How many Christians accept evolution, and how many reject it?

Wowser! May I quote you, too, Chickenman?
Annabel Lee: Thanks for the great summary of Roman Catholic Belief on this subject.
Frankly, I'm inclined to think that this disagreement between Christians is a tempest in a teapot, but I can see from this thread that many consider it important. I'm still not sure why we can't agree to disgree; it isn't causing Roman Catholics to lose sleep at night.

The bible is not a scientific work. It is about a supernatural God. IMHO, when we decide that what is currently viewed not scientifically accurate must be metaphor, we in fact attempt to make the remaining portions a natural work, discounting the supernatural. God is not natural. We cannot turn the bible into a scientific work by discounting the verses that lose the test of current scientific knowledge, language or cultural views. So, I do not believe we were given the bible so we could add our senses and with the combination, have the truth. This would make everyone's truth a personal thing, mine different than yours.

God is not a natural being. The bible is not a science book.

I enjoy science. I read, I study and what little time I spend with the one eyed monster is watching history or scientific type programs. I am a design engineer, I spend much of my time in a lab. However, I do not mix natural and supernatural. God can do whatever God does.

You can say that the bible says that a round world, with corners is fixed in place while the universe revolves around it. But it doesn't say that. You can't read the bible as if it were a science book any more than you can read a science book as if it were a bible. One is about supernatural the other natural. This to me does not create conflicts, deciding what is metaphor and what is real.

I believe that for the most part science is a search for the truth. That causes me no discomfort, because I have the truth, the bible. The bible says God created man in His image. If God is germ, then I am ready to accept evolution. The bible says His presences fills the temple with glory, so I can't accept He's germ.

I do not think we have arrived at anything at this point. I enjoy watching the search. I have faith that the search will lead us to God. I am not ready to rewrite the bible. I am not condemning science but am not quick to call it science either.


Blessings

I think the key is that, not being a scientific work, the Bible will often say things in terms consistent with the scientific understanding of the people who first read it, not in terms of the underlying reality. It's not *ABOUT* the science, so it's not a problem. Referring to the corners of the earth, or the circle of the earth, is not talking about the physical properties of the earth... and likewise, in my mind, when it talks about us being in created in God's image, I don't see that as having anything to do with our *physical* qualities. God is not a biped.

Originally posted by James D.
Hey, just wondering. Could anyone lead me to some kind of survey figures or something else to verify these proportions?

Click to expand...

Hi James-

I don't know of any stats, but if you want opinions, here is mine.

Since I know that God created the Universe and everything in it, I do not see evolution in conflict with Christianity at all.

I think there are some big problems with it in general, but I don't focus on it one way or another.

Originally posted by Raging Atheist


Nobody likes compromiser, it would seem...

Click to expand...

Where is the compromise?

BTW, the question and topic of this thread is addressed to Christians. I will move this to the Christians only forums.

What's to reject - evolution happens!?!

Tho' I guess you're meaning an absolute belief in the evolution of all species from a single amoeba as a result of the 'Big Bang' and a random fusion of chemicals etc.. Which is slightly different - and somewhat at odds with orthdos Biblical belief! However, that God can create the world as we know it using evolutionary processes is fairly widely accepted by many Christians (Catholic and Protestant) to some degree or another.

Anthony

I think the issue is that, in the U.S., somewhere around 30-40% of people polled think that God created us from scratch fairly recently, no evolution involved... so a lot of people in the U.S. assume this is a widespread belief in the rest of the world.

By some strange coincidence, the U.S. has some of the worst scores on standardized science tests in the developed world.

Seebs,

I beleive there are other factors at work in the area of general education, factors such as how we measure results in general education. I beleive and have seen this be true in ever case in which i was involved; you get what you measure. We measure attenndance, it pays the bills.

I was taught evolution in general science in the 9'th grade (from memory it was about 1965). I was taught that I came out of the sea, climbed up a tree for safety and food. Then I came down from the tree and got caught by the tail, so that had to go. but, it took forever to lose it.
I didn't beleive it, not a word of it but I did make A's. That was a problem in my house, if I didn't make A's I was in trouble. That is the main factor troubling education today, it's not a rejection of science it's a rejection of responsibility from parents.

Now there is a subject that could seperate the Christian values from values in general.

Blessings

I reject it totally. I call it false science:

1Ti 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Originally posted by seebs
I haven't seen anything concrete recently, but I do know that rejection of evolution is almost entirely exclusive to the U.S.

Click to expand...

That's your ignorance, because it's actually the other way around.

Evolution is REJECTED in most countries, except amongst secularists in North America, Europe and the former Soviet Republics.

The Philippines REJECTS evolution. Malaysia and Indonesia REJECT evolution, and most other Asian countries treat it with extreme skepticism. Africa REJECTS evolution. You won't find the majority in any Asian country or African nation believing such hogwash.

