@s bandits, with an immune deficiency. He will stop the "Adams and Steves" from taking over our fragile society. Mankind will be protected by Zortar and gaaaay marriage will be no more! All hail Zortar. All hail Zortar!!

    November 30, 2012 at 5:11 am |
    • Muzak

      But, lesbians are cool with you, right?

      November 30, 2012 at 7:04 am |
    • UncleBenny

      Lesbians are cool with me. The way I figure it, I like women, so why shouldn't everybody? 'cept gay guys, of course.

      November 30, 2012 at 7:22 am |
  12. Colin

    So, science and religion can be friends according to the son-worshippers, hey? Hmmmmm, let's see.

    Science – Hello Religion, I'm science. I am about 3,000 years old.

    Religion – Hello Science, I am older than you. As far as we can tell, I go back about 40,000 years or more. There is even evidence that Neanderthals practiced me.

    Science – Really!! How do we know that, Religion?

    Religion – Because of you.

    Science – So, Religion, what do you do?

    Religion – Well, in the USA, I give comfort to not very smart people by letting them think that a being powerful enough to create the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies will cause them to live happily ever after in heaven after they die if they follow some rules laid down by ignorant farmers and herders in the Middle East 2,000 years ago.

    Science – You're kidding me. They buy that?

    Religion – You'd be surprised. Not only that, but in poorer, less educated parts of the World, I can actually convince people to hit themselves until they bleed, starve themselves, bob in front of a stone wall for hours on end, wade into filthy rivers and, in some cases, to kill other people or even themselves.

    Science – Oh my goodness, I'm not sure I want to be your friend. Do you do any good?

    Religion – I sell a lot of books. And what about you science, what do you do?

    Science – I relieve pain and cure disease. I also extend lives, allow travel, communication, and people to understand and control their environment. I allow humans to explore outer space, the bottom of the oceans and subatomic particles. In short, I have allowed humans to live longer, more informed lives, and with a degree of knowledge and comfort once never dreamed of.

    Religion – Wow, they buy that?

    Science – No, of course not. Unlike you, I have to deliver. I cannot claim something and avoid skepticism by alleging that it only happens after you die, or that my claim is "beyond understanding" or otherwise exempt from critical analysis or proof.

    Religion – That's gotta suck.

    Science – You get used to it. Anyway, I need a friend I can rely on. One of substance, not dreams. One of proof, not spoof and one of intellectual discipline, not flakey promises. I don't think we can be friends. Please go away.

    Religion – Now we both know that's not going to happen.

    November 30, 2012 at 5:07 am |
    • Bonehead

      That's good Colin.........

      How do you know the Bible is the inspired word of God?...... Because the Bible says so.
      That argument didn't work for me when I was six years old...

      As far as Pat Robertson........I never liked the guy but you got to give the guy some credit. He's a good argument for survival of the fittest and natural selection. Great politics. After being a consistent blowhard for year after year, when faced with the reality that the general population is becoming too smart to accept the company line…..he throws in the towel and moves towards the center. You just can't talk your way out of 65 million years of dinosaur fossils. Short term complications for a long term gain. Now that’s a guy with staying power…..brilliant!

      November 30, 2012 at 6:01 am |
    • Simran

      Great, you actually got me to imagine how this conversation happening for real. Great job!

      November 30, 2012 at 6:08 am |
  13. Heb

    To my Macro Evo friends – a sigularity is your creator and monkeys are your fore fathers, right? And you say Creationist are silly. lol!

    November 30, 2012 at 5:06 am |
    • Colin

      "Forefathers" is one word.

      No, H.omo erectus is our immediate ancestor. The last common ancestor of man and chimpanzees lived about 6 million years ago in Africa.

      Around that time, there was a branching in the evolution of the species and any intermediate species between this last common ancestor and modern man (Ho.mo sapiens) is called a hominid.

