Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[Bradskii]

Then why do the Mormons believe the universe was created in six days?

Whether they do or not has nothing to do with the facts of the matter. But from one of their websites:

'What seems clear is that the accounts of the Creation were given to us for reasons other than determining the “how” and the “how long” of creation. A more fruitful approach is to read them with a view to what they tell us concerning God’s work and glory.' Was the Creation confined to six 24-hour days as we know them?

But then they also believe in Kolob...

 

[Astrid]

But Smith wrote the BoM. And he knew he wasn't writing down what actually happened. But Genesis, as we keep being told, is God's word. That is, it wasn't written by people who didn't know any better. It was written by God to people who didn't know any better. But He also knew that we'd eventually discover that the universe is billions of years old. No big deal - we'll treat Genesis as a story for the time in which it was written.

I recognize this as a possibility but file it under "facts not in evidence".


It is withal much like a lot of other creation accounts in folk
religions around the world, where God in any Abrahamic sort of way,
never made an appearance.

 

[ottawak]

Indeed. And I can still quote it from the hundreds of times I said it as a young lad. It's the affirmation of one's faith. Nothing else is required.

Is God the creator of everything? Yes.
Was Jesus born the only Son of God? Yes.
Did He die for our sins and was resurrected? Yes.

Tick all the boxes and you're a Christian. Nothing else is required.

Of course to be a good Christian you have to have the right attitude as well (the part I often fail at, and I have met any number of people who do the good part without being Christian at all.)

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'm not up on Christian beliefs, I understand that Christian is a vast umbrella term and so there are many people within this vast group and these people have differing beliefs.
But, for those Christians that are hell bent on fighting against evolution, what is the root of this resistance?

It really seems that with their arguments they are just reaching for excuses to shoot down evolution.

My thoughts, which could be wrong because of my poor understanding of Christian beliefs. But here they are:
1. Humans are special (god's children, made in god's image) therefore we can't possibly be animals, or apes. Perhaps these people feel uncomfortable about being part of the animal kingdom.
2. All of existence was made as a playground for humans. If humans evolved randomly then it was just chance that we came to be, and then what would be the purpose for the universe existing if humans weren't destined to be? Perhaps these people feel uncomfortable that a universe wasn't destined to have humans, and without humans at the centre of it would be purposeless and therefore goes against the core belief that god created everything for us.

Am I on track here? Or are there other reasons?
The ones above seem incredibly self centred.

John Lennon

 

[Bradskii]

I recognize this as a possibility but file it under "facts not in evidence".


It is withal much like a lot of other creation accounts in folk
religions around the world, where God in any Abrahamic sort of way,
never made an appearance.

Indeed. I'm just going on the belief of some that Genesis is God's word. OK, fair enough. But as I said earlier, if He'd written it yesterday He wouldn't have said 'I did all this in six days'. Nobody would have believed Him - 'It can't be God because that's obviously nonsense'. So he would have told us that the universe is indeed billions of years old but he created it that way.

But...as Genesis was written at a time when people were scientifically illiterate, explaining modern cosmology and geology and biology to them would have been meaningless to them.

 

[Bradskii]

Of course to be a good Christian you have to have the right attitude as well (the part I often fail at, and I have met any number of people who do the good part without being Christian at all.)

Well, yeah. I always remember if my old mum thought someone did something wrong, she'd say 'Well, that wasn't a very Christian thing to do'. I can't remember hold old I was when I started thinking that - hang on, you don't actually need to be a Christian to do something good. But up until I was around 15 or 16 I didn't know anyone who wasn't a Christian.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tick all the boxes and you're a Christian. Nothing else is required.

Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

 

[ottawak]

Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Repenting belongs in the "good" part.

 

[Bradskii]

Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Now find one that says you have to specifically believe in a six day creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now find one that says you have to specifically believe in a six day creation.

No can do.

So I guess you're SOL* with that one.

* Short On Luck

 

[Bradskii]

No can do.

Of course not. Because it isn't a requirement. Which was the point of the posts to which you were replying.

Edit: So we have now determined that you have no idea why God would design something that shows itself to be billions of years old but is only 6,000. And you have nothing to say as to why one would need to believe in a young earth to be a Christian.

There have been quite a few posts in this thread but those are the two main points. Is there another aspect of this topic you'd like to raise? Apart from old dresses and bread.

 

[Astrid]

Indeed. I'm just going on the belief of some that Genesis is God's word. OK, fair enough. But as I said earlier, if He'd written it yesterday He wouldn't have said 'I did all this in six days'. Nobody would have believed Him - 'It can't be God because that's obviously nonsense'. So he would have told us that the universe is indeed billions of years old but he created it that way.

But...as Genesis was written at a time when people were scientifically illiterate, explaining modern cosmology and geology and biology to them would have been meaningless to them.

Theres another way around to see it but
no point in any argument.

 

[Astrid]

Well, yeah. I always remember if my old mum thought someone did something wrong, she'd say 'Well, that wasn't a very Christian thing to do'. I can't remember hold old I was when I started thinking that - hang on, you don't actually need to be a Christian to do something good. But up until I was around 15 or 16 I didn't know anyone who wasn't a Christian.

