Why do Christians hate the theory of evolution?

[Alithis]

I believe we agree in your first paragraph. God is omnipotent, so he is outside and not subject to his own laws. He set them in motion when he spoke them into being.

But I will have to respectfully disagree with the second. Maybe certain figures in the bible were wiser, but there were a lot of other people back then too. There's a lot of unwise people today, but also a lot of wise people as well.

And you do trust in science. You do it everytime you drive your car. Everytime you use your phone. Everytime you take medicine when you're sick. Everytime you fly on a plane. Everytime you buy food from a grocery store...

of course .. when used in that term . but i do not trust the science of ancient history further back then 6000 years because it has nothing upon which it can be based .its conjecture nothing more .but of course you knew i was talking about evolutionary science lol .

and that brings us full circle ... the belief that God spoke and then things evolved into their present state ..is only that,- a belief- .
it has no indisputable provable evidence ..
so it really comes down to what we choose to believe ..
so -again , God instructed -?-moses? and he wrote down that in 6 days he created ....
and based on the evidence of the limitless POWER of GOD and how he instantaneously created the loves and fish to feed 5000 ..I see no reason to disbelieve him
-it is also written that

all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

and again-

... the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

so we see that everything that the men say took scores of millions of years to come into being ,but the bible says took 6 days ...
is removed in the moment of his coming displaying he is well able to build it and to tear it down even quicker then he built it .

i guess in the end it comes down to ..

Trust in the lord with ALL thy heart and lean NOT on thine own understanding

 

[WithLoveFromAlyssa]

I ask this as a former Catholic of 16 years, subsequent atheist for 8, and current non-denominational Christian for 4 years. After I left the Catholic church, I examined all the reasons in my mind I thought that Christianity was wrong, until I had a spiritual experience that led me back to God and made me forget all my doubts.

I ask the question in the title not as a doubter of the faith, but as a question that is not clearly explained in the Bible. For example, if you read the literal translation of ancient Hebrew text, it says God created light, the earth, the heavens, the seas, grass, sea life, and animals, then man. Isn't this the actual progression of evolution anyway?

I know in current versions, the Bible says He took dirt from the earth and molded man, but according to the literal hebrew translation, he simply "fattened" man, which I see as some sort of "process." In my opinion, the Bible actually supports a God-driven evolution more than it does creationism. After all, why couldn't God have evolved man himself? If He created evolution, who are we to deny it? Here is the literal translation of the Hebrew text so you can read that God "fattened" mankind, and did not make him from clay (on page 21):

Well, never mind, I only have 34 posts so I am not allowed to post URLs, but if you search "mechanical translation of Genesis" you will find an e-book at ancient-hebrew.org with the original Hebrew and the literal English right next to it.

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.

tell me what you think of this:
Don Stewart :: Can Theistic Evolution Solve the Controversy between Creation and Evolution?

 

[least]

Alyssa, this is a good article! I hope that everyone will take the time to read it all the way through as there are some great points. We who believe that the Scriptures are the very words of God must realize that Evolution (or Theistic Evolution) is contrary to the Bible. This article by Don Stewart clearly communicates that.

Shall we than say that we do not believe in science? Of course not, science is very beneficial and there are many great scientist who confirm the creation account. The proponents of evolution deny that those who do not buy into their theory have intelligence. Since they cannot prove their theory they speak louder and louder and attempt to drown out all other voices but their own.

At the end of the day, evolution and creationism are two sytems of belief. Either a person rejects God and embraces evolution, or it is the other way around. Neither of these will be proven in a lab. Both groups have the world with which to observe, and both groups must go with what they think is correct. To combine the two beliefs would be to compromise one's belief. The God of the Bible does not work that way. One may say, "Well, I will choose to believe in theistic evolution, because I believe both are plausible." That is fine, but you will not be believing in the God of the Holy Bible, because it does not allow for evolution in the creation account (Genesis must be read as historical narrative for proper exegesis).

Personally, I choose to believe in the account given to us by God. If I am wrong then it will not matter, because I will be no more. But if I am correct and have put my faith in the God of the Holy Bible then I will rejoice eternally with him. The question is for everyone: What if you are wrong?

 

[Hentenza]

Alyssa, this is a good article! I hope that everyone will take the time to read it all the way through as there are some great points. We who believe that the Scriptures are the very words of God must realize that Evolution (or Theistic Evolution) is contrary to the Bible. This article by Don Stewart clearly communicates that.