You won't find any strong support for evolution in Hispanic countries either, except Communist Cuba.

As in basketball; evolution is Rejected!

Originally posted by seebs
It's worth noticing that, in a dozen or more attempts to get "evidence for creation", no one has provided any; all anyone ever does is try to show "problems" with evolution, which are inevitably a result of misquotes, misunderstanding, or just plain falsehoods like the Chinese etymology thing. [/B]

Click to expand...

You're level of ignorance is astounding.

There's plenty of evidence for creation. Moreover, evidence against macro-evolution is evidence for creation. You just ignore it, though it's been published in books by creationists and non-creationists alike.

And the Chinese etymology thing is irrefutable. The first Chinese knew the stories of Genesis before the book of Genesis was even written. Of course, they knew Genesis. Genesis is our planet's history and it was passed to the first Chinese by Noah.

The Chinese character for BOAT translates as eight-person-vessel.

What boat in history was a vessel carrying eight persons?

The Chinese character for CREATE translates as dust-mouth-movement of life-walking.

What creation story involves dust, mouth, movement of life and walking?

And there's much, much more...

The atheists minions can deny history all they want, but they're just wasting their time and have nothing to gain, while having plenty to lose, even in this life judging by how they spend their time. One thing's for sure, there's going to be a lot of poverty-stricken atheists in the future leeching off mom and dad -- if they aren't already.

Originally posted by A Sheep
As in basketball; evolution is Rejected!

Click to expand...

Right on!

Cyclo Rider & others,

Please post your disagreements without resorting to insults and personal attacks.

Thanks,
John

Originally posted by Cyclo Rider

There's plenty of evidence for creation. Moreover, evidence against macro-evolution is evidence for creation. You just ignore it, though it's been published in books by creationists and non-creationists alike.

Click to expand...

Evidence against macro-evolution is also evidence for the Norse creation myth, isn't it? Oh, wait... we don't believe that one!

I haven't seen any of this "evidence" for creation.

And the Chinese etymology thing is irrefutable.

Click to expand...

Except by *ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS ANY CHINESE*.

There are numerous errors in it; I wrote an article about them a while back. To make a long story short, it is false on several grounds; it attributes incorrect meanings to words, it breaks words down into the wrong radicals, and it ignores the fact that most words have both "sound" and "meaning" radicals...

It's not merely refutable, it's refuted. If you'd like, I could probably dig up my work on this and repost bits of it.

For a nice starting point, look at the one about "eight people on a boat". The only problem with it is that the symbol they say is "eight" isn't; it's written very differently from an eight, and means something else entirely, and that the symbol they say means "people" doesn't; it means "mouth" or "breath". The only time it would be used in relation to "people" is that it's used with "people" the way "head" is used with "head of cattle" in English.

Sorry to disrupt the "evidence", but I actually speak and read Chinese, and God has commanded me to fight *ALL* falsehoods, even ones that are emotionally important to my fellow Christians.

The Chinese etymology thing is, quite simply, totally wrong. I've seen it in dozens of places, and they all cite one book written in 1979 by someone who was trying REALLY hard to make these etymologies work - but who was willing to lie to make a point, which makes it very hard to take him seriously.

The fact is, when those Chinese words were being formed, the Chinese had their own creation story, and it wasn't a thing like ours. There are a number of other issues with the Chinese etymology.

Evolution=Lie

Thanks for that really insightful and strongly-argued point.

The only "lie" identified so far in this thread (and it's not a claim originating with any of the people here) is some false claims about Chinese characters.

seebs & and all other evolutionists,

if we have evolved, then what did we evolve from?

Originally posted by ThienAn
seebs & and all other evolutionists,

if we have evolved, then what did we evolve from?

Click to expand...

I rather object to "evolutionists". "-ism" implies a strongly held belief system which is foundational and upon which a great deal of a worldview rests. I'm not an "evolutionist" in that way; I think evolution is a fairly probable theory, the same way I generally accept gravity, Newtonian physics, and relativity. If the system is wrong, fine, I'll adapt.

Calling it "evolutionism" predisposes the listener to think it's a different kind of belief than it is. It's less like "I believe in God" and more like "I believe that this theory explains the evidence I have seen".

Anyway, we presumably "evolved" from earlier hominids; there's a whole series of hominids with gradually larger and rounder skulls, going back some ways. If you want to go all the way back, I assume we evolved from the same early primal sludge as everything else.

It's pretty clear that we're "related" to the other mammals; we have the same bone structure they do, even when it's not clear that it would be the best design if you were starting from scratch.

There are various reasons to suspect that all life we've seen so far has common ancestry going back all the way to however life formed. (The question of how life *started* is a separate one; the theory of evolution works whether the first life forms arose from natural processes, were seeded by technologically advanced aliens, or were created by God from nothing.)