Why do Christians hate the theory of evolution?

[Hentenza]

Hi Hentenza,

I've purposefully avoided discussing the evidence for evolution as I don't think it is beneficial for the discussion at this point in time (pop over to the science forums one day ).

Can I gently suggest that these debates generate so much heat because neither side seems to fairly describe the position of the other? I do not know, and won't guess, about whether this is deliberate or not. I have highlighted a few places in the text that I believe are strawmen.

The way you have described theistic evolution is not the the same as what TE'ers actually believe. The way you have described abiogenesis is not the same as what we believe. And the way you have described our reading of Genesis is not (always) the same as what we believe.

At the end of the day you are tearing down a strawman - a strawman that we both probably agree is wrong.

Theistic evolution is not an explanation for abiogenesis. It does not tell us how life arises. The origin of plants and animals, humans, the earth etc, is not the same as abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the study of how the first life form arose. The answer to that is pretty easy - God did it. Agreed, right? Abiogenesis is a scientific term that everyone uses - it is not unique to TE discourse, you will find it in YEC and OEC discourse as well.

You mentioned evolution post abiogenesis. All evolution is post abiogenesis! Evolution is the change of life forms over time leading to new species. There is no such thing as evolution prior to abiogenesis as there is nothing to change.

Genesis DOES support abiogenesis - God made life. God is the author of life. How He did that is uncertain (and Genesis doesn't give scientific details) but it is clear who gets the credit at the end of the day. The problem here is that Genesis is a theology... it is not a science text book... it teaches us that God created, and deserves the credit, but is really silent on how He did it.

We also need to be careful because TE is as diverse as OEC and YEC. Just like they have the day-age view, the gap theory, the "one day is a thousand years" theory, etc, we also have diversity in how people understand TE. Some believe in a literal A&E, others don't. Some believe that how He created via TE roughly matches the order in Gen 1, others don't. General statements like "TE's view on Genesis" is not really helpful - best to isolate specific beliefs or statements and address those.

It would be really interesting if YEC and OEC believers would highlight all of the scientific claims in Genesis 1 and 2. Not just "God said let there be light" - that isn't a scientific claim, but actual descriptions of how His command to create was processed in the physical world. I'd love to see it - at least then we are both understanding exactly what each other means.

God bless

Hi Sayre,

Unfortunately your understanding of TEs and evolution is a bit lacking. It is true that Abiogenesis attempts to prove the process by which living matter arose from non-living matter. But you are not taking into account is that the common ancestor theory works from a posit position extrapolated from abiogenesis.

I do agree with you that God is responsible for the creation of living matter from non-living matter but the problem for your camp is explaining Genesis one and two in terms of post-abiogenesis since Adam and Eve did not evolve from a common ancestor according to scripture. This is among one of the most divisive arguments among TEs.

Tell me, which epoch and from which adaptive radiation of the Cenozoic era does Adam and Eve belong to?

 

[standingtall]

if you scroll back you will find far more valid considerations as to why some hate the theory of evolution .
and disagree with TE ..

He's right, Archie. The post you chose to reply to is definitely not a valid consideration, nor is it indicative of most Christians' knowledge of the theory of evolution.

 

[Bluelion]

This is the essence of the problem: PRIDE. Pride on the part of those who claim "My Grand-daddy wasn't no monkey!"

The Bible does in fact state God made mankind. The Bible does NOT explain the process in any way. The prejudice against evolution is solely based on self-righteous feelings and ignorance.

Yeah that's false its not pride It is reverence of God. Only Man was created in Gods image. That is a great honor that you spit on.

In fact the Bible does explain in detail.

Gen 1:7

7 Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.

It clearly says from dust man came, not a chimp, not some cocktail of DNA and slowly evolved. But from dust and man was not alive yet, Then God breathed Life into him. God called man to life. You have to completely reject this account to be TE. now way can that be understood even close to TE.

 

[Bluelion]

He's right, Archie. The post you chose to reply to is definitely not a valid consideration, nor is it indicative of most Christians' knowledge of the theory of evolution.

