Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Patmos]

I would like to jump in late in this thread. "Why do Christians have trouble with accepting evolution?

I do not believe in evolution as I have a strong mathematical bent. If statistics say it is impossible, then, in my opinion, it is impossible.

My own theory is that a big "D" should prepend evolution: Devolution.

The gene pool started big and has reduced ( not diversified) throughout all history. Less and less species walking the planet.

I think Darwin got it polar wrong. Some Bird finches in the Galapagos did not adapt to survive. Rather the opposite. Those not fitted to the environment died out, and pretty quickly, due to starvation when their environment changed.

The peppered moth is used as 'proof' of evolution as adaptation to the industrial revolution. I think the opposite, as industry increased, increased pollution, so the white moth was more exposed and fell victim to prey more than the dark moth.

Another example - Soldiers used to wear bright red uniform in battle, stuck out and got shot. When some one thought of camouflage they survived a lot better.

Thermodynamics/Entropy is another example - long story.

In short I think Darwin got things backward.

I'd be interested in others thoughts.

 

[ScottA]

I would like to jump in late in this thread. "Why do Christians have trouble with accepting evolution?

I do not believe in evolution as I have a strong mathematical bent. If statistics say it is impossible, then, in my opinion, it is impossible.

My own theory is that a big "D" should prepend evolution: Devolution.

The gene pool started big and has reduced ( not diversified) throughout all history. Less and less species walking the planet.

I think Darwin got it polar wrong. Some Bird finches in the Galapagos did not adapt to survive. Rather the opposite. Those not fitted to the environment died out, and pretty quickly, due to starvation when their environment changed.

The peppered moth is used as 'proof' of evolution as adaptation to the industrial revolution. I think the opposite, as industry increased, increased pollution, so the white moth was more exposed and fell victim to prey more than the dark moth.

Another example - Soldiers used to wear bright red uniform in battle, stuck out and got shot. When some one thought of camouflage they survived a lot better.

Thermodynamics/Entropy is another example - long story.

In short I think Darwin got things backward.

I'd be interested in others thoughts.

"Devolution" - that's awesome! That totally agrees with the reality of God: The world is passing away...as darkness turns to light.

 

[KWCrazy]

Well, in biblical geophysics, the earth is definitely flat, stand still, and everything revolves around it. So if you are going with a spherical earth, etc., then you yourself are challenging the authority of Scripture.

Not in the least.
God created natural law- (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25)
The earth is suspended in space- (Job 26:7)
The hydrologic cycle is explained- (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10)
Mountains rise and fall as tectonic plates shift- (Psalm 104:6, 8)
The sun rising and setting is written from the vantage point of people occupying the earth. We still use sunrise and sunset.
The Bible does NOT say the earth is flat.
The Bible actually teaches a spherical shape for the earth. In Isaiah 40:22 God is said to sit above “the circle of the earth” (the Hebrew word for circle can also mean a sphere). Also, in Luke 17:34–36, Christ's Second Coming is portrayed as occurring while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities — which means a rotating earth with day and night at the same time. source
You have to realize that while the Bible was written for man's understanding of his world at the time, it also had to be able to withstand the test of time and the revelations of later generations. It has done so. To this day, however, the unsaved continue to misrepresent the Bible in order to discredit it because they choose to reject that which is clearly taught and they choose to teach that which is clearly rejected. The Christian does well to avoid the claims of the unsaved and to instead revel in the the words of the Lord as they were given to men.

 

[Patmos]

"Devolution" - that's awesome! That totally agrees with the reality of God: The world is passing away...as darkness turns to light.

Thank you. I was thinking I was a lone nutter.

 

[KWCrazy]

My own theory is that a big "D" should prepend evolution: Devolution.
The gene pool started big and has reduced ( not diversified) throughout all history. Less and less species walking the planet.
I think Darwin got it polar wrong. Some Bird finches in the Galapagos did not adapt to survive. Rather the opposite. Those not fitted to the environment died out, and pretty quickly, due to starvation when their environment changed.

I've said much the same thing. We see adaptation, which is a conservative process. Nowhere is increasing complexity observed. Trying to force evolution in fruit flies only resulted in messed up fruit flies. Evolution is nothing more than an unbeliever saying, "Look! I've found an alternative to believing in God!"

 

[Patmos]

I've said much the same thing. We see adaptation, which is a conservative process. Nowhere is increasing complexity observed.

Exactly right.

Trying to force evolution in fruit flies only resulted in messed up fruit flies. Evolution is nothing more than an unbeliever saying, "Look! I've found an alternative to believing in God!"

Again, exactly right. Only harmful mutation ever occur. Never, ever has one species crossed over into a more advanced species.

Evolution is a bankrupt and false alternative; used by some world leaders to 'justify' human atrocities - Hitler, Pol Pot etc.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Genesis 1:20-31

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Folks, you either believe the Scriptures or you don't; it's that simple. Anyone who tells you this is allegory is just giving an excuse to not believe it. You either believe in millions of years of death and mutation or you believe what Genesis 1 teaches. As someone who was saved reading God's Word, I'll take Genesis 1 over secular theories any day.

 

[Archivist]

Genesis 1:20-31

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Folks, you either believe the Scriptures or you don't; it's that simple. Anyone who tells you this is allegory is just giving an excuse to not believe it. You either believe in millions of years of death and mutation or you believe what Genesis 1 teaches. As someone who was saved reading God's Word, I'll take Genesis 1 over secular theories any day.

