Why do many Christians find it hard to accept evolution?

[mark46]

Hm, this is an interesting point. Perhaps I am misled as to what traditional Christianity means. My assumption would have been that traditional Christians were similar to fundamentalist Christians. Thank you for pointing that out. Could you give me what your working definition of traditional is then?

This is from of Statement Of Purpose.


Definition of Traditional Christianity:

Traditional Christians hold to the traditional beliefs and customs of the early church that Jesus Christ established and believe they should be acknowledged and used in the development of the Church today. Traditional Christians believe that the Church and associated Tradition - especially from the Apostolic / early Church - guide us even today. These traditions include sources such as church councils and creeds, writings of the early Church Fathers, testimony of the Lives of the Saints, classic confessions of the faith, etc. Many traditional Christians believe that each Christian is involved in a movement toward God, commonly known as theosis or sanctification. Traditional Christians recognize a variety of sacraments and sacramental acts including, but not limited to; Baptism, Holy Communion (Eucharist), Confession and Absolution, Chrismation (confirmation) etc., and consider them to be additional means whereby God imparts His grace on those who have faith.
====================
I should note that there are many "conservative" Protestants that have similar views on science as the fundamentalists. Many do not. And certainly, the so-called liberal or so-called mainstream Protestant churches in the US are decidedly not anti-science.
===================
For example, we are traditional in the sense that we believe God is truly present in the Eucharist; it is not a symbol only. Of course, we have many different ideas of the detail of this dogma of our faith. We believe that the traditions of the Church are important. We believe that the very idea of Church is important.

 

[SeventyOne]

Ok, it's obvious to me you're unwilling to discuss then in any sort of way that is conducive to both sides. If you're going to say evolution is wrong and then site the big bang, that's an argument in bad faith. If you can't distinguish between things that are different then I can't discuss anything substantive with you.

EDIT: that is to say, if you want to talk evolution, we can. If you want to talk cosmology we can. But stop acting as if they are the same. Why not include mathematics in your statement? Or Chemistry? Or mythology? Because they have nothing to do with the others.

What's to discuss? You can't even call it what it is.

No. I have no interest in discussing the foundation of fairy tales.

 

[mark46]

God sent lying spirits in the Bible though. And the only time Satan appears is when he tempts Jesus in the garden and appears as an agent of God in Job who's like a prosecutor. The serpent in Genesis is just a serpent.

have you ever wondered how anyone could be convinced of anything by a serpent?
A much better translation is "dragon".

 

[Knollds]

What's to discuss? You can't even call it what it is.

No. I have no interest in discussing the foundation of fairy tales.

You are literally the one who cannot call it what it is!! Wow. What is the definition of evolution to you?

 

[mark46]

IMHO, the argument is whether to believe that God has created fossils, stars, and sorts of scientific evidence to deceive us, or to enlighten us.

 

[Knollds]

IMHO, the argument is whether to believe that God has created fossils, stars, and sorts of scientific evidence to deceive us, or to enlighten us.

An interesting point indeed.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hm, this is an interesting point. Perhaps I am misled as to what traditional Christianity means. My assumption would have been that traditional Christians were similar to fundamentalist Christians. Thank you for pointing that out. Could you give me what your working definition of traditional is then?

I see the definition of Traditional Christians was already posted. These tend to be the more ancient Churches, or at least those with ties to them that maintain something if the Apostolic teaching which was received even before Scripture was canonized. We are generally sacramental as well.

Probably in many ways we are actually polar opposites of fundamental Christians, who tend to hold to Scripture without any influence from Tradition or outside understanding, with the result being they are more likely to insist upon a literal interpretation in more cases. Thus their common reasons for rejecting evolution will not be the same as some Traditional Christians have.

Catholics are Traditional Christians. From what I have heard of various Catholic teachers, it seems they are more likely to consider that part of Scripture as metaphor in order to allow them to embrace current scientific opinion. They have historically (over the past near-thousand years that I have read) not been anti-science.

Orthodox are also Traditional Christians. Among us you will most likely find more that reject evolution as taught, but not because we consider Scripture to be a science book (we don't), nor because we insist upon a literal reading of Scripture in every case (we don't). But what we DO hold to are the wisdom of the Church Fathers and Apostolic wisdom. It is far from anti-intellectualism. In fact, there are extremely deep intellectual thinkers in the history of the Church. But you must understand that Darwin didn't introduce the idea of evolution. It was a thought many centuries ago, in various forms, and rejected by the Church Fathers.