      A number of different species have been identified. Beginning, roughly with the oldest to the newest, these are –

      Sahelanthropus tchadensis
      Australopithecus afarenses
      Australopithecus africanus
      Ho.mo habilus
      Ho.mo ergaster
      Ho.mo erectus
      Ho.mo heidelbergensis
      Ho.mo neanderthalis (Neanderthal man)
      Ho.mo foresiensis
      And us, Ho.mo sapiens.

      The ages of the respective fossils suggest that our immediate ancestor was Ho.mo Erectus and that Ho.mo heidelbergensis, Ho.mo neanderthalis (Neanderthal man) and Ho.mo floresiensis all went extinct.

      The above is an over-simplification, omits many other intermediate species and is not without controversy in some areas, but is a useful yardstick to gauge how humans evolved from the last common ancestor we shared with the great apes.

      We last shared a common ancestor with a monkey well before that, probably around 12 MYA.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:12 am |
    • Heb

      So, critiquing my spelling supports your argument? Still waiting on your big bang response...

      November 30, 2012 at 5:19 am |
    • Colin

      The answer is that according to the best evidence we have, including the preponderance of hydrogen and helium in the cosmos, the uniform background microwave radiation and the red shift observed in distant galaxies, the Universe began as a singularity. Later evidence may contradict this, but that is the best explanation we have to date.

      Your turn, please answer my challenges. Please point out what I got wrong in the above post. Don’t avoid it now by challenging me again,. Your turn.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:24 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Interesting that Heb acknowledged only reading Colin's first sentence, not what he wrote after "No." I take this as Heb's quiet acceptance of and agreement with Colin's substantive reply.

      November 30, 2012 at 6:00 am |
    • sam stone

      monkeys as forefathers? boy, heb,are you a hoot

      November 30, 2012 at 7:01 am |
  14. will

    Alway knew this guy was an idiot........now its for real......ever see his rant AGAINST adoption??? KRAZY old man w a tv show.

    Luke 3 has it from Jesus to God........its all there earth is young. Robertson is crazy end of story.

    November 30, 2012 at 4:59 am |
  15. moethebartender

    I wouldn't give Mr. Robertson so much credit; he was probably NOT speaking out in favor of evolution. Only "young Earth" creationists insist the earth is 6,000 years old. The rest are either "old Earth" creationists (God created the earth, but this took place over geological time) or "gap" creationists (the literal seven-day creation happened, but at the beginning of geological time).

    November 30, 2012 at 4:56 am |
  16. Richard

    And Americans wonder why they are falling behind in education and advancement compared to a lot of other countries. If it wasn't for the odd geniuses America still has a propensity to produce, they'd be in even worse trouble.

    November 30, 2012 at 4:47 am |
    • UncleBenny

      Yeah, the only thing that will keep the US from falling behind in science is immigrants from countries where they don't use religious books as scientific textbooks. Even the Vatican says you shouldn't do that.

      November 30, 2012 at 7:26 am |
  17. Earl

    Hey Bob- God never said in the Old Testament about the deity of Christ. 🙂 He only speaks of a coming Son of David
    In 2 Samuel 7:12-14 (NIV)

    12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. WHEN HE DOES WRONG, I WILL PUNISH HIM WITH A ROD WIELDED BY MEN, WITH FLOGGINGS INFLICTED BY HUMAN HANDS

    In the said verses: 2 Samuel 7:12-14 – we can read that God speaks of a coming son of David and not a literal son of God as what the religions preach

    Is it really true that Jesus was a descendant of David?

    …to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David.
    The virgin's name was Mary.
    Luke 1:27 (NIV)
    Jesus' true father is Joseph who belongs to the house of David. So if we are to believe the teaching of the religions that Jesus is the “son of God,” then it should be Mary who should belong to the house of David.


    You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.
    Luke 1:31 (NIV)

    And who was Jesus' father?

    He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
    Luke 1:32 (NIV)

    "will be called" – As you have read it, Jesus was only a son or a descendant of David not a real"son of God;" he was just a man.

