Why do Christians hate the theory of evolution?

Sayre · Mar 14, 2014

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

I'm sorry, but this is just foul. I've been working on my reply since you posted. Your initial post simply said "that's fine". By the time I finished my post - you had edited yours to read "That's fine. I understand that you need the support of other TEs."

You added an intentional barb. You even had to go back and edit the post to get it in there. Is that really the spirit by which you need to debate?

For your information... I'm not discussing the scientific aspect of creationism for lent. There is a thread of mine on it - go check it out.

I stand on my own and am not running scared - I don't need the support of other TE's.

Hentenza · Mar 14, 2014

Sayre said:
I'm sorry, but this is just foul. I've been working on my reply since you posted. Your initial post simply said "that's fine". By the time I finished my post - you had edited yours to read "That's fine. I understand that you need the support of other TEs."

You added an intentional barb. You even had to go back and edit the post to get it in there. Is that really the spirit by which you need to debate?

For your information... I'm not discussing the scientific aspect of creationism for lent. There is a thread of mine on it - go check it out.

I stand on my own and am not running scared - I don't need the support of other TE's.

Please see my reply to your PM. Thanks.

Hentenza · Mar 14, 2014

Sayre said:
Sayre said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think we are posting past each other since we are making conflicting claims. My response to you was based on my own experience as a student in the academic courses that I recently took. I am not sure where your claims originate from.

I simply disagree with them .

Click to expand...

So then you do not believe in the doctrines of original sin and Mariology?

Sayre · Mar 14, 2014

It is obvious to me that the bible teaches that mankind is in a fallen state - and this has been the case from the very first humans and will be the case til the very last human. I don't think we need a literal Genesis to conclude that. This is a universal condition and I've fallen just like "Adam".

As for mariology - I do not worship Mary, I think worship is for God alone. There are some strong types in the bible concerning Mary - as a second Eve, as a type of the ark of the covenant, as the davidic mother. None of these things deify her. I look at her the same way I look at Paul, but a little stronger. She had amazing faith - and is someone for whom I can look up to and use as a wonderful role model. Paul said "imitate me as I imitate Christ". I think a similar attitude is warranted about Mary.

Hope that answers your Q...

Hentenza · Mar 14, 2014

Sayre said:
Sayre said:

It is obvious to me that the bible teaches that mankind is in a fallen state - and this has been the case from the very first humans and will be the case til the very last human. I don't think we need a literal Genesis to conclude that. This is a universal condition and I've fallen just like "Adam".

Click to expand...

Sure, mankind is in a fallen state, but it is in this state because "through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men..." (Romans 5:12), for "by the transgression of the one the many died..." (Romans 5:15), and "For as through the one mans disobedience the many were made sinners..." (Romans 5:19) just as the apostle Paul explains in scripture.

The apostle Paul goes on to explain that: "So also it is written, The first man, Adam, became a living soul. Not only does sin and death originated with ONE, real, man but Paul recognizes his as the first man, not as mankind in general. Paul goes on in 1 Timothy 2: "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." Paul believes that BOTH Adam and Eve are real, not just representatives of humanity.

Luke gives us a genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3. Verse 38, "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Luke also believes that Adam is a real person. Jude also believes that Adam is a real person: "in the seventh generation from Adam..."

The words of the writers of the NT support a real Adam and a real Eve and support a literal Genesis.

As for mariology - I do not worship Mary, I think worship is for God alone. There are some strong types in the bible concerning Mary - as a second Eve, as a type of the ark of the covenant, as the davidic mother. None of these things deify her. I look at her the same way I look at Paul, but a little stronger. She had amazing faith - and is someone for whom I can look up to and use as a wonderful role model. Paul said "imitate me as I imitate Christ". I think a similar attitude is warranted about Mary.

Click to expand...

I did not suggest that you, or the adherents of the Catholic church in general, worship Mary. But your church makes specific claims about Mary that are based on Mary being a type of Eve, the new Eve. I posted some of the verses from the Catholic church catechism supporting this view in a previous post. If Mary is not a type of a real, living Eve then many of your church's Mariology can not be posited.

Hope that answers your Q...

Click to expand...

Unfortunately no. They create more questions.

Sayre · Mar 14, 2014

It's 3 am my time - I'll return later in the morning to discuss.

Hentenza · Mar 14, 2014

Sayre said:
It's 3 am my time - I'll return later in the morning to discuss.

