Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[eleos1954]

Do humans have things in common with mammals (a taxonomic "class") and are humans more like mammals or other classes of animals? Equally different from all classes of animals? Of vertebrates?

(I just went to look for which taxonomic level was mammals, and the array of mammal pictures on the Wikipedia page included a meeting between Nixon and Brezhnev. LOL.)

There are commonalities .... sure .... life itself have similar "building blocks" but that does not prove humans evolved from animals .... I mean really .... blind "particles" coming together over millions .... billions of years resulting in the diverse and complex life forms? Pretty far fetched.

 

[Astrid]

You have twisted my words out of all recognition. I'm sorry, there is just no nicer way to put it. Here is the passage you quoted:

"But my point is, that what you offer as "proof" is really only conjecture and at that is built upon a theory of divine inspiration that not all Christians subscribe to. So, the verdict is, not proved." (emphasis added)

"A theory of divine inspiration," (one of many) not divine inspiration itself.

Notice that I clearly did not say that not all Christians believe in the divine inspiration of scripture. Perhaps there are a few who do not, somewhere, but as far as I am aware all Christians believe in the divine inspiration of scripture.

What I did say was that not all Christians believe in your theory of how that inspiration was effected.

Sometines there may be a reading disability
involved when words come back so scrambled.
My simple question about what it says about someone
If they cannot accept it when they are shown to
be wrong churned into something kind of
disturbingly different

 

[eleos1954]

The taxonomic system doesn't really say anything about evolution. It merely classifies creatures by their physical characteristics. What physical characteristics do you have in mind when you assert that humans are "much different?"

With about 1.5 million or so named and categorized living species (and possibly several times more species unnamed or categorized), we might reasonably expect to see at least some evidence of a series of transitional stages among living organisms, but such is not the case .... not found.

I don't believe we evolved from animals, and see humans as being remarkably different ....

The human brain possesses qualities that have no parallel in the animal world. One is man’s explicit mental capabilities and creative nature.

Man possesses the faculty of speech , and his creative communication by means of his vocal system is completely different from those of animals . We have the unique ability to pay attention to various matters at will; have an inconceivably wide range of interests and observation, because it is possible to consider spatially and temporally remote objects; able to make abstractions and to use his system of signs for meta-lingual purposes.

We are very creative beings ... why? Sure we create things to solve problems, but also create things for pure enjoyment ... we have a extremely creative nature.

so the question to you is why would, and how could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?

A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not all Christians adhere to the same definition of "inspiration" when applying this term to the Bible.

I’m curious about this can you give some examples or a brief explanation of this because I’m wondering what definition of inspiration these people are using?

 

[Astrid]

There are commonalities .... sure .... life itself have similar "building blocks" but that does not prove humans evolved from animals .... I mean really .... blind "particles" coming together over millions .... billions of years resulting in the diverse and complex life forms? Pretty far fetched.

Science does not do proof.

The way you describe "particles comjng together " sounds
far fetched because you deliberately wrote it that way.
Not very honest, is it?
" Brad Pitts whole face is lopsided. One eye is biggrrvthan the
other, his teeth are crooled, nose is crooked one eye lower than the other"

Thats true. True of BP, of you, of me, of the man behind the tree.

But not a real honest introductory statement.

If you had a good rnderdtandi g of what evolution is really
about, you would be very hard pressed to find any problems
with it.
No scientist on earth has been able to either,
so dont feel bad.

 

[Astrid]

With about 1.5 million or so named and categorized living species (and possibly several times more species unnamed or categorized), we might reasonably expect to see at least some evidence of a series of transitional stages among living organisms, but such is not the case .... not found.

I don't believe we evolved from animals, and see humans as being remarkably different ....

The human brain possesses qualities that have no parallel in the animal world. One is man’s explicit mental capabilities and creative nature.

Man possesses the faculty of speech , and his creative communication by means of his vocal system is completely different from those of animals . We have the unique ability to pay attention to various matters at will; have an inconceivably wide range of interests and observation, because it is possible to consider spatially and temporally remote objects; able to make abstractions and to use his system of signs for meta-lingual purposes.