Shall we than say that we do not believe in science? Of course not, science is very beneficial and there are many great scientist who confirm the creation account. The proponents of evolution deny that those who do not buy into their theory have intelligence. Since they cannot prove their theory they speak louder and louder and attempt to drown out all other voices but their own.

At the end of the day, evolution and creationism are two sytems of belief. Either a person rejects God and embraces evolution, or it is the other way around. Neither of these will be proven in a lab. Both groups have the world with which to observe, and both groups must go with what they think is correct. To combine the two beliefs would be to compromise one's belief. The God of the Bible does not work that way. One may say, "Well, I will choose to believe in theistic evolution, because I believe both are plausible." That is fine, but you will not be believing in the God of the Holy Bible, because it does not allow for evolution in the creation account (Genesis must be read as historical narrative for proper exegesis).

Personally, I choose to believe in the account given to us by God. If I am wrong then it will not matter, because I will be no more. But if I am correct and have put my faith in the God of the Holy Bible then I will rejoice eternally with him. The question is for everyone: What if you are wrong?

Hi Least,

I am not, as are you, qualified to render judgment on those who believe in theistic evolution. Salvation is the purview of God. I have known a good many TEs in my time and they love Jesus just as much as we do. Salvation is not by our own efforts but by the grace of God so belief in TE is NOT salvific nor do they believe in a God that is any different than the one you and me believe in. I do not believe in theistic evolution, however, God did create natural systems, such as procreation. Whether creationists or TE's are right is inconsequential to faith in our savior. Very soon all of us will know the answer.

Sola Fide
Solus Christus
Sola Gratia
Soli Deo Gloria
Sola Scriptura

 

[standingtall]

Hi Least,

I am not, as are you, qualified to render judgment on those who believe in theistic evolution. Salvation is the purview of God. I have known a good many TEs in my time and they love Jesus just as much as we do. Salvation is not by our own efforts but by the grace of God so belief in TE is NOT salvific nor do they believe in a God that is any different than the one you and me believe in. I do not believe in theistic evolution, however, God did create natural systems, such as procreation. Whether creationists or TE's are right is inconsequential to faith in our savior. Very soon all of us will know the answer.

Sola Fide
Solus Christus
Sola Gratia
Soli Deo Gloria
Sola Scriptura

Best post of the thread!

 

[WithLoveFromAlyssa]

Hi Least,

I am not, as are you, qualified to render judgment on those who believe in theistic evolution. Salvation is the purview of God. I have known a good many TEs in my time and they love Jesus just as much as we do. Salvation is not by our own efforts but by the grace of God so belief in TE is NOT salvific nor do they believe in a God that is any different than the one you and me believe in. I do not believe in theistic evolution, however, God did create natural systems, such as procreation. Whether creationists or TE's are right is inconsequential to faith in our savior. Very soon all of us will know the answer.

Sola Fide
Solus Christus
Sola Gratia
Soli Deo Gloria
Sola Scriptura

Hello. Im not sure if you're talking to me or not.
I am not trying to judge the OP.
I just felt the article fit his question.
Honestly, I didn't read the article.
I Do, however though believe in creationism.

 

[Alithis]

Hi Least,

I am not, as are you, qualified to render judgment on those who believe in theistic evolution. Salvation is the purview of God. I have known a good many TEs in my time and they love Jesus just as much as we do. Salvation is not by our own efforts but by the grace of God so belief in TE is NOT salvific nor do they believe in a God that is any different than the one you and me believe in. I do not believe in theistic evolution, however, God did create natural systems, such as procreation. Whether creationists or TE's are right is inconsequential to faith in our savior. Very soon all of us will know the answer.

Sola Fide
Solus Christus
Sola Gratia
Soli Deo Gloria
Sola Scriptura

yup

Trust in the lord with all thine heart and lean not on thine own understanding

 

[Hentenza]

Hello. Im not sure if you're talking to me or not.
I am not trying to judge the OP.
I just felt the article fit his question.
Honestly, I didn't read the article.
I Do, however though believe in creationism.

No sister, my post was not addressed to you. I merely replied to another poster's post.