    Is this true –That Jesus is a son of David? In Matthew 1:1

    A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:

    Now we can see that the prophecy in 2 Sam7:12-14 about a coming descendant of David and not a son of God was now fulfilled

    Considering the prophecy in II Samuel 7:12-14 that if the descendant of David commits a wrong or an iniquity he will be punished with the rod of men, Maestro Evangelista says Jesus was also punished by men, what is the proof?

    All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
    Matthew 27:25-26 (NIV)

    He was punished by men, what was his offense?

    The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die,
    because he claimed to be the Son of God."
    John 19:7 (NIV)

    However Jesus was flogged (Matt.27:25-26)

    This is what Christianity failed to reveal to mankind – Jesus is in reality –not a genetic son of God but only a descendant of king David.
    And as based on what God said in the prophecy in 2 Sam 7:14


    Jesus was tortured and beaten not for our sins but for his own iniquity.

    The pastors would say -it was King Solomon who was prophesied here but he wasn't flogged by men when he committed sin against God.

    It was Jesus -the offspring of David who was flogged and beaten by the rod of men.

    It seems that we need to re-study our knowledge of the Bible regarding Jesus by reading this link:


    To also know the authority of Maestro Erano Evangelista of http://www.thename.ph to reveal this truth in the Bible about Jesus:

    Read Jesus' own words in the Bible:

    This is not to persuade you to join a religion -this is only to inform you of what we must know about God and about Jesus


    May you know the great and only true Name of God in the Bible in http://www.thename.ph

    Share the said website to all you know and study it with your Bible

    Time has now come for us to open our eyes.

    November 30, 2012 at 4:34 am |
    • lee

      You're funny.

      November 30, 2012 at 6:18 am |
  18. Guest

    46% of Americans believe in creationism??? Come on guys! Even Pat Robertson gets it. Believe in God, believe in the Bible, but don't deny reality.

    November 30, 2012 at 4:30 am |
    • Colin

      But to believe in the bible or the Judeo christian god it promotes is to deny reality

      November 30, 2012 at 4:31 am |
  19. Colin

    Oh my creationist friends, proof of evolution is all around you. Now, before you declare me “stupid,” “evil” or part of a worldwide conspiracy to deny the truth of your talking snake theory of life on Earth, please take five minutes to read this.

    The classic definition of a species is that two members of the same species can breed and produce fertile offspring, but cannot mate with members of a different species. A human of any race can mate with a human of any other race, but none of us can mate with a chimpanzee, for example. So, all humans are in the same species, but we are all a different species to chimpanzees. Easy stuff.

    Indeed, it is often easy to tell that two organisms are of different species just by looking at them. Compare, for example, a dog to a horse. Where it gets a little complex, however, is where you have two organisms that look very similar, but are of different species, or two different species that look very similar. Dogs are a great example of both. Compare a lighter-coated German Shepherd to the wolf. They look very similar, but are of a different species (or sub-species, depending on the definition one uses). Likewise, a Great Dane looks very different to a Corgi, but they are of the same species Canis lupis familiaris, the domestic dog.

    Why are Great Danes and Corgis considered to be the same species (along with German Shepherds) but wolves and German Shepherds not? For the same reason as humans. Great Danes, German Shepherds and Corgis can and will mate and produce fertile offspring, but none of them will mate with a wolf, absent human intervention. However, and this is where evolution kicks in, all breeds of dog alive today descended from wolves. In fact, it is likely that they all descended, ultimately, from a small pack of wolves that were domesticated in the Middle East some 10,000 years ago. Some research suggests Manchuria as the location, but I digress.

    What happened was that humans noticed that certain, less aggressive wolves were handy to have around. They ate pests and garbage and alerted the camp when predators lurked nearby. So, humans began to intentionally feed and try to tame them. The tamer, less aggressive wolves were less afraid of human interaction and less likely to harm their human hosts. They, therefore received more attention, food and protection, which gave them a breeding advantage, and they passed on this favorable trait, call it “tameness,” to their offspring.