So you believe that bats are birds?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I've learned my lesson. You can't convince people the Scriptures are true, because only the Spirit of God can do that. Bye, thread.

 

[Jadis40]

I don't see any conflict. I read Genesis as an allegory that tells us that God created everything, but not a scientific journal that tell us exactly how He did it.

BTW, here is the statement from my denomination on evolution and the Bible:

"The ELCA has not officially taken a position about evolution. The ELCA teaches that the scriptures witness that all of life is a gift of God. However, the scriptures do not say, for example, how God's creating word, "Let there be...," brings creatures into being. Lutheran tradition has respected the work of the natural sciences in investigating phenomena in the natural world and explaining how they work and how they originated. Because our knowledge both of God and of other things is partial (I Corinthians 13:9), what is accepted at any one time as valid scientific knowledge and theory can be either added to or corrected by further scientific investigation and better theories to explain the phenomena we see in the world."

I see that as a reasonable statement on the issue.

I see that as being reasonable too.

This is the position the United Methodist Church holds:

Science and Technology
We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology. We recognize medical, technical, and scientific technologies as legitimate uses of God’s natural world when such use enhances human life and enables all of God’s children to develop their God-given creative potential without violating our ethical convictions about the relationship of humanity to the natural world. We reexamine our ethical convictions as our understanding of the natural world increases. We find that as science expands human understanding of the natural world, our understanding of the mysteries of God’s creation and word are enhanced.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Yes, it certainly does, AGTG. And I take that to mean Scripture was not intended to be an accurate geophysical or scientific witness.

What you believe about the bible not being scientific is your problem because Adam and Eve are literal people spoken of in both the OT and the NT. And if you bothered to read the bible it even has the genealogy to prove that fact.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

I've learned my lesson. You can't convince people the Scriptures are true, because only the Spirit of God can do that. Bye, thread.

I agree you can't prove the bible to the unsaved that lack the Holy Spirit.

 

[keltoi]

I agree you can't prove the bible to the unsaved that lack the Holy Spirit.

Sometimes you can't even prove it to the saved.

 

[Extraneous]

So you believe that bats are birds?

Please explain to us your understanding of Genesis 1 and 2. We know both chapters are true scripture because Christ quotes them both. I believe the second chapter dealing with the garden is something i will be meditating on in the days to come. I think about the parable of the sower. I also think about how it refers to the field in chapter 2, and Paul says that we are Gods field. Im not sure if those two words mean the same thing, but im thinking that they probably do. Its not Profitable however to inject evolution theory into this spiritual teaching, because that only adds more to it than is intended, and causes contention as well.

 

[Archivist]

I've learned my lesson. You can't convince people the Scriptures are true, because only the Spirit of God can do that. Bye, thread.

It is a discussion thread. Don't expect that everyone is going to automatically accept your views.

I was thinking about the Parable of the Good Samaritan today. It is a parable, a story. Is it any less because the Samaritan wasn't a real person? I don't think so. That is my view of the creation stories in Genesis. They tell us that God is responsible for creating everything. We don't have to accept them as literal accounts of how God actually created us.

If that upsets people I'm sorry. You are, of course, free to your own interpretation of Scripture. If you want to believe that the Genesis creation accounts are actual historical accounts that's fine. Just don't tell me that it is wrong for me to say that they are not actual accounts.

 

[Extraneous]

What you believe about the bible not being scientific is your problem because Adam and Eve are literal people spoken of in both the OT and the NT. And if you bothered to read the bible it even has the genealogy to prove that fact.

Yes, the genealogy seems hard to ignore. If we say its false then we would need to say the same about Abraham, David and Moses. Critics of the bible would then use it to discount the scriptures.

 

[Extraneous]

It is a discussion thread. Don't expect that everyone is going to automatically accept you views.

I was thinking about the Parable of the Good Samaritan today. It is a parable, a story. Is it any less because the Samaritan wasn't a real person? I don't think so. That is my view of the creation stories in Genesis. They tell us that God is responsible for creating everything. We don't have to accept them as literal accounts of how God actually created us.

If that upsets people I'm sorry. You are, of course, free to your own interpretation of Scripture. If you want to believe that the Genesis creation accounts are actual historical accounts that's fine. Just don't tell me that it is wrong for me to say that they are not actual accounts.

You are free to to discount the genealogy in Genesis, and discount David, Abraham and Moses as well, but i dont see how that would be right.

 

[Archivist]

Please explain to us your understanding of Genesis 1 and 2. We know both chapters are true scripture because Christ quotes them both. I believe the second chapter dealing with the garden is something i will be meditating on in the days to come. I think about the parable of the sower. I also think about how it refers to the field in chapter 2, and Paul says that we are Gods field. Im not sure if those two words mean the same thing, but im thinking that they probably do. Its not Profitable however to inject evolution theory into this spiritual teaching, because that only adds more to it than is intended, and causes contention as well.

I've already explained that--the two accounts don't match. That does not bother me because I see them as allegories.

 

[Archivist]

You are free to to discount the genealogy in Genesis, and discount David, Abraham and Moses as well, but i dont see how that would be right.

And as I have said you are free to your own interpretations. if you want to accept them as actual historical accounts and that works for you, fine.

 

[keltoi]

I was thinking about the Parable of the Good Samaritan today. It is a parable, a story. Is it any less because the Samaritan wasn't a real person?

So a parable can in no way be based on real events then?