 

[Bluelion]

of course .. when used in that term . but i do not trust the science of ancient history further back then 6000 years because it has nothing upon which it can be based .its conjecture nothing more .but of course you knew i was talking about evolutionary science lol .

and that brings us full circle ... the belief that God spoke and then things evolved into their present state ..is only that,- a belief- .
it has no indisputable provable evidence ..
so it really comes down to what we choose to believe ..
so -again , God instructed -?-moses? and he wrote down that in 6 days he created ....
and based on the evidence of the limitless POWER of GOD and how he instantaneously created the loves and fish to feed 5000 ..I see no reason to disbelieve him
-it is also written that

all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.



and again-

... the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

so we see that everything that the men say took scores of millions of years to come into being ,but the bible says took 6 days ...
is removed in the moment of his coming displaying he is well able to build it and to tear it down even quicker then he built it .

i guess in the end it comes down to ..

Trust in the lord with ALL thy heart and lean NOT on thine own understanding

This is off topic, but in regards to the bible verse when it speaks of men hiding in mountains. Right now we know there are bases deep in mountains design to protect government officials from a nuclear war or other great calamity. I would suggest these bases are the mountains the men hide in that are spoke of in the Bible.

 

[Bluelion]

Hi Least,

I am not, as are you, qualified to render judgment on those who believe in theistic evolution. Salvation is the purview of God. I have known a good many TEs in my time and they love Jesus just as much as we do. Salvation is not by our own efforts but by the grace of God so belief in TE is NOT salvific nor do they believe in a God that is any different than the one you and me believe in. I do not believe in theistic evolution, however, God did create natural systems, such as procreation. Whether creationists or TE's are right is inconsequential to faith in our savior. Very soon all of us will know the answer.

Sola Fide
Solus Christus
Sola Gratia
Soli Deo Gloria
Sola Scriptura

I don't think he was judging a person salvation. I think what he was saying is evolution is putting your faith in men and not God. No baptist church i know of preaches TE with scripture. And as he spoke of the article it makes good points The bible does not support TE, However, the Bible does support creation. Some times the Bible literally means what it says.

I would worry about any believing in TE because they are following a false doctrine. It is not are jobs as Christians to take a liberal view of live and let live, but we are to be a light to the world preaching the world of God, and truth is Light. So is it not right to watch someone be lead astray from God and not warn them. TE is wrong and false doctrine, I am not afraid to say it, because if i said nothing i would not be loving my brothers and sisters.

 

[least]

Hi Least,

I am not, as are you, qualified to render judgment on those who believe in theistic evolution. Salvation is the purview of God. I have known a good many TEs in my time and they love Jesus just as much as we do. Salvation is not by our own efforts but by the grace of God so belief in TE is NOT salvific nor do they believe in a God that is any different than the one you and me believe in. I do not believe in theistic evolution, however, God did create natural systems, such as procreation. Whether creationists or TE's are right is inconsequential to faith in our savior. Very soon all of us will know the answer.

Sola Fide
Solus Christus
Sola Gratia
Soli Deo Gloria
Sola Scriptura

Hi Hentenza, thank you so much for your reply. You are correct in that I cannot judge any person regarding their salvation, that is for God alone to determine. If a person who holds to the Theistic Evolution view puts their faith in Christ alone, grace alone, and gives glory to God alone and believes in the Scriptures alone as God's Holy word then I would surely not argue against them. I, for one, cannot understand why anyone would buy into a theory that is contrary to the Bible; perhaps they do not understand the difference between what the two (the Scriptures and TE) teach about origins. But I do yield to your point and ask forgiveness of anyone who I have offended, it was not my intention to judge a person's soul or to even come across that way. My intent was make a judgment about the fallacy of compromising the two systems of belief, as they cannot work together.

 

[Hentenza]

Hi Hentenza, thank you so much for your reply. You are correct in that I cannot judge any person regarding their salvation, that is for God alone to determine. If a person who holds to the Theistic Evolution view puts their faith in Christ alone, grace alone, and gives glory to God alone and believes in the Scriptures alone as God's Holy word then I would surely not argue against them. I, for one, cannot understand why anyone would buy into a theory that is contrary to the Bible; perhaps they do not understand the difference between what the two (the Scriptures and TE) teach about origins. But I do yield to your point and ask forgiveness of anyone who I have offended, it was not my intention to judge a person's soul or to even come across that way. My intent was make a judgment about the fallacy of compromising the two systems of belief, as they cannot work together.

Hi Least,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. My intention was merely to point out that God is in control, not us. I agree with you that TE's hermeunetics depart from the scripture's teaching of origins (abiogenesis in TE's language) but we should put the TE belief system in perspective. Genesis one and two teach about the origin of the universe, plants, animals, man (and woman), etc. but does not teach about evolution post-abiogenesis. Interpretations of Genesis one and two as supporting abiogenesis is problematic at best. However, I do not see a problem with interpretations of post-abiogenesis. It is entirely possible that God instituted natural systems to "manage" His creation. So my issue is not with evolution itself per se but with how much evolution the TEs claim has occurred.