Wow, yes, you need your sleep. Sleep well.

Rocmonkey · Mar 14, 2014

nt11 said:
I challenge anyone to tell me with Biblical references why evolution is wrong, simply because in my effort to justify that belief, I actually cannot find anything in the Bible that says it is wrong. Until then, I will consider evolution to be a viable process driven by the Lord. Thank you.

First off, the question you ask is misleading. I don't know of a single Christian who fears (or hates) the 'educated guess' (theory) of evolution. In fact, many of them I know would enjoy a good debate about it. The sad part is the evolutionists can't debate w/o getting angry and slurring us. For one, there is not a single shred of evidence anywhere that proves evolution ever occurred. We have 'about' 200 years of research and 'about' 250 million fossils found to date. Not a single one shows an evolutionary process (EP) taking place- and I've seen numerous 'suggestions' to the contrary by atheists and evolutionists (whom I refer to as A&Es). As Darwin stated if it ain't in the fossil records then his 'theory' is wrong (paraphrasing, of course).

Now, I know there are some fossils people try to say are evolution but they aren't. For example there is a bird that we have found something like 12 or 13 fossils of. All of them show the very same bird- no more EP and no less. That is either a freak of nature (which did exist but A&Es don't like to talk about) or it is a clear 'kind' bcuz all of them are the same. To find only that bird in the same, exact stage of the EP but none of it before then or after (or any other critter in different 'stages' of evolution) and then say it shows evolution is, well, astounding to me- considering how many fossils that have been found worldwide.

But I am willing to see the evidence and change my mind when that ever happens. Although, as a Christian, I know it never will. God did say In Genesis 1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I've yet to see anything that proves that untrue.

chiwawa · Mar 14, 2014

Its important to note on a common misconception:

The idea of evolution was not made up by Charles Darwin. Evolution just means living things change over time, and this idea has existed for thousands of years, dating back to the ancient greeks, romans and chinese.

Its a common misconception, just like Columbus wasn't the first to state the world was round; a spherical earth was known for thousands of years, but people didn't know how big it was (i.e. if you could survive sailing across the Atlantic Ocean to Asia).

The idea of evolution took off during the Enlightenment, and scientists began postulating on how it worked. For example, almost a century before Darwin, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck published his own theory of evolution (which is now called 'Lamarckism').

So, Darwin did not argue whether it happened, but how it happened. His explanation to how evolution worked was Natural Selection. Interestingly, Alfred Wallace independently published his own theory of evolution through natural selection at the same time as Darwin, but Darwin's book was more comprehensive with evidence (which is why he got the lime light).

Sorry for the history lesson, but just want to put that out there

chiwawa · Mar 14, 2014

Rocmonkey said:
But I am willing to see the evidence and change my mind when that ever happens. Although, as a Christian, I know it never will.

You are willing to change your mind, but you know you never will? This is quite the contradiction, my good sir!

Hentenza · Mar 14, 2014

chiwawa said:
Its important to note on a common misconception:

The idea of evolution was not made up by Charles Darwin. Evolution just means living things change over time, and this idea has existed for thousands of years, dating back to the ancient greeks, romans and chinese.

Its a common misconception, just like Columbus wasn't the first to state the world was round; a spherical earth was known for thousands of years, but people didn't know how big it was (i.e. if you could survive sailing across the Atlantic Ocean to Asia).

The idea of evolution took off during the Enlightenment, and scientists began postulating on how it worked. For example, almost a century before Darwin, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck published his own theory of evolution (which is now called 'Lamarckism').

So, Darwin did not argue whether it happened, but how it happened. His explanation to how evolution worked was Natural Selection. Interestingly, Alfred Wallace independently published his own theory of evolution through natural selection at the same time as Darwin, but Darwin's book was more comprehensive with evidence (which is why he got the lime light).

Sorry for the history lesson, but just want to put that out there

Yes, I'm aware.

Sayre · Mar 14, 2014

Sayre said:
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.

Hentenza, you haven't responded to this. You replied to everything else in that post except this.

Sayre · Mar 14, 2014

I will address Mary first, then come back to your earlier statements.

Hentenza said:
I did not suggest that you, or the adherents of the Catholic church in general, worship Mary.

I know you didn't - and I didn't imply you did. You asked about my mariology and I spoke about what kind of reverence is due her - and it is not worship.

But your church makes specific claims about Mary that are based on Mary being a type of Eve, the new Eve.

