Faith

Evangelical NIH Director Speaks Out Against ‘Angry Atheists’ in Science

NIH Director Francis Collins Accepts Evolution But Decries

National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins

On Tuesday, National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins, once again, challenged the commonly held sentiment that science and religion are inherently incompatible.

Collins, an evangelical Christian who spawned controversy after assuming the head position at the nation’s top medical research agency, lamented the presence of “angry atheists” in science and made a case for compatibility.

In 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Collins to be the director of the NIH. Both a physician and a scientist, Collins was instrumental in seeing the Human Genome Project through to completion. Additionally, he has written and spoken intensely on matters of both science and faith.

Earlier this week, Collins addressed his take on the fields of science and religion at a USA Today editorial board meeting. When asked about complaints that have arisen over his‘ faith and its impact upon his head role at the nation’s top scientific agency, he said:

“…angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.

“There are a lot of scientists, I’m one of them, who believe there is a ‘middle ground’ between science and faith. I’m quite happy, and comfortable, in my middle ground.”

Collins went on to say that non-believing scientists who contend that an individual cannot believe in both evolution and God may be “causing a lot of people not familiar with science to change their assessments of it.” This impact would thus indicate that people who might learn more about the scientific makings of our world are then turned off from doing so.

So, what is this “middle ground” position, you ask? To some evangelicals’ surprise Collins, like the majority of scientists, believes in evolution. In a Beliefnet post (originally published by TIME Magazine) in which he describes Genesis 1 and 2, he says that he views the verses as “a powerful and poetic description of God’s intentions in creating the universe“ and claims that ”the mechanism of creation is left unspecified” in the Bible. Additionally, he writes:

If God, who is all powerful and who is not limited by space and time, chose to use the mechanism of evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn’t an absolutely elegant plan? And if God has now given us the intelligence and the opportunity to discover his methods, that is something to celebrate.

In considering his take on stem cell research, Collins would likely frustrate social conservatives. Yesterday, upon hearing that a federal lawsuit against embryonic stem cell research had been dismissed, Collins said:

“We are pleased with today’s ruling. Responsible stem cell research has the potential to develop new treatments and ultimately save lives. This ruling will help ensure this groundbreaking research can continue to move forward.’’

Below, watch Collins discuss his opinions on this controversial medical research:

Despite his moderate stances on many of these issues (stances social conservatives might consider extreme, even), Collins has been heavily criticized by fellow scientists for his faith. Stephen Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard University, wrote the following back in 2009:

“A person’s private beliefs should not keep him from a public position. But Collins is an advocate of profoundly anti-scientific beliefs, and it is reasonable for the scientific community to ask him how these beliefs will affect his administration.”

In a New York Times op-ed back in 2009, Sam Harris, founder of the secular Reason Project, wrote:

Dr. Collins has written that “science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence” and that “the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted.”…

Collins is an accomplished scientist and a man who is sincere in his beliefs. And that is precisely what makes me so uncomfortable about his nomination. Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?

But, attacks haven’t come only from fellow scientists. Jonathan Wells, an intelligent design advocate, released the following video (via the Discovery Institute) in which he takes on Collins’ acceptance of evolution:

Regardless of what critics say, some would contend that diversity should be honored — even in considering potential candidates for scientifically-focused appointments.

As an advocate for the coming together of science and religions, Collins will likely continue to showcase his belief that there really are no complex contradictions between the two phenomena (he even founded a non-profit called The BioLogos Forum to show people that science and religion aren’t incompatible).

Comments (207)

1 2 3 4
  • stage9
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:29pm

    “If God, who is all powerful and who is not limited by space and time, chose to use the mechanism of evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn’t an absolutely elegant plan?”

    UMMMMM, but HE DIDN’T and NO WHERE IS THAT EVER ALLUDED TO IN SCRIPTURE…EVER.

    Evolution is a fraud. And the evidence does NOT support it one iota!

    Report Post » stage9  
    • S G Applebee
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 6:42pm

      What never ceases to amaze me is the fact that so many people bloviate about Evolution who know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it.

      Do they bloviate about physics? No.
      Do they bloviate about biology? No.
      Do they bloviate about astronomy? No.
      Do they bloviate about other natural sciences they know NOTHING about? No.
      But when it comes to Evolution, why do they act as though they know what they speak of?

      Report Post »  
    • loriann12
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 6:44pm

      If we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? I believe in adaptation, but not goo to you via the zoo. It takes more faith to believe in evolution that it does God.

      Report Post »  
    • affinnity
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 7:03pm

      S G Applebee. Your absolutely right the atheists and evolutionists do bloviate about religion and because they insult us we find ourselves continuously defending our right to faith and belief.

      Because you wanted to use a big word to impress us I’m giving everyone a link:
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bloviate

      I have been called a fool, idiot and stupid by atheists (after I read their stupid books and told them we could agree to disagree). Atheists won’t shut up and be happy. They always have to start arguments about evolution and tell us why we‘re so stupid and they’re so damn smart. Well you know what I‘m sick of it and I’m going to start calling atheists the same rude names they call us.

      Report Post » affinnity  
    • CCS
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 7:38pm

      @Stage: You’re right, scripture does not say how God went about bringing his creation into existence. Collin‘s point is that we don’t know how God did it. Is it even possible for us to know? Who are we to say that evolution wasn‘t and isn’t His instrument? He gave us incredible minds to learn about and appreciate His creation. The fossil record is not a cruel joke by our creator. NO WHERE IS IT ALLUDED TO IN SCRIPTURE THAT GOD DID NOT USE EVOLUTION AS HIS INSTRUMENT!
      @SG: Pithy
      @Lori: You’re an uneducated bloviater. That’s not how evolution works. Evolution does not act on entire populations. Is that the mental block you haven’t been able to get past?

      Report Post »  
    • Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 7:52pm

      @Loriann12:
      You’re a prime example of what SG Applebee was talking about. You’re bloviating about Evolution with no real understanding of what Evolution is.

