Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[renniks]

All I see in that image is a bunch of apes. With slight variations, longer legs, straighter legs, bigger head. Just slight differences, but all very much apes. No birds, no plants, no reptiles, no insects, just apes.

That picture doesn't reflect what actually exists in the fossil record. Not even close. It's pure fiction.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What is the soul? According to biblical truth it's the part of us that is immortal.
In the evolution story when does a smart ape suddenly get an immortal soul?

Souls are religious doctrine and not part of science, so evolution has nothing to say about them. Believe in them if you will.

 

[stevil]

Not biblical. God created animals and put us in charge over them. And he created them separately from men.

Were Adam and Eve like the animals before they ate the fruit of knowledge?
Did eating the fruit make Adam and Eve like the gods? With the ability to now know right form wrong?
Before - they were not moral agents, incapable of making moral decisions.
After - they had moral agency, they understood right from wrong and now this became part of their decision making. So only after eating the fruit did they truly become human????

 

[stevil]

What is the soul? According to biblical truth it's the part of us that is immortal.
In the evolution story when does a smart ape suddenly get an immortal soul?

It's not part of the Theory of Evolution.
If you want "knowledge" of the soul you will need to seek that in theology, not science.
ToE neither agrees with, nor contradicts the concept of a soul.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

So you rule out any non human animal reasoning?

This is the very definition of instinct.

 

[stevil]

God in Genesis 1 said how He did it... and ToE says God lies...
Titus 1:2 (KJV)
[2] In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

ToE doesn't talk about god at all, certainly doesn't call god a liar.

 

[Astrid]

No. Everything but the spelling is wrong

Its not intended as humour.

 

[enoob57]

ToE doesn't talk about god at all, certainly doesn't call god a liar.

When God said He did it one way and the ToE say it happened another way what do you call that?

 

[renniks]

Were Adam and Eve like the animals before they ate the fruit of knowledge?
Did eating the fruit make Adam and Eve like the gods? With the ability to now know right form wrong?
Before - they were not moral agents, incapable of making moral decisions.
After - they had moral agency, they understood right from wrong and now this became part of their decision making. So only after eating the fruit did they truly become human????

Lol, where do you get that from scripture?

 

[hedrick]

When God said He did it one way and the ToE say it happened another way what do you call that?

I think you're confusing God with the Bible.

 

[stevil]

When God said He did it one way and the ToE say it happened another way what do you call that?

A contradiction.

 

[stevil]

Lol, where do you get that from scripture?

I don't read scripture.

Am I wrong? Did Adam and Eve already have knowledge of wrong and right before they ate from the tree?

 

[enoob57]

I think you're confusing God with the Bible.

I'm sorry but you cannot separate God from His Word.... John 1

 

[enoob57]

I don't read scripture.

Am I wrong? Did Adam and Eve already have knowledge of wrong and right before they ate from the tree?

No when they were created there was no sin or evil...

 

[hedrick]

I don't read scripture.

Am I wrong? Did Adam and Eve already have knowledge of wrong and right before they ate from the tree?

There's a certain amount of guesswork as to what the author had in mind. But I would agree that there was an implication that in some sense they didn't know right and wrong.

One obvious possibility is that they were intended to obey God, but without any knowledge that there was any alternative or what the implications are. I agree with your previous statement that they don't seem to be moral agents as we would think of that.

 

[renniks]

I don't read scripture.

Am I wrong? Did Adam and Eve already have knowledge of wrong and right before they ate from the tree?

They had knowledge of right. And if you don't know the story of Adam and Eve why are you trying to explain it in light of the TOE?

 

[stevil]

They had knowledge of right. And if you don't know the story of Adam and Eve why are you trying to explain it in light of the TOE?

Because people are seeing this as a barrier to even considering ToE.

 

[stevil]

One obvious possibility is that they were intended to obey God, but without any knowledge that there was any alternative or what the implications are. I agree with your previous statement that they don't seem to be moral agents as we would think of that.

Wasn't there a bit where they were happily wondering around naked, (just like all the other animals). and then after they ate the fruit of knowledge, all of a sudden they tried to hide their bodies as if they felt shame, as if they thought all of a sudden that there was something wrong with being naked???

 

[ottawak]

This has been hinted at by several postings, but there are a couple of serious consequences.

1) If evolution is true, most likely Genesis 1 - 3 are not historical. There are various arguments about how a day may be an age, but in fact most people who accept evolution take Gen 1 - 3 at face value, and think they’re wrong, at least as history. But the moment you accept that the Bible may be wrong, there are other questions: Modern archaeologists generally don’t think anything before maybe the time of the kings is accurate. In specific, the Exodus as described didn’t happen. In fact the current understanding is that the people who became Israel largely originated in the hill country in Palestine, and moved into the cities slowly and mostly without major conflict. Once you start thinking that the Bible might be a human book describing God’s interactions with us from our perspective, anything in it might be wrong.

That is very troubling to many people. It seems safer to hold the line, and claim that the whole Bible is accurate in everything it says.

2) In a lot of theology, particularly popular Protestant theology, Jesus is the answer to a specific problem: We are fallen people, due to Adam’s sin. We inherit at least a fallen nature, if not actual guilt from Adam’s sin, and are thus unacceptable to God. We need salvation if we are to avoid hell. That’s what Christ is for. Without the Fall, Christ’s death seems pointless, since the problem it is designed to fix isn’t there.

Evolution probably destroys the Fall. Catholics have at times tried to say that even though we evolved, at some point a specific pair sinned, and all modern people are descendants of them. But this seems unlikely. There’s also the problem that it’s unlikely that our pre-human ancestors were sinless, which makes the whole Gen 3 narrative fall apart.

———————

I think once we accept scientific and historical evidence, there are serious challenges to a lot of Christian theology. I don’t think it challenges what Jesus was actually trying to do, but it certainly makes a lot of traditional theology hard.

I don’t see Jesus saying that everyone starts out as unacceptable to God. He saw lost sheep, who have to repent. But OT theology in general saw Jews as part of the covenant. When they sinned they needed to repent, but they didn’t start out damned. Later Jewish thought became more inclusive of non-Jews, and I think Jesus followed that approach.

The problem with this is once you don’t think people start out damned you have to ask what Jesus’ death was about. At that point you have to look at the atonement. Traditional Protestant theology takes one view of Jesus’ death, that he took the punishment that was due to us, and without it we would have to be punished ourselves with hell. But historically this wasn’t the only or even the earliest idea. Before Augustine’s time, Christians didn’t necessarily think everyone started off damned. Other ideas of Christ’s death ranged from it being an inspiration to it being a trick that caused Satan to overstep his bounds (by taking an innocent life) and lose his rights.

If you take seriously the idea that Christ was God made flesh, we might consider the idea that his death for us makes visible the character that God always had. He always loved us, and was always willing to go to extremes to help us, even if in loving us he suffered with us and on our behalf.

A very thoughtful and perceptive analysis, thank you.

There is another issue realeted to it, I think. I have the impression from some of our creationists that their faith in Christ itself depends on the historical accuracy of the Bible--that they have no other way of knowing Christ. I am not sure about this, as it seems a strange idea to me. As a Traditional Christian my faith depends on tradition, on continuous Christian witness as mediated by the Holy Spirit. The Bible may be what we believe, but it is not why we believe it. So if we have to rethink our theology a little in the light of discoveries about the physical world, we will do so without injury to our faith.

 

[Astrid]

The biggest reason to be "anti" is
strange totally mistaken ideas.

Only a foolish person would "believe in" them.

Good for them, not believing!

Not so good, though, to make no effort
to know better.