I don't outright agree with the RC on everything. However, the analogy of Mary as the second Eve works regardless of whether or not Eve is literal. The strength of an analogy is not conditioned on it's historicity.

I teach my daughter about the boy who cried wolf. When I think she is telling ferfies - I often retort "you are about as truthful as the boy who cried wolf right now". Is my teaching errant because the boy is not historical? That was an analogy and it didn't depend on historicity.

Often when things go wrong people will explain their predicament as if "the sky is falling". The sky has never fallen. In our common vernacular we feel comfortable drawing analogies to non-historical events.

Here is a very recent example from the news:
Putinâs Reckless Ukraine Gambit - Eugene Rumer and Andrew S. Weiss - POLITICO Magazine

You can see the reporter say "Thanks to Russias unexpected moves in Crimea, the West will now have to put Humpty Dumpty back together on its own."

The question is - do you understand the analogy? I think we all understand what the reporter means when they reference a non historical character "Humpty Dumpty" and how the analogy works in our real world. Literalism is not required.

To bring the point back to the bible, let me introduce you to my favourite philosopher - an evangelical Christian from NZ - Glenn Andrew Peoples.

Paul, Genesis and Gender

He writes from the point of answering the question about women having authority over men in a church setting - but the underlying message about the difference between a literal and a didactic reading of Genesis is what I want you to see.

You follow a literal reading, I follow a didactic reading.

He says:

But what if Paul is not using a literal method, but a didactic one instead? What if he is treating the story of creation and fall as though it was written the way that it was, not so that we would know the blow-by-blow history of early humanity, but so that the writer could use the narrative to highlight theological claims? If this is the way Paul is treating early Genesis, then point is not that the man appeared first and therefore women in church shouldnt have authority over men as though that could ever be a serious argument. If Paul is using the didactic method, then the point is that the man came first in the story because of the intended authority relationship between men and women.

I apply the same methodology to references to Eve. Genesis is written not that we should believe Eve is a real woman who actually spoke to a snake and got bits of fig stuck between her teeth, but instead, to highlight important theological truths about Eve (yes, and Mary) and how they relate to the overall message of redemption.

Glenn shows that the theological teaching of male authority (developed by analogy to A&E) is not threatened when we don't read Genesis literally. The same goes for Eve not being literal.

I posted some of the verses from the Catholic church catechism supporting this view in a previous post. If Mary is not a type of a real, living Eve then many of your church's Mariology can not be posited.

I think I addressed this above.

GPeoples · Mar 15, 2014

"Why do Christians hate the theory of evolution?"

Why do people make generalisations based only on the limited interactions that take place within their own circles?

Rocmonkey · Mar 15, 2014

chiwawa said:
You are willing to change your mind, but you know you never will? This is quite the contradiction, my good sir!

I am willing to always accept the truth when it is proven. The problem is I 'know' there is a God. He said He created everything as we find it (kinds). So I also know that proof against said God is impossible. People have been trying to debunk and dethrone God for millennia. None have succeeded so I know it won't now- they can't. That was all I meant. Seems like a contradiction in terminology, I know, but not im my head.

Sayre · Mar 15, 2014

GPeoples said:
"Why do Christians hate the theory of evolution?"

Why do people make generalisations based only on the limited interactions that take place within their own circles?

Are you Glenn?

JGiddings · Mar 16, 2014

I am a Christian.
I don't HATE anything.
I don't agree with this theory.
People make too big of a deal about it. So they teach it in schools. If you don't like it then home school or a private school may be in order.
I have 3 step kids, believe me when I say that out of all the things they learned/are learning in public school the last thing on their minds, if it is at all, is evolutionary theory.

GPeoples · Mar 16, 2014

Sayre said:
Are you Glenn?

Guilty. I was drawn in by the backtrack link like a moth to the flame.

14messenger · Mar 16, 2014

nt11 said:
Why do Christians hate the theory of evolution?

Who said Christians hate theories of evolution?

Sayre · Mar 16, 2014

GPeoples said:
Guilty. I was drawn in by the backtrack link like a moth to the flame.

Glenn - you are one of the reasons I came to faith. God bless you in all you do.

Why do Christians hate the theory of evolution?

Veteran

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Veteran

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Veteran

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Member

Newbie

Newbie

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Veteran

Veteran

New Member

Member

Veteran

A work in progress.

New Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency