How many Christians agree with evolutionary theory?

[Captain Jackson]

I've been told several times that "most Christians accept that evolution happens."

Is there any evidence to support this conclusion?

It certainly does not seem this way. Virtually everyone who I know is a Biblical literalist. Where is everyone getting this "most Christians realize that evolution happens" claim from?

 

[Data]

It certainly does not seem this way. Virtually everyone who I know is a Biblical literalist.

Only in America.

Virtually every christian I know beleives in some sort of evolution.

 

[Captain Jackson]

beleives in some sort of evolution.

Data,

Please be very careful with your choice of words. By using the phrase "believe in evolution" you're going to get the YECs going on rampage about evolution being a "religion."

Even without them, it's still a poor choice of words. You would not say that you "believe" cells reproduce and the reproductions aren't 100% the same as the parent cell, would you?

 

[Data]

Data,

Please be very careful with you choice of words. By using the phrase "believe in evolution" you're going to get the YECs going on rampage about evolution being a "religion."

Besides, it's poor grammer. You would not say that you "believe" cells reproduce and the reproductions aren't 100% the same as the parent cell, would you?

I don't see anything wrong with it. I do in fact beleive cells reproduce, and that usually the reproductions aren't 100%.

No matter how it may be misinterpreted, a beleif in evolution is still a beleif, even if it is based on fact. That in no way makes it a religion, or else we would have to call everything a religion.

 

[Captain Jackson]

Hum, I wonder if any Biblical literalists are going to say zero, since a supporter of evolutionary theory can't be a true Christian.

 

[bevets]

It was obvious that both the general theory of evolution and its extension to man in particular must meet from the first with the most determined resistance on the part of the Churches. Both were in flagrant contradiction to the Mosaic story of creation, and other Biblical dogmas that were involved in it, and are still taught in our elementary schools. It is creditable to the shrewdness of the theologians and their associates, the metaphysicians, that they at once rejected Darwinism, and made a particularly energetic resistance in their writings to its chief consequence, the descent of man from ape. ~ Ernst Haeckel

What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over “facts” but over ways of thinking. The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science, but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God’s use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined their task as finding the most plausible-or least implausible- description of how biological creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not “theistic evolution,” but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error. ~ Phillip Johnson

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ~ Michael Ruse

A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up and works through laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetectable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism. To anyone who adopts this view I say, ‘Great, we’re in the same camp; now where do we get our morals if the universe just goes grinding on as it does?’ This kind of God does nothing outside of the laws of nature, gives us no immortality, no foundation for morals, or any of the things that we want from a God and from religion. ~ William Provine

http://bevets.com/evolution.htm#bible
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/wat/archive/wat060198.htm

 

[Captain Jackson]

Thank you for derailing my thread with inane quotes, bevets.

 

[Loudmouth]

If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God’s use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that.

And how many creationists have seen species actually created before their eyes? If an evolutionist claimed to have seen an organ develop in a few generations, he would probably be laughed at, things of this nature take vast amounts of time. An analogy: You claim that the oak tree in your front yard is growing all the time. I look at it for 30 sec and see no growth, I assume that you have no evidence and you are lying to me. This quote makes the same mistake, asking for evidence even evolution speaks against. We have, however, observed great changes in the fossil record. The earth itself gives up its secrets, God's creative mechanism speaks for itself.

What many seem to forget is that while the Bible is God inspired, it is not God's Dictation. It is my belief that if God did reveal Earth's complete natural history, including the ascent of man from ape-like anscestors, to a man living in 4,000 BC it would still be translated into something similar to the account in Genesis. It is the lessons we learn from Genesis that are important (such as the sinful nature of humankind), not the science. Also, can you name one person who witnessed the Creation account (remember that even according to the Genesis account, Adam was created after the rest of the universe, he didn't witness anything).

I personally use what God gave me, a curious and intuitive intellect that can deduce the mechanisms behind reality. I read nature where science is in question and read the Bible where theology is in question.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

This page on RT has a couple polls which compare beliefs of Americans with respect to evolution and religion: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

In both polls, it's pretty divided between theistic evolutionists and creationists, with creationists having an edge in the results.

For Europe, there's this site, which attempts to measure the impact of creationism in various European countries. Suffice to say, it hasn't had nearly the impact it has in the U.S.