We are very creative beings ... why? Sure we create things to solve problems, but also create things for pure enjoyment ... we have a extremely creative nature.

so the question to you is why would, and how could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?

A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor.

Give an example of what you think would constitute
transitional stages?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Two things here, brother BNR32FAN:

1) Not all Christians adhere to the same definition of "inspiration" when applying this term to the Bible.

2) God's existence and power, or even His historical movement in history via Jesus of Nazareth, aren't predicated upon the Bible being either inspired or inerrant. The bible doesn't even have to be inspired or inerrant to have purchase upon humanity. All that has to be the case is that God exists and that Jesus did all that He did nearly 2,000 years ago, New Testament writings or no New Testaments writings.

The Bible even says that the scriptures are the inspired word of God. So if that’s a false statement then we have zero basis for truth for anything written in it and the message contained in it wouldn’t be worth the papyrus it was written on. If our belief has to take a backseat to scientific evidence then we can’t believe half of what’s written in the Bible. The Bible is a spiritual supernatural book that is contradictory to science. Trying to play both sides of these two completely opposing views will never lead to sound doctrine. This isn’t just about the creation account in Genesis but every miracle performed by God that is recorded in the scriptures that contradicts science which would include Jesus’ birth and resurrection which are foundational beliefs for a Christian. If a person can’t believe these literally took place then they literally don’t believe the gospel.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You have twisted my words out of all recognition. I'm sorry, there is just no nicer way to put it. Here is the passage you quoted:

"But my point is, that what you offer as "proof" is really only conjecture and at that is built upon a theory of divine inspiration that not all Christians subscribe to. So, the verdict is, not proved." (emphasis added)

"A theory of divine inspiration," (one of many) not divine inspiration itself.

Notice that I clearly did not say that not all Christians believe in the divine inspiration of scripture. Perhaps there are a few who do not, somewhere, but as far as I am aware all Christians believe in the divine inspiration of scripture.

What I did say was that not all Christians believe in your theory of how that inspiration was effected.

I apologize again for misunderstanding you it was not intentional but can you give some sort of example of other “theories of divine inspiration” because I don’t understand what other theories are possible other than knowing that God inspired the writers to write what He told them to write.

 

[ottawak]

I apologize again for misunderstanding you it was not intentional but can you give some sort of example of other “theories of divine inspiration” because I don’t understand what other theories are possible other than knowing that God inspired the writers to write what He told them to write.

Try this:
Inspiration of Scripture - Holman Bible Dictionary -

 

[ottawak]

The Bible even says that the scriptures are the inspired word of God. So if that’s a false statement then we have zero basis for truth for anything written in it and the message contained in it wouldn’t be worth the papyrus it was written on. If our belief has to take a backseat to scientific evidence then we can’t believe half of what’s written in the Bible. The Bible is a spiritual supernatural book that is contradictory to science. Trying to play both sides of these two completely opposing views will never lead to sound doctrine. This isn’t just about the creation account in Genesis but every miracle performed by God that is recorded in the scriptures that contradicts science which would include Jesus’ birth and resurrection which are foundational beliefs for a Christian. If a person can’t believe these literally took place then they literally don’t believe the gospel.

Science can take no position on miracles like the Resurrection which have left us with no empirical evidence. To say that science denies it is incorrect.

 

[Astrid]

What does it mean in ordinary life to create an artistic
or other works, inspired by something?

Love songs inspired by a loved one
Great cathedrals
The communist revolutions
No doubt something inspired the BOM and
all other sacred texts.

 

[Astrid]

Science can take no position on miracles like the Resurrection which have left us with no empirical evidence. To say that science denies it is incorrect.

The gap is big enough without people recklessly making up
things to make it wider, which behaviour is irresponsible
and teprehensible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’m curious about this can you give some examples or a brief explanation of this because I’m wondering what definition of inspiration these people are using?