    These tamer offspring were constantly chosen (probably unknowingly) for care and support and the wilder, more aggressive members of the litter discarded, perhaps for biting or avoiding humans. After hundreds or thousands of years of inadvertent selection for “tameness” the camp wolves started to become dependent on their human hosts and to even look different to their still wild ancestors. They lost the extreme aggressiveness that helped them in the wild, became less streamlined and tooled for the kill and had less adrenaline that causes aggression. In other words, they slowly became, in a sense, fat, dumb and happy. Doggie dough-boys. Girlie-men compared to their wild cousins, still red of fang and claw.

    These first domestic dogs were so popular with humans that their “use” spread and humans all over the globe – from Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maoris and other Polynesians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all began to use dogs. Then something else happened. Humans actually noticed that, if there was a specific trait you liked about your, say male dog, you could breed it with a female with the same trait and the offspring would inherit that trait. If, for example, a hunter-gatherer only ever allows the fastest male dogs to breed with the fastest female dogs, after many years of such selective breeding the resultant dogs would differ so much in body shape, leg length and, perhaps, lung capacity from their ancestor as to be considered a separate breed.

    No one set of offspring would differ greatly from its parents, but it will differ a little more from its grandparents, and even a little more from its great-grandparents etc., until we go all the way back to the original dog, which will be quite different in appearance.

    Bang – dog breeding was born. Humans selected for speed, resulting in the Greyhound, smelling and tracking ability (Bloodhounds) ability to herd sheep (Collies and Australian Shepherds) appearance (Dalmatians and Pomeranians) size (Chihuahuas and Great Danes) and a host of other traits.

    As with most human activities, as our knowledge increased, dog breeding improved and exploded in the 1900s, with the current 600 or so breeds of dogs all descendent from the original wolf. Many breeds of dog alive today evolved over the past few decades and did not even exist as late as 1900. But, every last domestic dog, from the Teacup Chihuahua in Paris Hilton’s purse to the Great Danes of European car advertisements, are the end result of selective breeding down different paths from the original wolf.

    Most breeds of dog do not (and likely cannot) breed with wolves for a variety of reasons, including allopatric and/or human induced separation and mating rituals. Not only that, but put almost any domestic dog in the wild and it would not survive a month. A wolf is much more likely to eat a Shih Tzu than bonk it. They are separate species. In the struggle for life, the domestic dog species originated through means of selection as a favored race from the original wolf.

    If this last sentence sounds familiar, that is because it is. It is essentially the full ti.tle of Charles Darwin’s seminal work: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

    So there you have it, my Bible-cuddling friends. Evolution in motion. Undeniable, living in every suburb, licking ours face, fetching our sticks and messing on our sidewalks. Macro-evolution. A well recorded, understood, DNA mapped and uncontroversial case of evolution of one sub-species – Canis lupus lupus, the Eurasian wolf, into another, Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog.

    There are many, many others examples of evolution all around us by the way. Even the most cursory of research into any branch of horticulture or animal husbandry quickly reveals that the size, variety, health, longevity and resistance to disease of most of our domesticated plants and animals were the thing of dreams as recently as 100 years ago. Indeed, biotech companies like Monsanto would quickly fall behind the market if they did not spend millions each year on Darwinian selective breeding programs. Why do you think horse breeders spend thousands of dollars to have a fast racehorse mate with their mare?

    Wheat is another great example, as are gra.pes. The species of wheat that we in the West use for bread only developed in the last few thousand years as a result of two episodes of sympatric speciation (different to selective breeding, but an agent of evolution none the less) and the various Shiraz, Char.donnay and Pinot Noir gra.pes we enjoy today, in the form of wine, were all developed and perfected in the last 100 years or so.