 

[Meatros]

Does Bevets ever post anything of his own or is he afraid to think for himself?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Does Bevets ever post anything of his own or is he afraid to think for himself?

I figure he's a bot, programmed to make random postings based on certain keywords. It would certainly explain his behavior on this forum.

 

[Data]

'Bevets is silly' ~Data

 

[wonder111]

someone else posted this info before


According to ReligionToday (Dec. 29, 1999), out of 103 clergy polled in
Britain (including Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant
ministers);
97% do not believe in a literal six day creation, and 80%
acknowledge that Adam and Eve were not actual people.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

How many Christians accept the validity of evolutionary theory?

I do I do

 

[Upward Bound]

Your answer is evolutionists make it up, pull it out of their butts, fudge it, lie, play pretend.....you pick the phrase. Unfortunately, they don't have a scientist with a evolution rubber stamp to endorse it, so they have no basis to refer to. Most general and open polls that I've run across reflect that the majority still don't contribute their surroundings to evolution's theory, but to God and young Earth creation. But the evolutionists see this a challenge to continue an elaborate "assumption story". After all, where else can they receive government money to study a fictional story and continue their writing careers?


Creation Story = Reality ; Assumption Story = Make your Own Rules

 

[revolutio]

Most general and open polls that I've run across reflect that the majority still don't contribute their surroundings to evolution's theory, but to God and young Earth creation.

I assume you are just referring to polls in America.

 

[PhantomLlama]

This page on RT has a couple polls which compare beliefs of Americans with respect to evolution and religion: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Hmm...

College students:
25% creationist, 54% TE

No high school diploma:
65% creationist, 23% TE

I think that we can learn something from this.

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

someone else posted this info before


According to ReligionToday (Dec. 29, 1999), out of 103 clergy polled in
Britain (including Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant
ministers);
97% do not believe in a literal six day creation, and 80%
acknowledge that Adam and Eve were not actual people.

soo funny. I grew up in Southern and North west USA, moving to a different location or state every few years. I was born in florida, lived in- New zealand, colorado, montana, arkansas, virginia, Idaho, never once do I remember finding a christian church that accepted Evolution. not that I ever looked, but I have attended dozens and dozens of christian churches in my life...every one of them antievolution

 

[solar_mirth]

i still think it is unfair to take evolution as fact. facts proving it are hard to find. never has a single transitional fossil been found. never has an animal been found that proves transition from reptile to bird, wolf to whale, or anything like that. never have the amino acids needed for life been produced in a lab through processes which might possibly occur in nature without producing both left handed and right handed amino acids. don't misunderstand me, i am not a YEC. i am a creationist, but i can believe that the earth is quite old. that only partains to the rocks and water, though. evolution is nothing more than a theory. it all comes down to what you choose to believe.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

i still think it is unfair to take evolution as fact.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

facts proving it are hard to find.

Theories in science do not get proven. They have supporting evidence.

never has a single transitional fossil been found.

This is a lie you are parroting from a creationist website.

never has an animal been found that proves transition from reptile to bird,

Not true. This has already been shown on this forum in several places, one of which is a thread here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t62961

wolf to whale, or anything like that.

Strawman. That is not an accurate representation of the theory of evolution. Why should we expect to find evidence of "wolf to whale?"

never have the amino acids needed for life been produced in a lab through processes which might possibly occur in nature without producing both left handed and right handed amino acids.

Abiogenesis is not evolution and your claim is arguably false in any case.

don't misunderstand me, i am not a YEC. i am a creationist, but i can believe that the earth is quite old. that only partains to the rocks and water, though.

Well that's one step in the right direction.

What do you mean only "rocks and water" however? Life has existed on earth for billions of years, so it's more than just "rocks and water" that are quite old.

evolution is nothing more than a theory.

The existence of atoms is nothing more than a theory.
Plate tectonics is nothing more than a theory.
Gravity is nothing more than a theory.

Et cetera.

A theory is the pinnacle of the scientific method. A scientific theory is different from the colloqial definition of a theory. It is not mere guesswork. It is the most logical conclusion derived from all available facts and is an explanation that incorporates scientific facts and laws.

None of those things, including evolution, will be anything more than a scientific theory. But it's not merely a theory in the layman sense of the word.

it all comes down to what you choose to believe.

Maybe it does to you, but certainly not to scientists. Scientists choose to accept the theory of evolution because of the data that leads to that conclusion. It has nothing to do with belief.