I never seen you give any Christian knowledge.

You just go behind every valid post stir the pot see how heated you can get things.

 

[chiwawa]

I never seen you give any Christian knowledge.

You just go behind every valid post stir the pot see how heated you can get things.

Oh, the irony.

 

[Sayre]

Hi Sayre,

Unfortunately your understanding of TEs and evolution is a bit lacking. It is true that Abiogenesis attempts to prove the process by which living matter arose from non-living matter. But you are not taking into account is that the common ancestor theory works from a posit position extrapolated from abiogenesis.

I do agree with you that God is responsible for the creation of living matter from non-living matter but the problem for your camp is explaining Genesis one and two in terms of post-abiogenesis since Adam and Eve did not evolve from a common ancestor according to scripture. This is among one of the most divisive arguments among TEs.

Tell me, which epoch and from which adaptive radiation of the Cenozoic era does Adam and Eve belong to?

Of course the common ancestor theory comes after abiogenesis, it can't come before it LOL. Evolution is conditioned upon abiogenesis, but evolution does not need to prove a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis in order to be accurate. So I'm utterly confused why you continue to use the term post-abiogenesis when everything life related is after abiogenesis.

And the heart of the matter here is "Adam and Eve did not evolve from a common ancestor according to scripture" - the only way to make a statement like that is to read the scripture as science - a position which I reject.

Are you thinking that TE'ers believe abiogenesis is part of evolution? Or that we believe in a naturalistic abiogenesis? Why the focus on it?

 

[least]

Genesis DOES support abiogenesis - God made life. God is the author of life. How He did that is uncertain (and Genesis doesn't give scientific details) but it is clear who gets the credit at the end of the day. The problem here is that Genesis is a theology... it is not a science text book... it teaches us that God created, and deserves the credit, but is really silent on how He did it.

We also need to be careful because TE is as diverse as OEC and YEC. Just like they have the day-age view, the gap theory, the "one day is a thousand years" theory, etc, we also have diversity in how people understand TE. Some believe in a literal A&E, others don't. Some believe that how He created via TE roughly matches the order in Gen 1, others don't. General statements like "TE's view on Genesis" is not really helpful - best to isolate specific beliefs or statements and address those.

It would be really interesting if YEC and OEC believers would highlight all of the scientific claims in Genesis 1 and 2. Not just "God said let there be light" - that isn't a scientific claim, but actual descriptions of how His command to create was processed in the physical world. I'd love to see it - at least then we are both understanding exactly what each other means.

God bless

You are absolutely correct in saying that Genesis is not a work of science. But I want to point out something I believe to be important to the discussion. While Genesis is not a work of science it is a historical narrative; chapters 1 and 2 should not be viewed any different than any of the others because proper exegesis doesn't allow for that. Genesis is also, as you stated, a book of theological importance, teaching us about God and that he created the world and all that there is. The important thing I want to point out is that theology must be parallel in truth with science. If the two do not agree, then on of them is wrong.
As we look at the creation account, it gives us 1) the order of creation, and 2) the nature of creation (that is to say, "it was very good" v1:31). Evolution and Theistic Evolution are contrary to the Biblical account. Thus, one is wrong. If the Bible is wrong then evolution/TE may be right, but not necessarily as they are only theories. If the Bible is correct then evolution/TE is not correct. It is as simple as that. [note that I am not speaking of TE as mutations, I am sure we all aware of the reality of that]
Finally, TE is only a compromise between belief in God and a system of science that aims to disprove the existence of God (aka the world). Why do Christians feel as though we have to jump the evolution bandwagon? Let us continue to observe the facts of nature (that is a gift of God, I believe), but until we have absolute proof of evolution, let us not feel as though we must succumb to the world of unbelief by adapting our belief with their unsubstantiated theories.

