Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[TLK Valentine]

There’s only one truth. We can’t choose what we want to believe or what we don’t want to believe and still call it truth.

And yet how many ways are there to skin a cat?

If what we believe directly contradicts what is specifically stated in the scriptures then it is not sound doctrine.

“Doctrine is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” -- Gen. James Mattis.

 

[ottawak]

I don’t understand what you mean by this. It’s God Himself telling us how long it took to create the world, the heavens, and everything in them. How is it not proof?

How do you know it's God, Himself being quoted? I would like to hear your explanation for the change of voicing in Ex 20:11 which, in a language like Hebrew which is without quotation marks, generally indicates a commentary on quoted speech.

 

[Astrid]

How do you know it's God, Himself being quoted? I would like to hear your explanation for the change of voicing in Ex 20:11 which, in a language like Hebrew which is without quotation marks, generally indicates a commentary on quoted speech.

Coz the book says it is?

 

[ottawak]

There’s only one truth. We can’t choose what we want to believe or what we don’t want to believe and still call it truth. If what we believe directly contradicts what is specifically stated in the scriptures then it is not sound doctrine.

And naturally we must all look to you to find out what is specifically stated in scripture (and what might be stated in some other way.)

 

[ottawak]

Coz the book says it is?

Actually, if you look at the book carefully, it says the opposite.

 

[Astrid]

Actually, if you look at the book carefully, it says the opposite.

It seems to say whatever one looks for

 

[AV1611VET]

“Doctrine is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” -- Gen. James Mattis.

Tell me, professor:

Should we think inside, or outside, of the Box?

 

[sjastro]

No rule says anyone has to be allowed to hijack
every thread

The issue is the motivation behind hijacking a thread.
If a thread is hijacked to promote sexism, racism etc. then it should be rightly condemned; unfortunately anti-intellectualism is one of those "isms" that seems to be acceptable, there are a few individuals on this site that appear to condone anti-intellectualism.
Anti intellectualism directed against science.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How do you know it's God, Himself being quoted? I would like to hear your explanation for the change of voicing in Ex 20:11 which, in a language like Hebrew which is without quotation marks, generally indicates a commentary on quoted speech.

Because it says so in verse 1

“Then God spoke all these words, saying,”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20:1‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

And naturally we must all look to you to find out what is specifically stated in scripture (and what might be stated in some other way.)

No ya just need to know how to read. My 8 year old can read that passage and tell you how long it took God to create the universe without my help.

 

[Astrid]

The issue is the motivation behind hijacking a thread.
If a thread is hijacked to promote sexism, racism etc. then it should be rightly condemned; unfortunately anti-intellectualism is one of those "isms" that seems to be acceptable, there are a few individuals on this site that appear to condone anti-intellectualism.
Anti intellectualism directed against science.

Guess i dont get why anyone wants to enable it

 

[AV1611VET]

Guess I don't get why anyone wants to enable it.

Welcome to Planet Earth.

 

[Bradskii]

If scientists studied Adam the day he was created do you think they would conclude that he was 1 day old? Probably not because fully grown men do come into existence in one day. The same situation occurs with the rocks they don’t form in one day so seeing rocks that are fully developed would lead them to believe that they were formed millions of years ago. It’s not that God made them appear to be old it’s that God fully developed them that’s why they appear to be old.

So He made the rocks and included in the manufacture of the rocks elements that He knows we use to determine age. He included in the rocks an internal clock. If they show that the rock is incredibly old then the rock actually is incredibly old. You can't speed up radioactive decay. Oh, except God is omnipotent. So He could set the clock at any time He wants. So instead of starting the clock from the moment the rocks were formed (which is what happens anway), He intentionally reset it to make the rocks appear to be millions of years old.

And then we check that age against thousands of other facts that umpteen different areas of science have collected and run them through theories that have been developed over decades by thousands of scientists and it correlates. So literally everything that God made, He made intentionally to appear a lot older than it actually is. He made it all exactly as it would appear if the universe was billions of years old.

Or how about this? Let me run this up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it. He made everything over a time period which we would consider to be billions of years and compressed it into what we'd consider to be 6 days. So on good ol' earth, the planet went around the sun a few million times as the mountains rose. Another few million years as the continents drifted. Another few million as life evolved. And then ran tbe film fast forward so it all happened in an apparent 6 days.

So either all these countless oieces of evidence from countless people over hundreds of years are all wrong. Or you are mistakingly reading a metaphorical account of creation as being literally true.