    So, Adam or Eve, the next time you kneel down in your church and take your weekly dose of the body and blood of your dead pan-handling Iron Age Jewish hippie, you might like to reflect on the fact that you are actually eating proof of evolution and washing it down with proof of evolution.

    “Body of Darwin?”


    November 30, 2012 at 4:29 am |
    • Fred

      well said.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:54 am |
    • david h

      Sounds like you have a lot of faith in your own Bible.& religion...

      November 30, 2012 at 4:59 am |
    • Colin

      Great David. Point out what I got wrong. Come on, knock yourself out.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:03 am |
    • will

      Colin you are a moron....This is NOT evolution but changes within a kind. The Bible is FINE with this it is what we see in the real world it is NOT evolution!!!!! You are deceived and a deceiver yourself. Things reproduce after their own KIND. They do NOT evolve into something else you moron.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:06 am |
    • Colin

      Perhpas you could be more specific, Will. What is factually inaccurate in what I posted. Be specific now.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:08 am |
    • Heb

      More blah, blah blah from Colin. What don't you use all of that brain power to explain why you believe in the fallacy of MACRO EVOLUTION!

      November 30, 2012 at 5:13 am |
    • Colin

      Ok Heb, what did I get factually wrong. Be specific now and don't avoid the question.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:16 am |
    • Every effect has a cause that is

      The word "day" in Hebrew can mean epochs of time; thus the six days referenced in the bible could easily cover the time the dinosaurs roaomed. Man, is Robertson ignorant.

      Colin, the evidence for evolution at the micro-level is clear the macro-level not so much. So, your lengthy diatribe about some of the history of dog breeding is interesting but it has nothing to do with the matter.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:22 am |
    • Heb

      Colin, I can support the science that species change, adapt or "evolve" within their own species. What I can't wrap my head around is the notion of cross-species change.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:25 am |
    • Colin

      @Every effect etc. Holy hell??? If evolution of a wolf into a chihauhua, a dalmatian and a corgi is not macro evolution, what is???

      November 30, 2012 at 5:26 am |
    • Colin

      Heb, I just gave you an example above. That is macro evolution. One species into another. What is factually wrong with it? Stop avoiding this question.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:27 am |
    • ShannonCT

      "The word "day" in Hebrew can mean epochs of time"

      Either way, Genesis gets the order of creation all wrong: day and night and the earth before the creation of the sun; flowering plants before the creation of creatures on sea and land. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Unlucky guesses by some uneducated nomadic sheepherders.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:30 am |
    • ShannonCT

      Heb – when two populations become physically isolated, forces such as natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift will tend to produce genetic differences within those populations to the point where they are considered separate species.

      Richard Lenski at Michigan State has been running a 20+ year experiment with 12 separate lines of E. coli bacteria being fed sugar every day. About 10 years in to the experiment, one of the lines of bacteria evolved the ability to consume an entirely different type of molecule, citric acid, making those bacteria several times more fit than the other 11 lines. This was found to be due to two unlikely mutations that only occurred in one line of E. coli. Creationist like to claim that mutation can only be harmful and destructive, that it cannot produce new characteristics. Their disbelief of "macroevolution" rests on this assumption, that was disproved in Lenski's laboratory. Mutation CAN produce new traits in populations. Mutation CAN produce longer sequences of DNA, with new information. Denying "macroevolution" forces the creationist to ignore these inconvenient scientific facts.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:42 am |
    • coalterrain

      @ShannonCT your ignorance is equally astounding.

      ""Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." – Robert Jastrow

      Please google Robert Jastrow and consider his background.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
  20. Some dude that went to catholic school

    Thank you! I'm glad that a high profile televangalist has come out and said, creationism is bunk. I think god was very thoughtful in every creation he made and that proof of his existence is in the details of life itself. Science and Religion do not contradict in my mind, I don't get why so many people make it seem like science is trying to disprove god's existence. It isn't.

    November 30, 2012 at 4:21 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
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.