 

[Sayre]

You are absolutely correct in saying that Genesis is not a work of science. But I want to point out something I believe to be important to the discussion. While Genesis is not a work of science it is a historical narrative; chapters 1 and 2 should not be viewed any different than any of the others because proper exegesis doesn't allow for that. Genesis is also, as you stated, a book of theological importance, teaching us about God and that he created the world and all that there is. The important thing I want to point out is that theology must be parallel in truth with science. If the two do not agree, then on of them is wrong.
As we look at the creation account, it gives us 1) the order of creation, and 2) the nature of creation (that is to say, "it was very good" v1:31). Evolution and Theistic Evolution are contrary to the Biblical account. Thus, one is wrong. If the Bible is wrong then evolution/TE may be right, but not necessarily as they are only theories. If the Bible is correct then evolution/TE is not correct. It is as simple as that. [note that I am not speaking of TE as mutations, I am sure we all aware of the reality of that]
Finally, TE is only a compromise between belief in God and a system of science that aims to disprove the existence of God (aka the world). Why do Christians feel as though we have to jump the evolution bandwagon? Let us continue to observe the facts of nature (that is a gift of God, I believe), but until we have absolute proof of evolution, let us not feel as though we must succumb to the world of unbelief by adapting our belief with their unsubstantiated theories.

Eeeks oh no. I might have to bow out of this conversation because it is going nowhere.

1 - Genesis 1 and 2 is not history.
2 - You can't claim that Genesis is not science, and later conclude that it makes scientific statements about the order of creation. Pick one, stick to it.
3 - science has no theological content whatsoever. science is neutral on all things relating to God. Consequentally, it is not possible for science to conflict with theology. If, as you state, Genesis is not a science book, then Genesis' theology cannot contradict with science (evolution).
4 - evolution is not a godless theory. It is not tied to unbelief. evolution is a theory of science and makes no comments for or against the existence of God or what He is like if He does exist. Science (evolution) is methodologically naturalistic.

 

[least]

Eeeks oh no. I might have to bow out of this conversation because it is going nowhere.

1 - Genesis 1 and 2 is not history.
2 - You can't claim that Genesis is not science, and later conclude that it makes scientific statements about the order of creation. Pick one, stick to it.
3 - science has no theological content whatsoever. science is neutral on all things relating to God. Consequentally, it is not possible for science to conflict with theology. If, as you state, Genesis is not a science book, then Genesis' theology cannot contradict with science (evolution).
4 - evolution is not a godless theory. It is not tied to unbelief. evolution is a theory of science and makes no comments for or against the existence of God or what He is like if He does exist. Science (evolution) is methodologically naturalistic.

1 - Yes, Genesis 1 and 2 are historical narrative, just like the rest of Genesis.
2 - I was claiming that the truth of God (theology) and science must be compatible. If God has created all things, then science must conform to his truth.
3 - "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." Psalm 19:1. David found theology in science. Just because a book is not a "science" book doesn't mean the message can't be compatible with science. Evolution is not compatible with the Genesis account.
4 - Science is not evolution. Evolution proponents don't like to hear that, but that is true.

And so we are at an impasse. This conversation is going nowhere for you, but it is going nowhere for me either. Let us be reconciled in knowing that the Lord will one day make all things clear to us and let us rejoice in the one true Savior, Jesus Christ. He is the only wise, omniscient creator. Amen?

 

[Sayre]

1 - Yes, Genesis 1 and 2 are historical narrative, just like the rest of Genesis.
2 - I was claiming that the truth of God (theology) and science must be compatible. If God has created all things, then science must conform to his truth.
3 - "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." Psalm 19:1. David found theology in science. Just because a book is not a "science" book doesn't mean the message can't be compatible with science. Evolution is not compatible with the Genesis account.
4 - Science is not evolution. Evolution proponents don't like to hear that, but that is true.

And so we are at an impasse. This conversation is going nowhere for you, but it is going nowhere for me either. Let us be reconciled in knowing that the Lord will one day make all things clear to us and let us rejoice in the one true Savior, Jesus Christ. He is the only wise, omniscient creator. Amen?

1 - Science and theology do not overlap. On a venn diagram there is no intersection. There is nothing they both speak of to test a congruence. Science makes no claims about God - and cannot - therefore can't contradict with theology. They are parallel and independent.