Ha.
I had to go to Uni in USA before knowing any Christians!
Kind of opposite experience.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Reading Genesis as metaphor doesn't preclude that. Do you have something else?

Edit: Not that I will be supporting the concept. But it's obvious to all that Catholicism for example has no problem with original sin and the evolutionary process, so accepting original sin does not require a rejection of an old earth and evolution.

You're right that the concept of original sin doesn't require a rejection of an old earth and evolution, but it does require some nifty mental gymnastics (a.k.a. revised definitions).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The BoM was written as fact and was intended to be accepted as fact. Genesis was a metaphor and wasn't intended to be taken literally.

Just an additional thought here, fellow Bradskii. Although it's always possible that the authors of Genesis thought in metaphorical terms when it was composed, it doesn't have to be assumed to be a metaphor in order to "make it" compatible with evolution.

It can still be assumed that it was more or less a literal, literary construct of thought and theology, fit for its own time and culture.

Of course, assuming this other scholarly angle I'm suggesting will require an application of a bit of Ancient Historiography and other ANE studies to recontexualize it for our consumption, whether that consumption is for spiritual reasons, like those of @AV1611VET or of myself, ..... or for that which is held within the purview of other, more secular interests.

[edit: I reviewed a number of posts above and previous and saw you said some things which have overlap with what I've said in this post. My apologies if it sounds like I'm regurgitating some of what you've already said. ]

 

[BNR32FAN]

Did He feed 5,000 from a few loaves and fishes? Whatever. It's not important. Did He walk on water? Who knows. Maybe it was shallow water. Maybe someone made it up. It's not important. Did He turn water into wine? Probably not. But who cares? It's not important.

The only miracle that you need to believe as a Christian is that He was born as the son of God and that He died for our sins and was resurrected.

That's it. Burning bushes, parting seas, talking snakes and a six day creation aren't anything you need to believe to be a Christian. Whether you want to believe them or not is entirely up to you. So please, we don't need any arguments that one must take literally every single word written in the bible.

You have chosen the six day of creation as being somehow important for you being a Christian. And you say that because you imply that it casts doubt on other passages? But you don't believe everything is meant literally. And you can take them as parable or as metaphor because they don't have to be acceoted as being literally true for your salvation. And it's the same with six day creation. It has no bearing whatsoever on the miracle of Jesus' birth or his resurrection. Period.

So you believe bits and pieces of the Bible, is that what your saying? Honestly you sound like your agnostic at best. You can’t believe in the miracles that Jesus Himself said He performed but the only miracles you can believe in are the two that are required for salvation even tho they defy what science teaches us as being possible just as much as every other miracle God performed. Sounds convenient. So when all the other miracles are mentioned you say that these are impossible so they couldn’t have really happened but when it comes to Christ’s incarnation and resurrection you believe these are possible even tho science tells us they are just as impossible as all the rest of God’s miracles? That’s holding to a double standard my friend, your being inconsistent in your logic and beliefs. Your willing to dismiss logic on the two miracles that can save you but you can’t accept all the rest because you don’t believe they could possibly happen. To me that sounds like agnosticism because your inconsistent in your logic and beliefs. An atheist clings to the side of logic and reason, a believer clings to the side of faith and trust, and your somewhere in between.

 

[BNR32FAN]

One is what Genesis says and the other is the galactic amount of evidence He has left in making everything.

No, not just Genesis but also twice in Exodus 20 and again in Exodus 31.

 

[Astrid]

Just an additional thought here, fellow Bradskii. Although it's always possible that the authors of Genesis thought in metaphorical terms when it was composed, it doesn't have to be assumed to be a metaphor in order to "make it" compatible with evolution.

It can still be assumed that it was more or less a literal, literary construct of thought and theology, fit for its own time and culture.

Of course, assuming this other scholarly angle I'm suggesting will require an application of a bit of Ancient Historiography and other ANE studies to recontexualize it for our consumption, whether that consumption is for spiritual reasons, like those of @AV1611VET or of myself, ..... or for that which is held within the purview of other, more secular interests.

Does anyone actually know the origin of the genesis
accounts?
Should one assume that the source and purpose
is in some profound way different from other
traditions of the sort, found in every culture?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does anyone actually know the origin of the genesis accounts?

God.

Should one assume that the source and purpose is in some profound way different from other traditions of the sort, found in every culture?

Yes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does anyone actually know the origin of the genesis
accounts?
Should one assume that the source and purpose
is in some profound way different from other
traditions of the sort, found in every culture?

Like many things we may glean from various ANE sources, we know less of anything with any firm assurance than we'd all like to, and there are competing theories as to the origination(S) of the Genesis accounts.

So, the answer to your question is a qualified "Yes and No."

And just like our private discussion we had about Paul's supposed snake-bite survival, I have some scholarly sources to put into the academic stew. That is, if you want to be bothered by any of that. Or not. I get it that some people don't.