Why do many Christians find it hard to accept evolution?

[prodromos]

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.

What were the other examples? I only remember salamanders.

 

[Knollds]

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.

Haha, I know that he name is female, but many people do not use names indicative of themselves in an online persona.

 

[Knollds]

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.

I didn't mean to imply that you were bragging about yourself when I said accomplished, simply that you meant that, at least in a local context, you were known for your understanding. I thank you for your openness, however limited, in sharing about yourself. Like I said, I will not try to force any more out of you than you've shared already. Your challenge is sound, but I am not a biological scientist and would not be capable of writing a whole curriculum based on it. As a layman who has a strong interest in the subject however, what I have found in the way of evidence has been quite convincing. Unless someone can show me where it 'wobbles,' it seems obvious to me, and seemingly to the predominant scientific community, that evolution happens. Barring evidence to the contrary, I doubt I'll be convinced of the converse. Which leaves us where we started it seems. Both Christians who disagree on evolution. Thank you for your input! You have answered the question that this thread was based on in your own way and I appreciate the conversation we've had.

P.S. If you do ever want to speak further on this, or direct me to somewhere I can discover these answers myself, I'd be open to that. It need not be public like this. That said, my field of study is Theology and Language (I'm a certified American Sign Language Interpreter), so I won't be getting a PhD in biology any time soon. =D All I can do is rely on the information and evidence I encounter or discover. Thank you for your time in all this so far!

 

[Knollds]

What were the other examples? I only remember salamanders.

Plants. Just scroll.

 

[Knollds]

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.

The quantum field shows this? No it certainly does not. It does not even relate to genetics in the slightest. DNA is a chemical reaction, not a computer. It has information in a more analogous way to a .jpeg file or similar. An encoding that, given the right stimuli will result in a specific result, but a different one with different stimuli. It has information, but it's information in the same way that a snowflake has information that dictates exactly what shape it forms.

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.

An animal doesn't magically grow fur ever. This is a misunderstanding of what evolution is.

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.

Right, which is why a dictionary is not analogous to evolution. Information is not added in this way. It is selected for only.

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?

Evolution does not have a goal. Why would we not be trying to gene splice? What on earth does this have to do with evolution? It supports the theory on it's face. If we can manipulate gene code to result in different things, then if those same things were selected for in nature, then it would result in the same outcome. Genetics is one of the strongest fields in support of evolution. To say that this... discounts it is showing your misunderstanding of the basics of evolutionary theory.

Thank you for your replies!

 

[Divide]

The quantum field shows this? No it certainly does not. It does not even relate to genetics in the slightest. DNA is a chemical reaction, not a computer. It has information in a more analogous way to a .jpeg file or similar. An encoding that, given the right stimuli will result in a specific result, but a different one with different stimuli. It has information, but it's information in the same way that a snowflake has information that dictates exactly what shape it forms.


An animal doesn't magically grow fur ever. This is a misunderstanding of what evolution is.


Right, which is why a dictionary is not analogous to evolution. Information is not added in this way. It is selected for only.


Evolution does not have a goal. Why would we not be trying to gene splice? What on earth does this have to do with evolution? It supports the theory on it's face. If we can manipulate gene code to result in different things, then if those same things were selected for in nature, then it would result in the same outcome. Genetics is one of the strongest fields in support of evolution. To say that this... discounts it is showing your misunderstanding of the basics of evolutionary theory.

Thank you for your replies!

No, you have more research to do there Brother. What's it have to do with evolution? Plenty. Hiding God and playing God. Let no man deceive you Brother. Jesus repeatedly admonished this to all of us in scripture. Genesis is literal history. And you can't cherry pick scriptures. You either believe it or you don't. You don't seem to believe it.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Throughout history, there have been many Christian groups that see Science and Faith in conflict. This has always been a strange notion. Unfortunately, this anti-intellectualism crops up in almost every generation.

Scientific evidence is wholly irrelevant for such folks. Science itself is the enemy. Only individual interpretation of Scripture is really acceptable.

Some believe that the earth is 6 or 7000 years old. Some believe that Obama was born in Kenya. In another era, they would argue that the earth is flat. And, of course, we have several storms of the century every year or so, as acts of judgement against our country.

I wish I could say that people would argue the Earth was flat "in another era".

 

[Knollds]

No, you have more research to do there Brother. What's it have to do with evolution? Plenty. Hiding God and playing God. Let no man deceive you Brother. Jesus repeatedly admonished this to all of us in scripture. Genesis is literal history. And you can't cherry pick scriptures. You either believe it or you don't. You don't seem to believe it.

Ok, looks like you've run out of things of substance to say. You have obviously not done research into this as it is apparent to anyone who has studied this at all that you are unfamiliar with what the theory of evolution even describes. Thank you for your time.

 

[CrystalDragon]

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.

The Apostles thought Jesus would come back in their day. They were sure of it. I honestly don't think it's ever going to happen.

 

[prodromos]

The easiest to see an example of species that demonstrably CAN'T breed together are some examples of plants that we have artificially selected for such as Brussel Sprouts, who cannot breed with the prior population they were derived from.

Brussel Sprouts can't breed with the prior population because they are vile and bitter. Dating sites won't even allow them to register.

 

[mark46]

W

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.

We need to understand that Scripture was written in many different forms, including history, poetry and lots of others.

Some folks are literalists. For them, every iota of Scripture must be considered to be literally true. This is a relatively new dogma.

Biblical inerrancy is another dogma. Most traditionalists would accept the Roman view that Scripture is true in all that it says with regard to faith and morality. And yes, we disagree with regard to the interpretation of various scriptural ideas and even doctrines.