      At no time has Evolution ever claimed that man evolved from modern-day monkeys or apes. Man and modern-day apes and monkeys all evolved from previous, more primitive ancestral forms. Somewhere down the eons, Chimpanzees and humans shared a “common ancestor”. Does that term sound familiar? But from that common ancestor, two lines of evolutionary developement diverged. One, ultimately leading to chimps. One to us.

      “Goo to you via the zoo” makes a dandy nursery rhyme. Pity you think science can’t leave the confines of a Religionist nursery.

      Report Post » Lesbian Packing Hollow Points  
    • S G Applebee
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 8:26pm

      Affinnity,

      WHO was talking about atheists? I was talking about people who know NOTHING about evolution, but continue to BLOVIATE as if they do. That could be anyone–including you. Please tell us what you have read, studied…etc, on the science of evolution and we’ll go from there.

      Report Post »  
    • TrailBlazer66
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 9:19pm

      Amen, brother!

      Report Post » TrailBlazer66  
    • OuttoDoubt
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:34am

      @Loriann
      Your comment shows the extreme scientific ignorance within our country. Every time I see comments like that I can’t help but cringe at the thought that similar misrepresentations of science are attempting to move into the classroom, adding drastically to the barren chasm that is our average students science knowledge.
      To answer your question, we didn’t evolve from monkeys. We, as primates, share a common anscestor with other primates, like monkeys and others like the great apes. Even a rudimentary understanding of evolution would have answered that question for you. I promise you, for every argument presented against evolution there is a simple, concise, and verifiable answer that explains the so called “gap”.
      I beg you and anyone else reading this to educate yourself, not just on the websites of fundementalist organizations hell bent on bringing religion into the classroom again, but take those so called arguments and get the answers that science gives. Then, if those answers aren’t enough, research the tenants that these answers are based upon. I assure you you will understand that evolution is fact, not “just a theory” (this is another example of anti science groups preying on ignorance. a scientific theory is a collection of laws, facts, evidence, and so forth that explains a specific phenom, ie, theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease)

      Report Post » OuttoDoubt  
    • cykoaudio
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:06am

      No Applebee,scientists,Christian & not,bloviate much about their specific field as it relates to Evolution all the time…watch Ben Steins movie,,there are dozen top scientists who are Christian that know a lot about evolution,based on their relation to it…Geradl Schroeder has the answer I believe,and his perspective is planetary/earth sciences,physics,and chemical engineering…is one the top scientists in the world,has worked for gov’ts globally,MIT professor & has found perfect union in first chapters in Genesis,in original translation/meaning,and formulas for expansion of universe-time space..anyone who reads Schroeders work will be convinced…but this vid goes to show the best scientists,like Newton,are also men of faith..

      Report Post » cykoaudio  
    • Libertarian
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:13am

      There is macro and micro evolution. Macro being that humans evolved from bacterium and micro is that all things can change and/or adapt over time. Of course we can adapt to our surrounding, but we cannot morph. The mere biology of an eyeball debunks macro evolution.

      There is a God and we cannot fathom the sciences of his design.

      Report Post » Libertarian  
    • Consentiondum
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 2:46am

      Sigh, this again, eh? Why is it so hard to believe in GOD and accept evolution? I guess I will never understand.

      Whether you like it or not, most scientific-ish attempts to debunk evolution come full circle back to the same few scientist, the discovery institute, or something similar that all have an anti-evolution agenda.

      It may well be true that they have done experiments that show contradictory data to other experiments or hypotheses (A good thing, That is actually a driving force in science… repeated experiment to get the same results and further verify a theory or not). Disproving a handful of ideas within the theory does not even begin to scratch the surface of the immense depth of proof that exists for the theory of evolution. For every peer reviewed paper that does its part to discredit the theory in one way there are dozens if not hundreds more that verify it in another.

      A more appropriate question would be “why are there still apes?” but you are forgiven: ancestral groups get separated and evolve in different environmental conditions… that’s why.

      Report Post »  
    • fliteking
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:06pm

      I’m glad we have the fossils of the COELACANTH to prove all you creationists wrong.

      You see, the COELACANTH, which died out 65 million years ago, is a real transitional fossil of a fish that was developing legs, the father of what we call the current day chimp, who in turn is the father of your ancestors.

      If only we had a LIVE COELACANTH today that we could all look at maybe the story would make a lot more sense.

      I can assure you S G Applebee and Lesbian Packing Hollow Points have truly thought this thing out, as much as if their souls depended on it.

      Wait, 4 YEAR OLD SON says the COELACANTH IS ALIVE AND WELL off the coast of Africa… and Google confirms this… just one small problem with an otherwise sound theory …

      Report Post » fliteking  
    • Stuperfan
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 7:59pm

      Okay, just for fun…I’ll throw in my two cents worth. It intrigues me that no one will listen the the other side, nor will they give any ground to the other. I’ve always held to the belief that both are true on some level (evolution and creation). God is rather descriptive in how He did create the universe. Though I am sure many of you wish he would have been more specific in His Word. But what God did was create “each according to their own kind.” I would disagree with the evolutionist who believes we came from goo to fish to land, etc, etc, etc, and would propose that each “kind” has evolved over the centuries to fit their enviroment (“kind” as in bird, animal, fish, insect). God spoke and it came into being. Some science spends too much time discounting God, just as some believers spend too much time ignoring the beauty of God’s science.

      Report Post » Stuperfan  
    • Daniel Moshe Johnson
      Posted on July 30, 2011 at 8:30pm

      Shalom: To the mentally lame, who have not figured out, that knowledge is the pledge but has not been the aim, but how much you’ve gained, is where many stake there claim. Fame is for the lame, it’s gain is the cemetery lane, so without the law many flaw, no longer a star, all in slow motion with no portion, under cul tic transgression, everyday selling there souls for temporary possessions, now I ask you a question?

      For Genesis says, “let us make man in our image” refers to more than one. According to Enoch, Satan represents hundreds of the created sons or Angles of the Elohim, who were given dominion over the latter heavens seen by humanity. The parting of the Red Sea, a dark cloud writing upon stone, the building of air planes and rockets, all represent physics and science applied. Science and religion go hand in hand, but he who interprets or tries to comprehend, like anything else, must be learned in the principles that govern that particular equation.

      The mind is a very powerful tool, those who can control it, can access that limitless, eternal estate within, that causes us in the physical, or things seen world to react, electro magnetic portals, the physical body.

      Mankind’s denial of the great Architect is an excuse to live immoral, for rules govern the entire Universe. Note: there are positive and negative terminals, but what’s uppermost important, is that all positive terminals are connected.

      Report Post »  
    • S G Applebee
      Posted on July 30, 2011 at 10:51pm

      cykoaudio,

      Please name a single natural science (anthropology, biology, cosmology…etc) where the consensus of the majority believe in Creationism. Just one.
      Every science has its scientists who disagree with the majority concensus, but why is it that in EVERY SINGLE CASE those who disagree always just happen to be religious?

      Report Post »  
    • S G Applebee
      Posted on July 30, 2011 at 11:00pm

      flightking,

      Same to you. Please name a single natural science (anthropology, biology, cosmology…etc) where the consensus of the majority believe in Creationism. Just one.
      Every science has its scientists who disagree with the majority concensus, but why is it that in EVERY SINGLE CASE those who disagree always just happen to be religious?

      Report Post »  
    • S G Applebee
      Posted on July 30, 2011 at 11:02pm

      A short 3 minute video for Biblical Creationists: http://youtu.be/UNSwyCi9E9k

      Report Post »  
    • Pujols
      Posted on July 31, 2011 at 5:15pm

      Atheists? I feel sorry them.
      Jesus choose Me and not them.
      It was done before any of us were born.
      I guess they can/should have fun for the little time we are here.
      They will not have fun forever like Me when I get to Heaven. More the pity.

      Report Post »  
  • Osaka
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:15pm

    You can think the Theory of Evolution is bunk and still support science. We didn’t come from monkeys, nor did cows come from fishes, nor did bees come from mosquitos. But I still believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old. There’s too much in Evolution you have to take on faith. So if you want to call Evolution religion, that’s fine, but don’t call it science–and certainly don’t refer to it as fact (something we can all prove vs. opinion). For those who are interested in scientific reasons why evolution doesn’t work, check out this link: http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html It sums up why statistically, astronomically, biologically, genetically, among other things why it doesn’t work.

    I believe God works through science. We don’t perfectly understand all the laws of the universe and how they work yet, but I trust true scientists (and I mean those seeking the truth whatever it is and not just to support an agenda) to continue uncovering more fascinating discoveries. I think it’s ridiculous, however, that if you don‘t believe in Evolution you’re somehow unscientific. That prejudice is what truly sounds unscientific to me.

    Report Post »  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 8:14pm

      I understand the differnce of religion and evolution; and on the part of evolution you are quite right, too much needs to be taken on faith and cannot, to myself be proven reliably…now, the adaptation of a species to local conditions is a different matter…one example I read about as a teen in high school in a book from England:

      There is a moth that lives on the white ash trees, and one in each 3500 or so has a genetic change that makes it darker in coloration than is normal; so the predators of the moths can see and hunt them easier, hence not as many of the darker coloration ones live.

      During the industrial revolution of the 1800s, the soot of the mills and such covered the white ashes to a degree where the darker colored moths were concealled better; the white ones started falling to the predators more and more.

      When the industries started cleaning up the amount of soot and smoke produced; the normal balance went back to favoring the white colored moths again.

      Adaptation, not evolution, to local conditions.

      The mathmatical probabilites have been calculated across the board by many respected researchers and scientists — one by a man who tried to disprove creationism by mathmatical probability; and in the end accepted Christ and God due to the calculations outcomes.

      The title of his books are called “The Hand of God,“ and ”The Mystery of God”

      Good reading, I no longer have a copy of them, yet check any library.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Daniel Moshe Johnson
      Posted on July 31, 2011 at 1:03pm

      To a negative terminal religion has to be meaningless, for negative terminals reek of evil and lawlessness. All atheist are liars and are to lazy to try to become positive. If you were truly atheist, why not kill yourself and get it over with, the quicker you all are gone from the earth, then those inclined to moral pious paths can focus upon the bigger enemy, who is religious, and who seeks to destroy all infidels. And to S.G. Applybee, science is also a belief, Jewish commandments and law codes that are relevant to moral human interactions is beyond belief, it is needed and persistent to democracy. For it was bestowed upon a people, a people chosen by a great force, a force that has displayed it’s power many times throughout there existence. For Judaism is not solely a religion, it is a concept, a concept based upon thought processing, towards positive rather than negative. For positivity allows multiplicity, negativity negation or subtraction, for the succession of time depends on positivity. Continuity is based upon multiplicity, whether you choose the word religion or the action of the law within the commandments that surrounded by endless genealogies of man’s interactions in books of religion, is up to you. And this is where Judaism is the law, not solely about religion, the moral rhythmic principles for governing and living life is Cabal, the mysticism of Judaism, a principle. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism, which is a form of atheism, blinds many from love, who is lig

      Report Post »  
  • Midnight Watch
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:10pm

    Evolution is incompatible with the gospel:
    http://midnightwatch.typepad.com/midnight-watch/2011/07/ken-ham-vs-tim-keller.html

    Report Post »  
    • CCS
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 7:52pm

      So says nut job Ken Ham. The Bible is not a science book!!! True science is not a religion!!! Use that as a starting point and the rest is easy. Confuse the two and you end up with the Vatican persecuting Galileo all over again. If you aren’t convinced that a particular scientific hypothesis has been adequately proven to rise to the level of a theory (think theory as in theory of gravity), that’s your choice and you should contribute to the scientific debate. You cannot use religion to disprove science; that automatically disqualifies you from participating in the discussion.

      Report Post »  
  • Phoenixsoulfire
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:05pm

    science and religion can co-exist together. If God didn’t want us to why he made things the way he did he would have made us all as smart as obama.

    Report Post »  
  • capitalismrocks
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:55pm

    How do you explain how certain animals mimic predators of animals that prey upon them as a defense? How would they know and understand how to adapt?

    How does a butterfly have Owl eyes on the backs of its wings to scare off birds that may eat it since the birds would be scared of an Owl, how did the butterfly “see” the back of its wings to create that pattern?