I can't really speak for the other Traditions represented here. My guess is that you'd find both opinions among Anglicans. Perhaps more leaning one way or the other among other groups. To my knowledge, none of the Churches have actually dogmatized a position. But I do know Orthodoxy has much in the understanding from the Apostolic Church that would have to be discarded unless some alternative way of understanding were reached.

If your question was why evolution is rejected, I think I've at least touched on the major reasons, which will be different for different groups of Christians. But simple literal insistence "because that's what the Bible says" won't be a real reason for Traditional Christians.



I stopped discussing such things a while back for good reasons of my own, but my background was initially in the biological sciences, and I studied under eminent professors in the field. Let me just say this ... when you begin to take the work very seriously, put aside what you're simply told to memorize and learn, and set out to demonstrate it more fully (my aim was to produce a better curriculum and I fully expected to be able to pull evidence together and do so) ... it is a bitter pill to swallow, but it's not so easy to "prove" as those who graduate with the training might expect.

Of course, on the other side of the coin, many of the "creation scientists" are an absolute embarrassment and would be more credible to their cause if they said nothing.

But if one is able to obtain true objectivity, what I found is that things are not as cut and dried as I was led to think. Like I said, a bitter pill to swallow, having invested a number of years of my life and many thousands of dollars, not to mention building a reputation for myself within at least my corner of the scientific community.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Incidentally, I will say one more thing. Believing that God created humanity ... does not necessitate a young earth, in my own opinion. Maybe because I'm not an expert in geology, but I have no problem with the earth and the cosmos being of any given age. There are indications that the creation of angels predated the creation that concerns us (mankind) ... so there is no reason to think necessarily that nothing at all existed 6 days before man. I actually doubt that very much.

 

[Knollds]

I see the definition of Traditional Christians was already posted. These tend to be the more ancient Churches, or at least those with ties to them that maintain something if the Apostolic teaching which was received even before Scripture was canonized. We are generally sacramental as well.

Probably in many ways we are actually polar opposites of fundamental Christians, who tend to hold to Scripture without any influence from Tradition or outside understanding, with the result being they are more likely to insist upon a literal interpretation in more cases. Thus their common reasons for rejecting evolution will not be the same as some Traditional Christians have.

Catholics are Traditional Christians. From what I have heard of various Catholic teachers, it seems they are more likely to consider that part of Scripture as metaphor in order to allow them to embrace current scientific opinion. They have historically (over the past near-thousand years that I have read) not been anti-science.

Orthodox are also Traditional Christians. Among us you will most likely find more that reject evolution as taught, but not because we consider Scripture to be a science book (we don't), nor because we insist upon a literal reading of Scripture in every case (we don't). But what we DO hold to are the wisdom of the Church Fathers and Apostolic wisdom. It is far from anti-intellectualism. In fact, there are extremely deep intellectual thinkers in the history of the Church. But you must understand that Darwin didn't introduce the idea of evolution. It was a thought many centuries ago, in various forms, and rejected by the Church Fathers.

I can't really speak for the other Traditions represented here. My guess is that you'd find both opinions among Anglicans. Perhaps more leaning one way or the other among other groups. To my knowledge, none of the Churches have actually dogmatized a position. But I do know Orthodoxy has much in the understanding from the Apostolic Church that would have to be discarded unless some alternative way of understanding were reached.

If your question was why evolution is rejected, I think I've at least touched on the major reasons, which will be different for different groups of Christians. But simple literal insistence "because that's what the Bible says" won't be a real reason for Traditional Christians.



I stopped discussing such things a while back for good reasons of my own, but my background was initially in the biological sciences, and I studied under eminent professors in the field. Let me just say this ... when you begin to take the work very seriously, put aside what you're simply told to memorize and learn, and set out to demonstrate it more fully (my aim was to produce a better curriculum and I fully expected to be able to pull evidence together and do so) ... it is a bitter pill to swallow, but it's not so easy to "prove" as those who graduate with the training might expect.

Of course, on the other side of the coin, many of the "creation scientists" are an absolute embarrassment and would be more credible to their cause if they said nothing.

But if one is able to obtain true objectivity, what I found is that things are not as cut and dried as I was led to think. Like I said, a bitter pill to swallow, having invested a number of years of my life and many thousands of dollars, not to mention building a reputation for myself within at least my corner of the scientific community.

I appreciate the well written response. Thank you for your take on traditional Christianity, it has been informative. As to the topic of the thread, your statements are appealing to authority and I can't say I find them convincing, not that you were trying to convince me, I know this. But I'm afraid I cannot simply take it at your word (an anonymous Christian forum poster) that the evidence is 'grey' with regard to whether or not evolution happens on the basis that you claim to have been an accomplished scientist. I understand why people may shy away from this topic and will not press you to divulge further information about yourself or to engage deeper with this topic. Let me just say that the assertion alone is not enough to cause me to believe otherwise from my current position. From what I have seen, the evidence has been quite forthcoming.