I asked earlier what you might think a reasonably intelligent disinterested person who had some biblical and scientific knowledge would think of those two options. Please let me know.

 

[sjastro]

Guess i dont get why anyone wants to enable it

From psychology-wiki it's remarkable the description given of religion's role in anti-intellectualism could have been drawn on this thread!!

Although a variety of religions promote intellectualism, there has also been a religious tendency in modern and classical times to harbor anti-intellectual sentiments. This occurs primarily in fundamentalist groups within religions who perceive one or more contradictions in specific religious tenets. As stated before, this rejection is not necessarily the case with all religious groups, as many religious groups pride themselves on their scholarly, as well as religious, traditions. In fact, many early and contemporary philosophers consider/considered themselves religious including Thomas Aquinas, René Descartes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and others.

When religious doctrines include statements about natural or human history, the provenance of sacred texts (and other matters), such claims may be investigated by external scholarship. For example a claim about the age of a religious artifact may be scientifically tested, or a theodicy may be logically examined. If such an investigation is instigated, the outcome may therefore create conflict in relation to how an adherent to the doctrine perceives it as confirming or denying their belief.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So He made the rocks and included in the manufacture of the rocks elements that He knows we use to determine age. He included in the rocks an internal clock. If they show that the rock is incredibly old then the rock actually is incredibly old. You can't speed up radioactive decay. Oh, except God is omnipotent. So He could set the clock at any time He wants. So instead of starting the clock from the moment the rocks were formed (which is what happens anway), He intentionally reset it to make the rocks appear to be millions of years old.

Ok let me just stop you right here where you created the straw man before you proceeded to knock it down. If God sped up the process of the rocks being formed so that they would be able to form then naturally the rate of radioactive decay would also be affected.

 

[Bradskii]

I heartily agree that some creationists go overboard when saying that disagreeing with them equates to "calling God a liar." But, I think the rabbit-hole goes deeper than all of this on both sides, and in this recognition, the only way to deal with someone like @AV1611VET is to cull out the deeper, more personal biographical and developmental formations he's had in his thinking over the years of his life.

The catch here is that if we can't do this--and usually we can't very easily since people don't just want to be open books--then we might as well just be arguing with a wall. We have to be able to do more than simply insist to some person that he (or she) is inconsistent in believing what he believes or in interpreting the biblical texts that he reads, and we have to be able to do more than just demonstrate some cursory level of inconsistency. And if these interlocutors don't 'allow' us to go deeper into their reasoning and psychology, then we're stuck arguing with them on the cursory level.

And we make no progress.

This is why threads like this perpetuate themselves ad naseam.

This is a good point. Just upstream I asked what a reasonable disinterested person might think being told of all the countless ways we determine how the universe was formed (or even how God actually created it if you like) versus a literal reading of a chapter in scripture. The answer is obvious. But even though we appear to be conversing with what I'd suggest are reasonable people in the normal scheme of things,we are definitely not dealing with disinterested people.

These discussions turn into a game whereby most of us are working out ways to find out what sort of arguments can be made against catastrophically overwhelming evidence.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I asked earlier what you might think a reasonably intelligent disinterested person who had some biblical and scientific knowledge would think of those two options. Please let me know.

I didn’t see you ask this before, but who cares what they might think? Why would that have any relevance at all to the truth? Try to keep in mind your asking me what I believe the Bible teaches, I’m not trying to make you believe anything. So if you don’t want to believe it then don’t and if you don’t want to hear about it then don’t ask.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Tell me, professor:

Should we think inside, or outside, of the Box?

Both, as necessary.

Does your doctrine allow itself to be discarded?

 

[Bradskii]

Ok let me just stop you right here where you created the straw man before you proceeded to knock it down. If God sped up the process of the rocks being formed so that they would be able to form then naturally the rate of radioactive decay would also be affected.

There you have it in a nutshell. He sped up creation that took millions of years into what appeared to us to be 6 days. That was one of the options.

And again, I have to ask...why? A billion years is no different to God than a second. It wasn't as if He had to wait patiently for things to happen. Why would he need to speed it up? It wasn't for our benefit. We weren't in existence until after everything else was in place? And it can't have been for His.

So why?

 

[Astrid]

There you have it in a nutshell. He sped up creation that took millions of years into what appeared to us to be 6 days. That was one of the options.

And again, I have to ask...why? A billion years is no different to God than a second. It wasn't as if He had to wait patiently for things to happen. Why would he need to speed it up? It wasn't for our benefit. We weren't in existence until after everything else was in place? And it can't have been for His.

So why?

To fit infallible book - readin'?