    How did animals, and plants create symbiotic relationships since they had no direct correlation to each other in the first place?

    How does a plant engineer itself to trap an insect to eat it, how would it evolve to learn to eat an insect and know that an insect has nutrients enough to feed the plant versus photo synthesis

    There had to be a blueprint, a starting point – an Intelligent Design to begin with and sure I accept that the designs have “evolved” aka – improved, but the core designs have intelligence to them, this isn’t through random chance and “junk DNA”…

    I have a scientific background and there is no Dawinian logical explanation for the beginning of features of complex lifeforms….

    Also, all you Darwin followers – just take note, read ALL of Darwin and if you are Gay and follow Darwin, you may want to rethink your hero – he called Gays a deadend and a waste.

    Report Post » capitalismrocks  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:04pm

      “Also, all you Darwin followers – just take note, read ALL of Darwin and if you are Gay and follow Darwin, you may want to rethink your hero – he called Gays a deadend and a waste.”

      The theory of evolution has come a long way since Darwin first posited it. Saying evolution = Darwin is like saying the Bible = the Old Testament. Sure, some things are still useful, but others have been scrapped as time went on and things, dare I say it, evolved.

      Report Post »  
    • Phoenixsoulfire
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:04pm

      Plus! Don’t forget Darwin believed in God as well!

      Report Post »  
    • Rapunzel
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 6:08pm

      @Phoenix – sorry but you have been misinformed. Darwin was not a believer; that is why he came up with his theory; he wanted to explain the existence of the world without God. The stories that he recanted on his deathbed are not considered to be reliable by most of his biographers.

      Report Post » Rapunzel  
    • lemmings4obama
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 6:10pm

      I once heard a great analogy that compared the possibility of life evolving out of “dirt soup” to throwing all the gears and parts of a watch into the ocean and having the waves and currents of the ocean put the whole watch together. The thing is that parts of a watch aren’t hardly comparable to the complexity of the molecules and metabolism that make up a living organism.

      Report Post » lemmings4obama  
    • Arlundee
      Posted on August 5, 2011 at 1:53pm

      This is where I insert my “lolwhat?!” to some of what I’ve seen posted.

      Science is fact based.. the whole “Seeing is Believing” deal.
      Religion is Faith based… the “I believe in things I cannot see” deal.

      It is perfectly possible.. and probable, for them to coexist within the same mind. Evolutionists are too busy trying to debunk Faith. Creationists are too busy getting defensive over it. If you can’t play nice, find some new friends to play with until you’re mature enough to move past the “You’re wrong, therefore you’re stupid” accusations.

      And for all of you claiming that Darwin set out to debunk the existence of God, try again. He was a naturalist, but he did not set out to challenge the church.

      Report Post »  
  • Bravefaith.org
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:50pm

    Hypocracy. Real science is the pursuit for truth. God is unprovable. And so they try to deny his existence? On what Grounds? Find real Honest proof that God doesn’t exist. Then open your mouths. Until then, please stop trying to blast the public with your pseudo-scientific religion which claims that things such as anti-matter, Messenger RNA, Quarks, and the nervous system are products of random unguided chance.

    Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:01pm

      “Find real Honest proof that God doesn’t exist. ”

      The standard response would be “You cannot prove something does not exist.“ The correct response would be ”find direct proof of God.” You yourself have said it cannot be done (and I agree, as I am a Christian myself). That’s why God, by and large, does not belong in science; God is known through faith and belief, not through the scientific method.

      I believe Collins has the right idea. He doesn’t get strung up on political and theological issues, but just practices science and leaves his beliefs for himself outside of the experiments. I would imagine that to him each new discovery is just another confirmation that God is good. I feel that’s the exact way everyone should approach science; not looking to prove a point but looking to discover more about the universe we live in.

      Report Post »  
    • JGraham III
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 6:05pm

      Romans 1 says God has shown mankind enough to believe in Him, even if it is merely in the creation (the heavens and the earth, let alone the marvelous complexity of the crowning touch of His handiwork..Man). Romans goes on to say that mankind did not want to hold God as the Head of all things and began to worship the creation rather than the Creator. Its all there: “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth His handiwork…Ps 19. Perhaps why many choose atheism is that for whatever reason, they choose to deny the evidence that is all about them. Mathematically there isn’t enough time in the supposed 15 billion year existence of the Universe for enough “evolution” to occur for sludge to become a man, even by incorporating a mutation every nanosecond in said sludge’s DNA. The odds are preposterously small as to be absurd. Furthermore, evolution being a theory (read: educated guess based on observed data), when compared to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, flies in the face of even simple reason. A scientist versed in both evolution and mathematics, who became a believer said once that it is more likely mathematically for a tornado to pass through a junk yard and leave a Boeing 737 in its wake than for the theory of Evolution to be true.
      Evolution and its staunch adherants are participating in a religion in which Mother Earth has replaced Father God, all the while bashing ‘evil religion’. Guess we have to take evolution “on faith”.

      Report Post »  
  • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:45pm

    I’m just surprised that Obama nominated an Evangelical Christian to be anything.

    Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • copper
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:54pm

      An EVANGELICAL?? I don’t think so. He claims GOD is all powerful but then believes he had to use an UNPROVEN theory to do it? Come on..if you don’t believe the first two books of the BIBLE, WHY should you believe anything else??

      More importantly which one of the missing links, that is STILL MISSING was Adam and Eve? If there was NO Adam & Eve, YOU DON’T NEED A SAVIOR! So then, WHY DID CHRIST JESUS HAVE TO DIE? Which APE CREATURE was he the SAVIOR of?

      Report Post »  
    • HankScram
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:47pm

      We have no reason to believe there was an Adam and Eve. Some believe it because they were taught a particular interpretation of the bible. But other than someone telling you the story is based on fact, there is nothing. You’re just believing what someone told you to believe.

      Think for yourself. It leads to a much more interesting, fulfilling relationship with God. Unless you just want a relationship with a religion, which doesn’t have much to do with God.