The TEs argument for abiogenesis is full of holes and cannot be proven. The claim that "similar" equals "same" is a fallacy. This fallacy includes the textual view that Genesis one and two are renditions of previous, extant texts that are "similar" to the scripture's accounts and the "physical" view that archeological fossils prove a common ancestor for man. There is no credible and universally accepted scientific theory regarding both of these fallacies. In fact, when faced with the dilemma that the fossil record is incomplete and too sparse to prove vertical evolution, the theory of punctuated equilibrium was posited in the hopes that it would explain the lack of fossil evidence that archeologists and other scientists were expecting to find. In other words, the theory of evolution (vertical) was posited first with the hopes of being able to falsify it later. Darwin was very much aware of this dilemma.

Is an interesting debate.

 

[Hentenza]

I don't think he was judging a person salvation. I think what he was saying is evolution is putting your faith in men and not God. No baptist church i know of preaches TE with scripture. And as he spoke of the article it makes good points The bible does not support TE, However, the Bible does support creation. Some times the Bible literally means what it says.

I would worry about any believing in TE because they are following a false doctrine. It is not are jobs as Christians to take a liberal view of live and let live, but we are to be a light to the world preaching the world of God, and truth is Light. So is it not right to watch someone be lead astray from God and not warn them. TE is wrong and false doctrine, I am not afraid to say it, because if i said nothing i would not be loving my brothers and sisters.

Hi Bluelion,

I don't disagree with you but you would have to agree that TEism has gained a considerable following from mainstream churches and many do not consider it a false doctrine. For example, Catholics in general, a good number of EOs, a good number of Anglicans, a good number of Methodists and Presbyterians, and many more are (and have in some cases) synthesized evolution to scripture. Also, in my capacity as an ordained deacon in a very conservative Baptists church aligned with the SBC, I address this issue almost on a daily basis with the youth in our congregation (and quite a few adults also). Even though most Baptist churches do not teach a synthesis between scripture and evolution, there are many that have such a belief. However, I am still of the opinion that belief in TE is not a salvific issue and God will save many of them according to His will.

 

[Metal Minister]

I realize I'm a bit late to this party, but getting back to the op and the title of this thread. As a Christian and a creationist, I do not "hate" the theory of evolution. I simply find it lacking in explanatory power and falling well short of the normal scientific rigors one expects of a theory. Truth be told it falls into the realm of unsubstantiated hypothesis much more readily than theory.

Of course a few terms and points must be defined. First, when I speak of evolution, I'm talking about molecules to man or even a change in kind. Microevolution (better stated as speciation or variation) is uncontested. It happens. Anything beyond that however becomes pure fantasy. There is no concrete evidence for any of it, outside of major assumptions and poor interpretations of evidence. Whether people want to admit it or not, it has become a religion in and of itself, replete with zealots ready to chastise and castigate all non - believers. Take for example the recent discoveries of soft tissues and even dna from supposedly 65-100 million year old dinosaur bones. Bones found unpermineralized (not yet fossils) in some of the worst conditions for preserving such things. This of course sets aside that even in the most perfect of conditions, frozen solid or dried completely, proteins and dna cannot last millions of years. What have evolutionists done with this find? Instead of scrapping the religion of deep time evolution, they've turned to dismantling an empirical science, fossilization, for which we have empirical evidence as to how It works and how long things can remain preserved, to prop up evolution. They now claim we simply don't yet know the mechanism that could preserve soft tissue for this long. It takes only an unbiased eye a few moments to realize the evolutionary house of cards is falling. Sorry, lecture/rant over!

 

[Alithis]

I realize I'm a bit late to this party, but getting back to the op and the title of this thread. As a Christian and a creationist, I do not "hate" the theory of evolution. I simply find it lacking in explanatory power and falling well short of the normal scientific rigors one expects of a theory. Truth be told it falls into the realm of unsubstantiated hypothesis much more readily than theory.