Sure. I have examples, and those that I'll briefly present in a very summarized (and revisable) way are those listed by Don Thorsen and Keith H. Reeves in their book, What Christians Believe About the Bible (2012):

1) Dictation (or Mechanical) Theory - God dictated exact words for certain people to write.

2) Verbal, Plenary Theory - God inspired the words which each writer chose to use.

3) Dynamic Theory - A dynamic is involved between the Holy Spirit and the writers; the bible is God's Ideas using human abilities.

4) Concursive Theory - Like the Dynamic Theory, but maintains that the dynamic is a mystery which can't be fully explained.

5) Sacramental Theory - Generally, God uses physical things and people to signify His meanings to and through His people.

6) Partial, Limited or Degrees Theory - Some parts of the Bible may be directly influenced by God; other parts are people's attempts to represent what they have experienced or learned about God.

7) Dialectical Theory - The biblical authors write under the influence of God in and through the experience of their lives.

8) Humanized Theory - Just as it sounds: humans write what they think God is and thinks.

And I, myself, would add​

9) Existential, Critical Theory - We find the Bible in this world, such as it is from the past, with its claims of divine influence; and we have to wrestle with these claims as best as we can, now, in THIS current life and time.​

Of course, in looking at these theories of inspiration, we can all ruminate over which ones we think may or may not be compatible with the Theory of Evolution ...

 

[AV1611VET]

It only appears to contain errors if it is read literally.

You mean overliterally?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're defending Original Sin? How odd.

Someone said no essential Christian doctrine depends upon a literal interpretation of Genesis that he is aware of.

I'm making him aware of the essential doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, in looking at all of these, we can all ruminate over which ones we think may or may not be compatible with the Theory of Evolution ...

10) Overliteral: those who think Jesus is a real door.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Science can take no position on miracles like the Resurrection which have left us with no empirical evidence. To say that science denies it is incorrect.

We don’t observe that doctors are completely incapable of bringing a person back to life 3 days later? We don’t observe irreversible brain damage occurring within just a few minutes of being dead? How are these not empirical evidence?

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are commonalities .... sure .... life itself have similar "building blocks" but that does not prove humans evolved from animals .... I mean really .... blind "particles" coming together over millions .... billions of years resulting in the diverse and complex life forms? Pretty far fetched.

That's not what I asked.

You put humans in their own class.

Amphibians are a class.
Sauropsids (reptiles and birds) are a class.
Mammals are a class.

Are humans that different from the three classes given above that they should be separate, or do they fit in one of those classes?

Do you understand my question?

(I'm not interested in you incredulity about the probability or timescale of evolution, only about classification.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Bible even says that the scriptures are the inspired word of God. So if that’s a false statement then we have zero basis for truth for anything written in it and the message contained in it wouldn’t be worth the papyrus it was written on. If our belief has to take a backseat to scientific evidence then we can’t believe half of what’s written in the Bible. The Bible is a spiritual supernatural book that is contradictory to science. Trying to play both sides of these two completely opposing views will never lead to sound doctrine. This isn’t just about the creation account in Genesis but every miracle performed by God that is recorded in the scriptures that contradicts science which would include Jesus’ birth and resurrection which are foundational beliefs for a Christian. If a person can’t believe these literally took place then they literally don’t believe the gospel.

I understand your perspective on this, but we'll just have to agree to disagree since for my part, as a fellow Christian, I could cite a half dozen fallacies sitting within your post.

HOWEVER, it's ok by me if you hold to your own position on the nature of biblical inspiration. I have no big dog in this fight, just a little Chihuahua who gets rather feisty if you tell him he doesn't actually qualify as a "real dog."

 

[ottawak]

Someone said no essential Christian doctrine depends upon a literal interpretation of Genesis that he is aware of.

I'm making him aware of the essential doctrine of Original Sin.

And you were going to explain why the doctrine of Original Sin depends on a literal reading of Genesis but never got around to it.