      Report Post »  
    • Rapunzel
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 6:06pm

      @Hanscram: “We have no reason to believe there was an Adam and Eve. Some believe it because they were taught a particular interpretation of the bible. But other than someone telling you the story is based on fact, there is nothing. You’re just believing what someone told you to believe.” Funny, change a few words here and there and you have described evolution: We have no reason to believe there was evolution or billions of years. Some believe it because they were taught a particular interpretation of the geologic record. But other than someone telling you the story is based on fact, there is nothing. You’re just believing what someone told you to believe.

      There is NOTHING in the geologic record that is incompatible with a a young earth and a worldwide flood. There is NOTHING in the fossil record that proves evolution. All proposed ‘missing links’ have not panned out upon further study. Science, try hard as it might, cannot prove origins; it can only prove what is happening today. Belief in evolution requires as much faith as any religion.

      They are worshiping the created rather than the Creator.

      Report Post » Rapunzel  
    • HankScram
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 10:25pm

      @Rapunzel,

      You’ve elegantly reasoned that a story in a book is the equivalent of the geologic record. You’ve acquitted your personal belief system quite nicely. I recant my reliance on the physical world.

      Report Post »  
    • HankScram
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 10:26pm

      @Rapunzel,

      Worshipping – let’s say appreciating – the creation? Indeed, God’s creation is awesome.

      Worshipping a religion. Nope, not that awesome.

      Report Post »  
  • HUNITHUNIT
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:40pm

    People who comment on this site clearly have no real understanding of evolution, human or otherwise.

    Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:49pm

      Some do.

      Report Post »  
    • crazedbanshee
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:56pm

      I will tell you what i do know, I have no doubt that there is a God that loves and cares for us. The methods used to create the Earth are not really important, however I do believe there are laws of the universe (science) that God follows. What is important is that God created a plan for us to follow (religion) and a Savior to overcome sin and death that we may one day return to His presence.

      Report Post »  
    • affinnity
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:13pm

      Are you one of those social evolution believers?

      Report Post » affinnity  
    • HUNITHUNIT
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:22pm

      *should have said some people……

      Report Post »  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:28pm

      I’m a catholic but have no problem with evolution[though i can't say i understand natural selection] no matter how often my athiest husband walks me through it [i don't get these randomly occuring genetic mutations leading to the immense biological diversity-a little camoflage here ,a more or less hairy being there,i can get but not the billions of different species of life[plant,animal,bacterial,and virus to say nothing of what they now call crystal like inorganic substances that become organic] suppossedly all airising from a single entity one cell in conjunction with light and water leading by simple natural selection to this diversity.Boggles my mind.
      As does consciousness arising from matter [braincells] interacting with the environment [sensory input];matter producing thought boggles my mind too.Cosmicaly the absense of space makes no sense ,[though i believe time is consciousness-a structure of mind- and has no realitiy independent of mind. Movement of objects appears linear but only because of conscioussness[mind] and actually there is only being and God is the ground of being and we‘re made in His image hence we are contingent to His pure essential being and so can’t grasp the essence of consciousness[spirit] and space and time.Anyway kudos for athiests coming out of the closet and challenging complacent religiousity.Of course science describes reality as we experiecnce it via our senses religion is outside that which exists; the why ,not the how of exis

      Report Post »  
    • CCS
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:09am

      @Rose-Ellen: Allow this Catholic scientist assist your atheist husband.. The things you haven’t factored in are the extraordinary amount of time involved and the natural outside forces that can damage or alter DNA to accelerate the processes. Most of these changes didn’t work out well but, over billions of years (can you get your head around BILLIONS of years?) some did and the changes that created advantages are the only ones we’re left with.

      Report Post »  
  • JednaVira
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:37pm

    Evolution and the Bible (i.e. Creationism) is NOT compatible. If Genesis 1:1 isn’t true, then the rest of the Bible cannot be true. You cannot have millions of years of death and dying prior to sin. Remember, SIN caused death and dying (physical and spiritual). It just doesn’t fit. Evolution is a theory with zero evidence. I pray this guy receives some wisdom from our Lord.

    http://www.thePoliPit.com

    Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:43pm

      What you mean to say is it’s not compatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Nor is most of science. The majority of Christians, thankfully, do not believe this.

      Report Post »  
    • JimConstitution
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 7:04pm

      Sin did not start with Adam and Eve, So that which was said isnt true. Remember Satan started as a creature of light, perfect in wisdom and beauty. All angels have free will. The star of the morning, Lucifer, decided to fight God and take His place as god. Michael and Gabriel fought and won.

      He was then cast down to earth, with about a third of the angels in heaven that decided to follow him against God.

      The first vs in the bible says ‘God created the heavens and the earth’. (God creates good and beauty)
      But the second vs says ‘the earth was dark, void, without form and nothing but water, no land.

      This a striking difference. I believe when Satan was cast down to earth he and the fallen angels destroyed the beautiful planet vs one speaks of. Vs two is the result.

      The amount of time between vs one and two is unknown. Dinosaur’s bones and others come form this time period, I believe were animals destroyed from the sudden coldness. Some things survived. Turtles, crocodiles, alligators, lizards and the like survived.

      Hate and destruction of anything of God is Satan’s only desire.

      The Spirit of God changed things back to a planet of beauty, created a garden and made Adam and Eve. Then after temptation it was then that they sinned. Death entered again onto planet earth.

      Jesus, the second person of the Godhead, spoke of Adam some 4000 yrs later during His 33 yrs of life, God as a man.

      Report Post » JimConstitution  
    • bruce_baker
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 9:14pm

      “If Genesis 1:1 isn’t true, then the rest of the Bible cannot be true.”

      When did God reveal the contents of Genisis to man? How long was it passed down orally before it was written down? When it was written down, what language was it written down in? When was it translated into Greek? And then to Latin? We know when it was translated into English for the King James version. I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty fuzzy about the answers to those other questions.

      Matthew 13:13 – Therefore speak I to them in parables; because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
      Matthew 13: 34 – All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

      If our Lord knew that the only possible way to convey the truth to the lost was in parables, and even with parables that most of them “wouldn’t get it”, isn’t it possible that the religious knowledge in the Old Testament is conveyed the same way? Say you’re God, trying to explain to a desert tribesman in 2500 BC how you created the universe. The human words for most of what you want to say haven’t been invented yet. Details?!

      The Old Testament is a mix of different types of information. You have the “begats”. You have the commandments. Pretty straightforward. The lessons there about life are different. Look a Proverbs. I think that the only way to convey true religious knowledge is through parables. That’s the only way we can underst

      Report Post » bruce_baker  
    • OuttoDoubt
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:59am

      Really, so you agree that we should stone our children to death for being unruly? (deut chap 28) or that it is ok to beat (much less own) your slave as long as they recover within a set amount of time? Or that women who are caught in adultery should be stoned or burned depending on the adulterous offense? or that we shouldn’t “suffer a witch to live”? Perhaps you agree with Jesus’ assertion to those pesky pharisees that a widow who bore her late husband no children is still the property of his family, and should then be wed to the next brother or even father until she manages to give one of them a child before they kick off. Try reading that pile of filth all the way through and I assure you that you’ll find many more things that you, hopefully, won’t agree with. Then perhaps you’ll realize that the bible is not the “word of god” but a book compiled by men containing obscure writings that range from folk lorish pseudo-history, to poetry, to hearsay of hearsay. Climb down the holy high horse and try thinking objectively. It’s an amazingly liberating experience!

      Report Post » OuttoDoubt  
  • pwatkins
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:33pm

    Science should be believed bc God made that too. Every idea you liberals have God gave you, Lucifer just distorted it. Evolution?…maybe an old plan by God he no longer cared for before he used Creation. We all may be right about everything except Who God is…..go read the New Testament. May God Bless us all.

    Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:45pm

      “…maybe an old plan by God he no longer cared for before he used Creation.”
      Theologically unsound. There’s no “and on the fourth day the Lord messed up and started over” in the Bible. The story of Genesis lays out Creation quite frankly; the only way to make alternative explanations is to admit the Bible is not literal.

      Report Post »  
  • I SPY
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:33pm

    I’m sure Obama never knew Collins was a Christian. Obama is probably kicking himself now.

    Report Post » I SPY  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:30pm

    Mr Collins is right, it is possible for science and religion to coexist and not be mutually exclusive.

    One problem that does exist is the extremists on both sides, weather of science or theology, in that BOTH use their respective arguments and ideals as a bludgeon to slam the other over the head with it in the “I am right and that is the way it always will be” style of arguing.

    Please note how I refer to it as arguing and NOT debating; true debate is possible when a respect of the other persons oppinions, even while disagreeing with them, is given and returned in kind.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • shirelover
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 7:19pm

      Well said SnowLeopard! Your posts are always well thought out and gracious. I know that if I read them I will not be mentally assaulted by idiocy. The honest truth is, we have to decide what we are going to believe. There is no absolute proof in either evolution or Creation. I have decided that Creation makes sense when you look at all the evidence. But, it is more than just evidence, we are emotional creatures and I know that there is a Just, Holy and Loving Creator.

      BTW, I like the sketches

      Report Post » shirelover  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 8:22pm

      @Shire lover — Thank you, the aspect of evolution and creationism are not inherently incompatable; mind you I hold to the creation story (being a Christian Chaplain does admittedly slant my viewpoint), and adaptation of species to local changes in conditions and influences. Adaptation is not evolution.

      One simple example to consider is this — from what on the Aniamil Planet programs and books on New Zealand there is a variety of native parrots having figured out how to actually open unlocked car doors to get at the food inside the vehicles.

      Now is this evolution? Nope, it turns out someone in the area had a couple of generations ago taught their birds how to open a vehicle door to see if it could be done; then they were let loose and they in turn taught the next generation of birds and such.

      Look into the birds around your area and answer a question — as long as pidgeons are around, and are supposedly smarter than doves, why do the doves survive for as long as the pidgeons do?

      Evolution theory holds the smarter, and therefore better evolved bird should survive and dominate.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • welovetheUSA
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:25pm

    Science has become a joke……..they lie about data, and its the biggest hoax on the world.

    Report Post » welovetheUSA  
    • VanGrungy
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:34pm

      The Universe is a soccer ball God created. The big bang is God kicking the ball. The ball has curve from spin. Ball goes where it may. God starts again.

      Report Post » VanGrungy  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:46pm

      What is outsie the ball?i call what is outside the ball a part of the universe.Why do you limit the term universe to the ball when i can’t conceive of a ball without its environs[space] which logically is also part of the universe[everything that is]?You physicists always change the definition of the word universe to mean just that which you can study and explain[the ball].the common sense definition of universe is everythinging including outside the ball! Bait and switch in your usurping the meaning of universe to mean that which you can say something scientific about[whether a theory of a scientificaly proven fact].What’s outseide the ball?Till you address that you’re just doing a infinite regress and you do not satisfy an inquiring mind!

      Report Post »  
  • TEIN
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:25pm

    Said before and will say it again, Darwin evolution gives a bases for understanding how variety within species occurs…But evolution nor science can show or prove that man was an offspring of another creature..Where is the proof of chromosomal change where the offspring of a creature is different than its parent and can breed with another of that same chromosomal change?? If this was nature’s way you would see it happening in nature all the time, but whenever you breed dogs, you get a variety of a dog…When you breed donkey and horse, you get a jackass that can’t breed…So, where there is the proof that if I keep breeding lizards, that somehow, some time, I will end up with a chicken??? Why is it so hard to envision that the possibility that God created a male and a female of a creature, and within that creature put in the biological mechanisms to create an endless variety of that creature??

    Report Post »  
    • Blackop
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:47pm

      You just don’t understand the science behind evolution. there are lots of books for you to crack open on the subject that will clarify the issue for you.

      Report Post »  
    • Livin_in_Cin
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:59pm

      The Science behind Evolution:
      there was a pool of watery sludge
      lightning hit the sludge
      the carbon in the sludge took the hit and became life – sort of like in Young Frankenstein
      then a few years go by…
      then here we are.

      that about sum it up?

      Report Post » Livin_in_Cin  
    • SlantwiseDave
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:01pm

      BLACKOP I would bet dollars to doughnuts you don’t understand the science behind the THEORY of evolution to explain it fully either. There is ZERO quantitative empirical proof of evolution on the macro- scale i.e. spontaneous appearance of an entirely new species. The evolution that we see examples of is on the micro- scale, adaptation, modifications of an existing species. That‘s why it’s the THEORY of evolution, not the LAW of evolution.

      Report Post »  
    • TEIN
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 6:12pm

      Do you understand genetics’ Blackop??? I read more books than I like about evolution, and when you boil it down from all the goop that is spewed it tells how variety within a species occurs, not how a adding of or lose of a chromosomal pair happens, which would had to occur for humans to be related to chimps…If you have great knowledge on books of evolution, and I am such a dolt, then what did the parents of humans look like genetically?? How many sets of chromosomes did are evolutionary ancestors have?? How can it be fact and provable when you cannot name one creature that another creature came from?? I do not believe that many people like yourself has sat down and really tried to put into terms what it would take for the events to unfold to move from lizard to human…or do you do like the tech buzz word of the cloud to explain networks…lizard connects to cloud then..human!!!

      Report Post »  
  • NightWriter
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:25pm

    Okay… I’m confused. I believe in Genesis, Adam and Eve and the Bible… but there’s clear evidence of evolution of species… you can’t disregard the fossil record, those are facts you can see and touch.

    I’ve thought about this – not to the point becoming a Lib or (gasp) an Athiest – just pondered.

    Does it occur to anyone (else) that God maybe tried out something different – didn’t like the outcome and then made Adam and Eve?

    And would that theory make everyone – believer and non-believer happy?

    Just sayin’ : )

    Report Post »  
    • SREGN
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:37pm

      There is NOTHING in the fossil record to support one species evolving into another species. There is plenty of support for natural selection within a species. There is a fairly good synopses of some of the hoax data that somehow still appears in my kids’ science books in One Heartbeat Away by Mark Cahill. Do some digging and you will be astonished at the amount of falsehoods we have been taught.

      Report Post »  
    • capecodsully
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:39pm

      “Darn those monkeys they shed too much, I think I’ll make one with no fur.”

      Report Post »  
    • libertylover55
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:48pm

      God created the universe. Could He possibly have created it from materials that were old, hence the fossils and other unaccounted things?

      Report Post »  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 8:21pm

      We’re related to chimps only in the sense of having a common ancestor.That population may have separated into groups[geogrphically]and mutations randomly arose in disparate populations that naturally selected over time. As such, they diverged from their common ancestors in ways that proved advantageous to their populations. Once the separation was removed and the separate populations recontacted, they found themselves to be different species such as apes,gorillas,humans]etc. The common ancester is the key followed by geographic separation and followed by natural selection. Chromosomal random mutations occur all of the time. Mongoloidism is a chromosomal mutation. As it happens, the mutation produces a negative outcome. However, even a negative outcome can actually survive as a mutation and lead t a new species if the creature manages to reproduce. Evolution is not concerned with a march towards a master dominant creature but only towards survival and successful reproduction. Our larger brains may or may not be advantageous to us but was not necessary for the success of our cousins in what we call the animal world.

      Report Post »  
    • Greenwood
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:39am

      @NIGHTWRITER………..you say;………Okay… I’m confused. I believe in Genesis, Adam and Eve and the Bible… but there’s clear evidence of evolution of species… you can’t disregard the fossil record, those are facts you can see and touch.

      You do understand that Genesis was originally written in Hebrew and the Hebrew word for days doesn’t always mean 24 hour days. It’s speaking about the creative days which could be millions of years. Six creative days we don’t know how long it was. Also you never heard the expression “back in those days ” or back in my day” is that a single day? No. So it’s just a period of time God used to prepare the earth for mankind. In fact while the bible is not a science book it was ahead of it’s time like in ………..Isaiah 40: 22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth…………………..
      Job 26: 7…………….says the earth is hanging upon nothing.
      This was centuries before Christ and yet until 1492 most people thought the earth was flat and infact many people today still do. LOL

      Report Post » Greenwood  
    • holy ghostbuster
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 5:10pm

      @Nightwriter – “Does it occur to anyone (else) that God maybe tried out something different – didn’t like the outcome and then made Adam and Eve?”
      How could an all- powerful, all-knowing, perfect god (which is the standard model adhered to by most Christians) make a mistake, which is what you are alleging?

      Report Post » holy ghostbuster  
    • Lux
      Posted on July 30, 2011 at 4:36am

      “Does it occur to anyone (else) that God maybe tried out something different – didn’t like the outcome and then made Adam and Eve?”

      Wouldn‘t that indicate that God isn’t perfect? You might want ot re-think that theory.

      Report Post » Lux  
    • SovereignSoul
      Posted on July 31, 2011 at 1:21am

      You can not be implying that god made a mistake!!!

      Report Post » SovereignSoul  
  • junior1971
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:24pm

    Today has been a really good day for truth. Global warming debunked, islamic terrorist plot thwarted, Investigation cotinues into fast and furious, polar bears still exist, scientists afmitting the purpoes in their origin, you can bring goats to apple stores, etc,etc. Awesome day!

    Report Post » junior1971  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:34pm

      Lol! Yes it is a good day for truth and goats!

      Report Post »  
    • HankScram
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 10:28pm

      TEA PARTIES don’t believe in evolution or creation . . . because its not in the constitution.

      Report Post »  
  • ying
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:23pm

    Theology is 100% Catholic, and the reason public schools started science to begin with. It’s just that the enemies of Christianity have taken off and enjoy using Christian weapons to hurt them with.

    Report Post » ying  
  • capecodsully
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:18pm

    Are orangutans the explanation for red heads or does God have a wicked sense of humor?

    Report Post »  
  • tankyjo
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:17pm

    Right on fellow “blazers”, there is no middle ground. Father God created mother nature, and scientific inquiry is the art of discovering His fingerprints.