 

[Knollds]

Incidentally, I will say one more thing. Believing that God created humanity ... does not necessitate a young earth, in my own opinion. Maybe because I'm not an expert in geology, but I have no problem with the earth and the cosmos being of any given age. There are indications that the creation of angels predated the creation that concerns us (mankind) ... so there is no reason to think necessarily that nothing at all existed 6 days before man. I actually doubt that very much.

This is the point I'm hoping to make. The age of the universe seems quite well established. It doesn't seem to contradict the existence of God, nor the existence of sin, nor Jesus, nor any other salvation doctrine. Well said sir.

 

[mark46]

I'm a bit confused.

You asked the views of traditional Christians.

Anastasia posted the views of Eastern Orthodox Christians. She also provided information with regard to other Christians.

On what are you trying to be convinced? Are you trying to be convinced whether the scientific explanation of the origin of man is acceptable to the Church? Obviously, it is not sufficient.

I appreciate the well written response. Thank you for your take on traditional Christianity, it has been informative. As to the topic of the thread, your statements are appealing to authority and I can't say I find them convincing, not that you were trying to convince me, I know this. But I'm afraid I cannot simply take it at your word (an anonymous Christian forum poster) that the evidence is 'grey' with regard to whether or not evolution happens on the basis that you claim to have been an accomplished scientist. I understand why people may shy away from this topic and will not press you to divulge further information about yourself or to engage deeper with this topic. Let me just say that the assertion alone is not enough to cause me to believe otherwise from my current position. From what I have seen, the evidence has been quite forthcoming.

 

[prodromos]

even the most basic science texts show examples
As I recall, moths of different colors can evolve into new species within a relatively short amount of time.

No. They are the same species. What you refer to is where one of two colour variations in the same species became dominant because the other was more easily spotted by predators due to pollution caused by industrialization. When the situation was reversed however, the numbers of each variation went back to normal. If it had continued until the genes of one colour variation were wiped out, what you have is not evolution but loss of genetic diversity which would be almost the complete opposite of evolution.

 

[Knollds]

I'm a bit confused.

You asked the views of traditional Christians.

Anastasia posted the views of Eastern Orthodox Christians. She also provided information with regard to other Christians.

On what are you trying to be convinced? Are you trying to be convinced whether the scientific explanation of the origin of man is acceptable to the Church? Obviously, it is not sufficient.

He stated that he made a study of the biological sciences and, despite being very well educated and at least locally known for his studies, he did not find the evidence for evolution quite as convincing as he had been led to believe previously. Evolution, remember, is the topic of the thread, which he was responding to also.

"If your question was why evolution is rejected, I think I've at least touched on the major reasons, which will be different for different groups of Christians. But simple literal insistence "because that's what the Bible says" won't be a real reason for Traditional Christians.
I stopped discussing such things a while back for good reasons of my own, but my background was initially in the biological sciences, and I studied under eminent professors in the field. Let me just say this ... when you begin to take the work very seriously, put aside what you're simply told to memorize and learn, and set out to demonstrate it more fully (my aim was to produce a better curriculum and I fully expected to be able to pull evidence together and do so) ... it is a bitter pill to swallow, but it's not so easy to "prove" as those who graduate with the training might expect.
Of course, on the other side of the coin, many of the "creation scientists" are an absolute embarrassment and would be more credible to their cause if they said nothing. "

 

[Knollds]

No. They are the same species. What you refer to is where one of two colour variations in the same species became dominant because the other was more easily spotted by predators due to pollution caused by industrialization. When the situation was reversed however, the numbers of each variation went back to normal. If it had continued until the genes of one colour variation were wiped out, what you have is not evolution but loss of genetic diversity which would be almost the complete opposite of evolution.

It is not, actually, the opposite of evolution. Although the rest of what you said related to moths is correct, this is not an example of speciation. However, you seem to be ignoring the other examples posted to attack the one weakest example on the thread.

 

[prodromos]

He stated

Anastasia is a "she"

 

[Knollds]

Anastasia is a "she"

My mistake. It does not overtly state the gender without clicking on their profile.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I appreciate the well written response. Thank you for your take on traditional Christianity, it has been informative. As to the topic of the thread, your statements are appealing to authority and I can't say I find them convincing, not that you were trying to convince me, I know this. But I'm afraid I cannot simply take it at your word (an anonymous Christian forum poster) that the evidence is 'grey' with regard to whether or not evolution happens on the basis that you claim to have been an accomplished scientist. I understand why people may shy away from this topic and will not press you to divulge further information about yourself or to engage deeper with this topic. Let me just say that the assertion alone is not enough to cause me to believe otherwise from my current position. From what I have seen, the evidence has been quite forthcoming.