2 - as above.

3 - Psalm 19 isn't making a scientific claim - please be clear about what claim you think it makes.

4 - Evolution is science.

 

[Bluelion]

Oh, the irony.

You find the same fruit in the same basket. I think its irony you saying that guess there is alot of that huh or maybe it is just hypocritical because your comment could do nothing other than stir the pot.

And I did not know speaking truth was stirring the pot, I thought it was letting God's light shine from me, after all The Holy Spirit is also known as The Spirit of Truth.

Have I said anything which is not Biblical, if you can find something please point it out I would like to know.

 

[Alithis]

You find the same fruit in the same basket. I think its irony you saying that guess there is alot of that huh or maybe it is just hypocritical because your comment could do nothing other than stir the pot.

And I did not know speaking truth was stirring the pot, I thought it was letting God's light shine from me, after all The Holy Spirit is also known as The Spirit of Truth.

Have I said anything which is not Biblical, if you can find something please point it out I would like to know.

neither of you really needed reply to the other in regard to pots and stirring ..this is not a cooking thread

 

[Bluelion]

neither of you really needed reply to the other in regard to pots and stirring ..this is not a cooking thread

lol your right i am just throwing it back, meant to be just at standing tall for stalking me for a month when I had him on ignore, this is my new approach for him to leave me alone.

 

[Hentenza]

Of course the common ancestor theory comes after abiogenesis, it can't come before it LOL.

Are you mocking me?

Evolution is conditioned upon abiogenesis, but evolution does not need to prove a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis in order to be accurate.

I would contest that this point is highly pursued by TEs as naturalistic. I, of course, would disagree.

So I'm utterly confused why you continue to use the term post-abiogenesis when everything life related is after abiogenesis.

It should no confuse you, after all, Genesis one and two are not historical narrative according to you.

And the heart of the matter here is "Adam and Eve did not evolve from a common ancestor according to scripture" - the only way to make a statement like that is to read the scripture as science - a position which I reject.

Interesting. I don't read scripture as science. I read scripture as the word of God.

Are you thinking that TE'ers believe abiogenesis is part of evolution?

It is taught academically as part of evolution. Do you deny this?

Or that we believe in a naturalistic abiogenesis? Why the focus on it?

Because this is the conflict at the center of the creation of life depicted in scripture versus the creation of life depicted in the teachings of evolution.

You did not answer the question I posted to you. Here it is again.

Tell me, which epoch and from which adaptive radiation of the Cenozoic era does Adam and Eve belong to?

Lets also add: Are Adam and Eve real people? Was Adam created from dust and Eve from Adam's rib?

 

[least]

1 - Science and theology do not overlap. On a venn diagram there is no intersection. There is nothing they both speak of to test a congruence. Science makes no claims about God - and cannot - therefore can't contradict with theology. They are parallel and independent.

2 - as above.

3 - Psalm 19 isn't making a scientific claim - please be clear about what claim you think it makes.

4 - Evolution is science.

1-4 Evolution is not science; it is a scientific theory, and a weak one in my opinion.

It's okay with me if you disagree with my views. As stated before, let us agree in the Lord

 

[chiwawa]

1-4 Evolution is not science; it is a scientific theory, and a weak one in my opinion.

It's okay with me if you disagree with my views. As stated before, let us agree in the Lord

Agreeing to disagree is probably the best thing to do. If you are not on the fence on this issue, you will probably not change your mind. Open discussion is great, but life is too short to shout over something that will not affect our salvation.

 

[Sayre]

Are you mocking me?

Nope

I would contest that this point is highly pursued by TEs as naturalistic. I, of course, would disagree.

No - it isn't. I'd like you to demonstrate where ANY TE has said that abiogenesis is naturalistic. TE'ers by definition reject naturalism - that's why we are theists!

Interesting. I don't read scripture as science. I read scripture as the word of God.

You do read it as science otherwise you wouldn't be able to suggest a scientific order to creation.