Of course a few terms and points must be defined. First, when I speak of evolution, I'm talking about molecules to man or even a change in kind. Microevolution (better stated as speciation or variation) is uncontested. It happens. Anything beyond that however becomes pure fantasy. There is no concrete evidence for any of it, outside of major assumptions and poor interpretations of evidence. Whether people want to admit it or not, it has become a religion in and of itself, replete with zealots ready to chastise and castigate all non - believers. Take for example the recent discoveries of soft tissues and even dna from supposedly 65-100 million year old dinosaur bones. Bones found unpermineralized (not yet fossils) in some of the worst conditions for preserving such things. This of course sets aside that even in the most perfect of conditions, frozen solid or dried completely, proteins and dna cannot last millions of years. What have evolutionists done with this find? Instead of scrapping the religion of deep time evolution, they've turned to dismantling an empirical science, fossilization, for which we have empirical evidence as to how It works and how long things can remain preserved, to prop up evolution. They now claim we simply don't yet know the mechanism that could preserve soft tissue for this long. It takes only an unbiased eye a few moments to realize the evolutionary house of cards is falling. Sorry, lecture/rant over!

dont be sorry its a great contribution

 

[Bluelion]

Hi Bluelion,

I don't disagree with you but you would have to agree that TEism has gained a considerable following from mainstream churches and many do not consider it a false doctrine. For example, Catholics in general, a good number of EOs, a good number of Anglicans, a good number of Methodists and Presbyterians, and many more are (and have in some cases) synthesized evolution to scripture. Also, in my capacity as an ordained deacon in a very conservative Baptists church aligned with the SBC, I address this issue almost on a daily basis with the youth in our congregation (and quite a few adults also). Even though most Baptist churches do not teach a synthesis between scripture and evolution, there are many that have such a belief. However, I am still of the opinion that belief in TE is not a salvific issue and God will save many of them according to His will.

I see TE as a false doctrine to lead people away from God because it has a following does not make it valid. Many false doctrines have had huge numbers of followers. Once The greeks worship false gods, just about every greek did, but now we call that false doctrine mythology.

The problem I have with evolution is it is preached as fact when there is no proof and all theory. I believe alot of your young students follow this, and yes if they love Jesus in there heart they will be saved, but God would not leave His children blind at some point they will see the truth.

Rev teaches us many false doctrines will come about near the end. TE is just another one of those doctrines.

I feel many Christians are to worried about offending people and just taking a live and let live policy. We need to be clear what the bible says and supports because if we are not the younger generation will be lost. If we are doing it right the world will hate us. What did God say He who makes a friend of this world makes an enemy of God. We should stand against this world as God does.

 

[Sayre]

Hi Least,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. My intention was merely to point out that God is in control, not us. I agree with you that TE's hermeunetics depart from the scripture's teaching of origins (abiogenesis in TE's language) but we should put the TE belief system in perspective. Genesis one and two teach about the origin of the universe, plants, animals, man (and woman), etc. but does not teach about evolution post-abiogenesis. Interpretations of Genesis one and two as supporting abiogenesis is problematic at best. However, I do not see a problem with interpretations of post-abiogenesis. It is entirely possible that God instituted natural systems to "manage" His creation. So my issue is not with evolution itself per se but with how much evolution the TEs claim has occurred.

The TEs argument for abiogenesis is full of holes and cannot be proven. The claim that "similar" equals "same" is a fallacy. This fallacy includes the textual view that Genesis one and two are renditions of previous, extant texts that are "similar" to the scripture's accounts and the "physical" view that archeological fossils prove a common ancestor for man. There is no credible and universally accepted scientific theory regarding both of these fallacies. In fact, when faced with the dilemma that the fossil record is incomplete and too sparse to prove vertical evolution, the theory of punctuated equilibrium was posited in the hopes that it would explain the lack of fossil evidence that archeologists and other scientists were expecting to find. In other words, the theory of evolution (vertical) was posited first with the hopes of being able to falsify it later. Darwin was very much aware of this dilemma.

Is an interesting debate.

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

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Not only are you speaking against the word of God with this, but you are blaspheming God by saying the image of God is a chimp. That is some kind of evil right there.

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.

 

[Alithis]

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.

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

 

[Metal Minister]

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.

Aside from the fact that it mentions the dust of the ground? Also, it isn't so much the mechanism used, only that deep time evolution is contrary to God's word. Count how many times the term And it was good/very good) in Genesis 1 and then contrast that to its uses throughout the rest of the bible. You'll notice that God says that what He made was "Very good" only before the fall. If He was using disease, mutations and death to create how could He call that "Very Good"? Also contrast that in that the NT, it states that death entered the world by one man (Adam), with the constant use of death for deep time evolution.