    Report Post » tankyjo  
  • SlantwiseDave
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:16pm

    Obviously this man is headed in the right direction, he has critics on both extremes of the argument denouncing him. He is a man of faith who appreciates the validity of science and research. He is a scientist who is open minded enough to realize that all of creation in too wondrously complex to have been an accident. Atheists will hate him because he’s not smart enough to realize that there is no higher power. Religious freaks will hate him because he dares to use the evils of science to seek a broader understanding of the universe and mans place in it. I applaud Mr. (Dr.?) Collins on his stance, and would encourage people on BOTH SIDES of the debate you stop the name calling, bashing and hate, and use that wonderful organ between our ears that GOD gave us and THINK about what you say before you say it.

    Report Post »  
    • CCS
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 1:07am

      Excellent post. I was thinking the same thing about his getting heat from all sides. “Francis has to be onto something here”. Have you read “The Language of God’? I read it years ago and I take issue with most of the things his critics are claiming in the second video about his words and positions in the book. Too much twisting of Dr. Collins’ words to try to use them against him.

      Report Post »  
  • Mandors
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:15pm

    For some reason once a person gets a graduate degree in one tiny area of science, they feel qualified to speak as a experts on almost all matters, many outside professional experience or intellectual ability. Like most elite schools, Harvard has a divinity school. I don‘t think it’s existence in inconsistent with its mission as an institution of learning. Obviously, neither does the university.

    Report Post » Mandors  
  • Locked
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:15pm

    His views seem to closely reflect mine, but I’m not positive “evangelical” would be quite the correct term for his faith. Still, as a scientist he claims Intelligent Design is bogus, stem cell research is good, and evolution is valid, all while still maintaining he’s a Christian. I agree with all of those points.

    Report Post »  
  • ying
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:12pm

    Sure you can believe in God and evolution at the same time, except that that God is not the Christian God; it’s somebody else. Evolution is still a theory anyway, even though there are people who refuse to believe that; they just cannot see that it is devolution, not evolution, that is happening. Devolution can be proven, yet evolution can not!

    Report Post » ying  
    • VanGrungy
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:17pm

      The Universe is a soccer ball God created.The big bang is God kicking the ball.The ball has curve from spin.Ball goes where it may.God starts again.

      Report Post » VanGrungy  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:33pm

      @Ying
      “Sure you can believe in God and evolution at the same time, except that that God is not the Christian God; it’s somebody else.”
      Sure it is. It’s just not YOUR interpretation of God.

      “Evolution is still a theory anyway”
      And it will remain so, as scientific theory states it has no evidence to disprove it. It’s not a law because they do different things; in VERY rough terms, a law describes what is, and a theory describes why it is. Neither laws nor theories have been disproven, or else they’ve been rejected.

      “they just cannot see that it is devolution, not evolution, that is happening. Devolution can be proven, yet evolution can not!”
      Please show the scientific reasoning behind your theory of devolution. I’m curious not, as I haven’t heard devolution in scientific contexts before.

      Report Post »  
    • HUNITHUNIT
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:41pm

      It doesn’t exist, mutations are mutations, they do not have to be positive.

      Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:10pm

      ying
      There is difference between macro evolution and micro evolution. Man has micro evoloved from primitive man to modern man. Macro evolutionist think everything evolved from a single living cell, which is nonsense. So is the idea we macro evolved from ape to man.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
  • TRONINTHEMORNING
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:05pm

    Man is fallen and needs salvation; there will always be agents of evil attempting to uproot belief in the God of the Old and New Testaments.

    Report Post »  
    • HUNITHUNIT
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:44pm

      Modern biology depends on the Theory of Evolution.

      Report Post »  
    • affinnity
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:45pm

      HUNITHUNIT. Please prove that modern biology depends on evolution. Show me some facts – give me some links – prove it.

      Report Post » affinnity  
    • HUNITHUNIT
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 6:11pm

      I enjoy reading these asinine comments too much to explain.

      Report Post »  
    • foobear
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 5:12am

      @Affinity, Given what we know about generational mutation rates, you can measure the “distance” between two species and see roughly how far back they diverged. Humans vs. Bonobos, for example, or humans vs. dogs. The tree created by these calculations very closely matched the predictions made by evolution as well as the scientific taxonomy of species built up over the years.

      It does not match a model of God creating every species independently.

      This does not rule out God guiding evolution, but it does make Creationism an impossible belief to adhere to.

      Report Post » foobear  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on July 28, 2011 at 3:57pm

    Man has evolved but, not from apes.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • encinom
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:10pm

      Reading the comments from tbaggers and Beckerhead, I am no longer certain all of mankind has evolved.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:11pm

      Indeed. We evolved rather from a common ancestor.

      Report Post »  
    • Mandors
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 4:17pm

      It seems that scientists are going backward.

      Report Post » Mandors  
    • Livin_in_Cin
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:10pm

      hey Gonzo…
      better to be a T-bag than a D-bag like you, buddy…

      Funny though – I was thinking the same thing, just along the lines of Humans haven’t evolved enough – why do men still have nipples? why do we have an Appendix if we can live without it? Tonsils? Democrats? all worthless, yet all still here…

      Report Post » Livin_in_Cin  
    • beckwasfox
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 6:30pm

      Reading the comments of encinom, I am certain that trolls are de-evolving.

      Report Post » beckwasfox  
    • encinom
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 7:57pm

      Livin_in_Cin
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 5:10pm
      hey Gonzo…
      better to be a T-bag than a D-bag like you, buddy…

      Funny though – I was thinking the same thing, just along the lines of Humans haven’t evolved enough – why do men still have nipples? why do we have an Appendix if we can live without it? Tonsils? Democrats? all worthless, yet all still here…
      ________________________
      Mistake in your logic, tbaggers and other reactionary groups are holdbackfrom a a bygone era. The progessives have and continue to evolve, while the conservatives still scrape their knuckles as they walk.

      Report Post »  
    • Greenwood
      Posted on July 29, 2011 at 12:00am

      @ENCINOM……………Mistake in your logic, tbaggers and other reactionary groups are holdbackfrom a a bygone era. The progessives have and continue to evolve, while the conservatives still scrape their knuckles as they walk.

      If the conservatives are scraping their knuckles it‘s because the socialist progressives are bringing this country to it’s knees by way of an economic collapse.

      Report Post » Greenwood  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love