Of course, we ALL believe that God created the heavens and the earth(and perhaps earths spending on translation). The key dogma is that the triune God created heaven and earth. Certainly, there must be room for various faith communities to differ with regard to exactly HOW and in how many days God created, and what methods he used. We are all spiritual beings. When did that first happen here on earth. I haven't a clue. However, I do know that it is God who created His Spirit into mankind.

I am not sure that I understand why the writers of Scripture should be expected to conform to our own ideas of literary forms. God used many ways to reveal himself to those who wrote Scripture. And, so, there are many forms in Scripture. Jews are very clear that the OT contains different kinds of writings. The first five books are very different in form and even in importance from later portions of Scripture, for example the Book Of Ester where God isn't even mentioned.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I didn't mean to imply that you were bragging about yourself when I said accomplished, simply that you meant that, at least in a local context, you were known for your understanding. I thank you for your openness, however limited, in sharing about yourself. Like I said, I will not try to force any more out of you than you've shared already. Your challenge is sound, but I am not a biological scientist and would not be capable of writing a whole curriculum based on it. As a layman who has a strong interest in the subject however, what I have found in the way of evidence has been quite convincing. Unless someone can show me where it 'wobbles,' it seems obvious to me, and seemingly to the predominant scientific community, that evolution happens. Barring evidence to the contrary, I doubt I'll be convinced of the converse. Which leaves us where we started it seems. Both Christians who disagree on evolution. Thank you for your input! You have answered the question that this thread was based on in your own way and I appreciate the conversation we've had.

P.S. If you do ever want to speak further on this, or direct me to somewhere I can discover these answers myself, I'd be open to that. It need not be public like this. That said, my field of study is Theology and Language (I'm a certified American Sign Language Interpreter), so I won't be getting a PhD in biology any time soon. =D All I can do is rely on the information and evidence I encounter or discover. Thank you for your time in all this so far!

You are most welcome. Actually I thank you for pointing that out, in case I ever divulge that again. One of my main reasons for mentioning the regard I once held was that it was not easy to give that up, along with the recognition that I had invested a great deal of time, effort, and money on something that turned out to be less reliable than I had at first assumed. But I don't want to sound like I'm bragging, or most especially not sound like I'm saying that someone should believe me simply because I am "such an expert" or any such thing.

If I ever find a good resource, I will have to make a note of it. The problem is that it is too spread out and a lot of background would have to be applied. And I'm not good at simplifying enough. Not to mention, as I said, people's opinion one way or another tends to be EXTREMELY persistent. That in itself is interesting. I suppose I am a rarity for having jumped over the fence. Most people will adjust their understanding of Scripture, create ways to make it fit together in their minds, dismiss the scientific claims out of hand, or perform any other of a number of ways to make themselves mentally comfortable with whatever their beliefs and convictions are. It may be impossible for me (or someone else) to say anything to affect that, so I don't try anymore. Besides, there is always the danger of getting someone halfway, and having them go off in another direction, and perhaps they would end up with damaged faith or what have you ... and I never want to be responsible for that. God has everyone in hand. It's not my job to convince anyone of anything. I don't have an alternate scientific theory to explain everything anyway ... I only know of some of the assumptions and problems with what is accepted. I myself have to accept a certain amount of mystery, most especially where the age of the earth and cosmos itself is concerned. But that is secondary enough to faith that I can live with it comfortably enough.

God be with you.

 

[Divide]

Ok, looks like you've run out of things of substance to say. You have obviously not done research into this as it is apparent to anyone who has studied this at all that you are unfamiliar with what the theory of evolution even describes. Thank you for your time.

I don't research it anymore. I did for a while but not now. They don't teach bank tellers how to spot counterfeits by showing them bad bills. They do it by showing them good bills.
I know that you could lay down a long treatise to explain it all and how it supposedly works since the revisions, but I've found in the past that it's an excercise in frustration and a waste of time. There's too much good still to be learned out of the scriptures themselves.

God is not the author of confusion. It's all really very simple. I do not need a complete understanding of the theory of evolution to be able to know that it's totally wrong and a lie. No offense.

 

[Targaryen]

I don't research it anymore. I did for a while but not now. They don't teach bank tellers how to spot counterfeits by showing them bad bills. They do it by showing them good bills.
I know that you could lay down a long treatise to explain it all and how it supposedly works since the revisions, but I've found in the past that it's an exercise in frustration and a waste of time. There's too much good still to be learned out of the scriptures themselves.

God is not the author of confusion. It's all really very simple. I do not need a complete understanding of the theory of evolution to be able to know that it's totally wrong and a lie. No offense.

So your evidence to back this up is....allegory about bank tellers?

So scientific fact is somehow a giant myth, that we're supposed to ignore evidence that points in a certain direction yet does not do anything to negate the spiritual truth of God creating the universe and his plan involved evolution as it's driver?

I'm not offended but I am quite baffled.

 

[prodromos]

So scientific fact is somehow a giant

I've discovered over the years that many scientific facts, aren't.

 

[Targaryen]

I've discovered over the years that many scientific facts, aren't.

Yes, but those facts that were once held as truth can get taken apart by better evidence. Allegory,isn't really that,wouldn't you say?

 

[Boogaloo]

Maybe this will answer your question and maybe not but I do recommend it!

Dancing With the Devil While Preaching Jesus!

 

[Targaryen]

Ken Ham ugh.....

PASS

 

[mark46]

I've discovered over the years that many scientific facts, aren't.

One is free to choose to accept the scientific method, and science to explain the intricacies of this world, one is free to reject science.

This choice does not affect the dogmas of our faith, at least not among most Christian communities.

As was pointed out earlier, the Vatican makes this clear for Roman Catholics. Of course, the Vatican accepts science, as it has for over 1000 years.

 

[Boogaloo]

Ken Ham ugh.....

PASS

Well sure, but the subject is not what he usually preaches so maybe you could give it a look see?