It is taught academically as part of evolution. Do you deny this?

I absolutely deny this. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. This has been pointed out many times and even appears on creationists webpages as "arguments you shouldn't make".

Tell me, which epoch and from which adaptive radiation of the Cenozoic era does Adam and Eve belong to?

I told you I wasn't going to debate the science outside of the science forum.

Lets also add: Are Adam and Eve real people? Was Adam created from dust and Eve from Adam's rib?

No
No
No

 

[standingtall]

I never seen you give any Christian knowledge.

"Christians' knowledge" is what I said. As in "knowledge that Christians possess" - in this case about the theory of evolution , not "Christian knowledge" as in "knowledge from a Christian viewpoint".

Keep up lest you end up looking silly.

 

[Hentenza]

I absolutely deny this. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. This has been pointed out many times and even appears on creationists webpages as "arguments you shouldn't make".

Within the last three years I have taken courses on Physical Anthropology, Cultural Anthropology, and two biology courses. ALL of them taught the naturalistic aboigenesis as a starting point to the discussion on evolution.

I told you I wasn't going to debate the science outside of the science forum.

That's fine. I understand that you need the support of other TEs.

No
No
No

Naturally. However, your belief is contrary to that of your church as depicted in the catechism of the Catholic Church.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice.”250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in... divine life.”

766 The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self–giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.”171 “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’”172 As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin.”

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image—that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

489 Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living.128 By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age.129 Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women.130 Mary “stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established.”

508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace,” Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

All of these passages come from:
Catechism of the Catholic Church

If Adam and Eve are not real people then your church cannot teach the doctrines of original sin, Mary as the new Eve, and others. Heck if Adam, a real person, and Eve, a real person, did not sin literally then we don't even need Christ since death and sin needed a real Adam and a real Eve to enter into the world.

You and your church cannot have it both ways.

 

[Sayre]

Nope

No - it isn't. I'd like you to demonstrate where ANY TE has said that abiogenesis is naturalistic. TE'ers by definition reject naturalism - that's why we are theists!

You do read it as science otherwise you wouldn't be able to suggest a scientific order to creation.

I absolutely deny this. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. This has been pointed out many times and even appears on creationists webpages as "arguments you shouldn't make".

I told you I wasn't going to debate the science outside of the science forum.

No
No
No

You know, it's late and I'm tired, so perhaps I am a little more sensitive than usual, but I am a bit offended by your implication that TE'ers have in some way embraced naturalism through abiogenesis.

You said "I would contest that this point is highly pursued by TEs as naturalistic."

My post is above where I clarified that in no way do I (or any TE'er I know) embrace such a position because it is logically contrary to theism. Theism - my faith - my belief in God - is the opposite of naturalism. It would be great if you could acknowledge this and retract the implication of naturalism, because it is a subtle way of suggesting I'm not a theist. You have to be a theist to be a christian (you have to reject naturalism to be a christian!). Do you see what this implication does? You may not have realised this or even intended to imply this - but this is where most of the heat comes from in these threads .

I reject all forms of naturalism - nothing is naturalistic. When I do science or read science, I do see that all credit goes back to God even when the study is limited to how the natural world works. He is often a secondary or tertiary cause, but He is always at the end of the causal chain - always the prime mover - always gets the credit.

Within the last three years I have taken courses on Physical Anthropology, Cultural Anthropology, and two biology courses. ALL of them taught the naturalistic aboigenesis as a starting point to the discussion on evolution.

Then perhaps we are talking past each other. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution, it is a assumption of evolution. Of course any teaching of evolution would be required to mention the assumptions underpinning the theory. But that isn't the same as saying that abiogenesis is part of evolution - it isn't. Evolution is simply the change in allele frequency over time. It stands regardless of what model you adopt for abiogenesis and regardless of whether or not God is involved in your model for the origins of life.

Naturally. However, your belief is contrary to that of your church as depicted in the catechism of the Catholic Church.

...

You and your church cannot have it both ways.

I simply disagree with them .