I would not call myself "an accomplished scientist". Even if I were, I wouldn't call myself one. At best, I will say that I was well-regarded in my circles, and I'm sure you must know that this had to be sacrificed for the sake of my conclusions.

And no, I wasn't trying to convince you, you are correct. If I were, I suppose I would lay out what I found, what I didn't, what my conclusions were, and so on. But I have found that to be unfruitful - interestingly enough whether the person I was dialoging with understood my points, or not. There is generally a strong "unchangeableness" on this particular belief. And since many have managed to reconcile it with their Christianity, it would be a doubly fruitless endeavor.

At most, I invite people to take up the challenge and do what I did. Set out to prove it, write a better demonstration than current textbooks provide, build your own framework of evidence rather than simply hanging everything you're given on the (wobbly) one provided. (Not you personally, just you whoever.)

It is just an enlightening endeavor I thought I'd share. That is all.

But it was intensive work for me, even though I had the background as well as access to some of the necessary resources at the time. The average person would be unlikely to have either. So it might be impossible I realize. Or they might not have the inclination. Again, if your faith is intact without it, you would be unlikely to put forth the necessary effort.

I do find the ECF's explanations, and the early Church's understanding, of mankind, God, the fall, sin, death, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, salvation, restoration, and all the rest to fit together into a glorious tapestry that it is impossible to fully appreciate without seeing how and why death is the enemy, and Christ's victory over death is primary. But again, that took much effort to understand, with me coming from a modern Protestant western mindset. It was more than worth it though. It is a far more glorious and coherent understanding of history and salvation, and even paints a much clearer picture of God Himself, and our relationship to Him. I wouldn't trade that for anything.



But no, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I wasn't at first even going to include my own opinions and experiences in my replies. I rarely speak of it anymore.

 

[~Anastasia~]

My mistake. It does not overtly state the gender without clicking on their profile.

The name ... is the feminized form of the Greek Anastasi - meaning Resurrection. But a lot of folks wouldn't realize that. You aren't the first one this week even. No worries.

 

[Catherineanne]

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, of course. The Lord and the Apostles confirmed what Moses wrote about 1,400 years later as being accurate and true. If the Bible's story of Creation is a lie, why did they choose to perpetuate it

It is not a lie, it is a story. Different thing entirely.

Homer's Odyssey and Illiad; stories. Some historical content buried away in there, somewhere, but not exact literal accounts of an actual event as it happened, with the people who were there, written by a passing journalist. Creation myths; exactly the same.

Modern objective journalism is NOT a feature of Scripture.

 

[Divide]

Actually there are plenty of resources that can help you discover the answer to that question. In some cases, as a point of example, a whole gene is copied whole and then genetic mutations alter this gene, resulting in 'new information.' The idea of information used here is not really accurate.

Further another interesting point in relation to this is that information is always new. Here is a simple example.

Let's say you have the word
DICTIONARY
That's information, I think we can agree. If some of those letters get scrambled, to, let's say...
INDICATORY (as in indicative)
That's a new word! It even has a totally different meaning! The issue comes in that it doesn't even need to be that precise. Let's just say it scrambles to
DICTIONAYR
That's not a word, but if this was DNA, what that would mean is that this gene would produce a slightly different protein, which would serve a different function. Is this not new information either? Let's go further and use the example from the opening paragraph.

DICTIONARY becomes DICTIONARYDICTIONARY and then becomes OITDRIARDYOYINCCTINA. All the same letters are there, but would you say it's the same information? Is it new information?

With all due respect, that does not make sense either, Brother. The quantum field has shown scientifically that the genes are like little factories and super computers. Well we all know how super computers work...data entry. Garbage in garbage out da da da. All an animal can do is know it's cold. It can't just magically grow fur if it didn't have it before, without new data entry.

Same thing with a dictionary. People make new entries into it and it expands. This is usually done, after the new word has come into use and is being used. Like Aint used to not be in there, but is now.

Besides, what's with the gene splicing that they're trying to do now? If what you say is true, then genetics wouldn't be working on splicing genes, thereby adding new information into the chain of DNA manually...

So the field of genetics and gene splicing denounces the theory of evolution on it's face. Why haven't we evolved into super humans already on our own?
Why do they try manually to do it?

The big lie. We'll be super beings one day for sure...after Jesus comes back.