Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[JonFromMinnesota]

No rabbit hole, just stating facts.

Write your paper then. I'm not going to dance for you.

Funny you should say that. As of yet I haven't seen any evidence for evolution, only speculation.

Mountains of it here.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=Evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=0,24

Funny you should say that. Your deeply held fantasies require you to ignore everything contradictory to them.

Is it fantasy when it can be observed, repeatedly tested and predicted?

I have asked many evolutionists how life began and many of them have replied "abiogenesis" so it is a claim of evolutionaries.

Can you cite any experts that say this?

 

[thisgospel]

Do you mean this question?

How do you account for so many atheists believing that God does not exist when they cannot produce a skerrick of evidence to prove it.
​

It's a non-sensical question.

Hundreds of thousands of scientists, who know far more about the subject than you or I ever will, do believe there is overwhelming evidence that supports evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prizewinners.[3]
​

Many of these scientists are not atheists. Many of these scientists are christians.

Also...
Over 13,000 christian clergy support evolution.

Now, again, how do you account for the fact that very many christians believe in biological evolution?

God has provided a non-sensical answer. He choose a non-sensical method to save us.


For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18)

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. (1 Corinthians 1:19)

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (1 Corinthians 1:21)

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: (1 Corinthians 1:22)

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; (1 Corinthians 1:23)

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:24)

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Corinthians 1:25)

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: (1 Corinthians 1:26)

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (1 Corinthians 1:27)

And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: (1 Corinthians 1:28)

That no flesh should glory in his presence. (1 Corinthians 1:29)

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: (1 Corinthians 1:30)

That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 1:31)


God is using the Gospel to separate the wheat from the tares.

 

[justlookinla]

How very deceptive of you to try taking a quote out of context. The very next sentence reads:

Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.​

Here is the entire letter with my emphasis:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

​

Please point out in the letter where the clergy is embracing, promoting or accepting the view of Godless evolution? We both know you're not going to do that for it's not there. There's a word which, for some reason, you didn't highlight and it's essential to the letter. The word is "CREATOR". Now, reconcile that with evolution.

Try again.

 

[ecco]

ecco:

Also...
Over 13,000 christian clergy support evolution.

Now, again, how do you account for the fact that very many christians believe in biological evolution?​

Still misleading. You can't reference a single Christian who promotes Godless Darwinist evolution. Christians are theistic concerning creation.

You insist on using the term godless evolution. I used biological evolution.
Let's just call it evolution.

Over 13,000 christian clergy support evolution.
Now, again, how do you account for the fact that very many christians believe in evolution?

 

[justlookinla]

Write your paper then. I'm not going to dance for you.

Give your evidence then. Remember, links are worthless without content. You've been very consistent in your attempt to post worthless links and claim it's evidence.

Mountains of it here.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=Evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=0,24

Yep, here you go with your worthless links. Where's the content? Actually offer evidence.

Is it fantasy when it can be observed, repeatedly tested and predicted?

It's pseudo-science until it can be observed, tested and a conclusion can be made based on the scientific method. Guesses and suppositions, worthless links, meaningless claims.....none are the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

ecco:

Also...
Over 13,000 christian clergy support evolution.

Now, again, how do you account for the fact that very many christians believe in biological evolution?​

You insist on using the term godless evolution. I used biological evolution.
Let's just call it evolution.

Over 13,000 christian clergy support evolution.
Now, again, how do you account for the fact that very many christians believe in evolution?

No Christian believes in Godless evolution. You keep trying to make misleading claims suggesting that Godless evolution is a position embraced by Christians. It's not. It's rejected by Christians.

 

[jackcv]

Dr Francis Collins is the head of the Genome Project. He is also a devout Christian. I am sure that he would be delighted about your pronouncement of his faith.

Though I think random evolution as the origin of species is ridiculous on the face of it, I have to agree with SteveB28 on this one point. There are many faithful Christian scientists who accept directed evolution (think, Divine GMO). There are also many nice, misguided scientists who attend Christian churches. Why should scientists be any different than the rest of us?

Oh my. Are there still some of you around?

Here is where SteveB28 shows that you are getting close to his ignorance and weakness. Still, his next statement is very true, and very important to understand:

Dear girl, all science is "theory"! Please learn this simple concept, even if you learn nothing else from my words.

Ask a scientist, "When do you consider something proven?" The one word answer will shock you:


"Never." In other words, as SteveB28 says, scientists never know whether their theories are true. Never. They are all just "theory."

If you want truth, think hard, gather facts, make conclusions, then ask God to confirm or redirect your conclusions. The great multi-faceted French scientist Poincare said that there is a “purely aesthetic feeling” that every mathematician knows and relies on to select among the infinity of possible solutions to ANY mathematical problem, though it tends to bring sneers from the lay public who hear about it. The greatest doctors I’ve observed have relied on their “6th sense” in addition to their training. It is, I believe, the difference between healers and book-learned rubes.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let her ask of God, who giveth to all His children liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given.​

But be careful. When God has answered your questions, you are not authorized to tell anyone else. He probably wants to tell their question(s) Himself, as He did yours. He knows their hearts, capacities, and responsibilities - and loves them - far better than you or I. Point them to Him, as I have you. He does answer humble, sincere questions, asked with real intent to do what He directs the asker to do in service of His children.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

~After looking through this thread, a convicting thought takes over~

A protestant evolutionist is more times then not also a liberal protestant who supports gay marriage. To all those, I ask to insert something in your ideology that differs from secular humanism here: _________________

Makes you wonder if there was ever a point in Scripture and Christ in the first place, since man has all the answers and all. There's nothing like a Christian by name, atheist by trade.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Give your evidence then. Remember, links are worthless without content. You've been very consistent in your attempt to post worthless links and claim it's evidence.

Go back to the thread your started a couple weeks ago. Plenty of content there for you.
You ignore it. It's not worth debating with you. You've made it clear that no evidence will change your mind because you have to hold onto your beliefs. Just out of curiosity, what would evidence look like to you? Be specific. I predict you'll avoid this question.

 

[Gene2memE]

I have asked many evolutionists how life began and many of them have replied "abiogenesis" so it is a claim of evolutionaries.

Evolution explains the mechanisms for the diversification of pre-existing life forms.
Aboigenesis attempts to explain the origin of life from earlier, simple organic compounds.

Do you not understand the concepts and their differences? They're related - you can't have evolution without life - but distinctly separate fields.

 

[jackcv]

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein

As is usual, this quote is almost certainly not by the famous person to whom it is commonly attributed, in this case, Einstein. However, It is a common sentiment among many very educated persons. One was C.S. Lewis, who made a very similar observation numerous times. For example:

"I have come to the conviction that if you cannot translate your thoughts into uneducated language, then your thoughts were confused."

(C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, in an essay entitled “Christian Apologetics”)​

http://forum.quoteland.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/99191541/m/6411965616

 

[Armoured]

We are not talking about anything anywhere. We are talking about a specific article.

you want to hold this specific article to a higher standard of evidence than anything else in the entire edifice of scientific knowledge?

 

[jackcv]

That suggestion keeps coming up over and over. Can anybody think of any reason in the world that God would create the universe in such a way? How does one accept this idea and exonerate God from the accusation of being deceptive?

This explanation has absolutely nothing going for it except that it reconciles the findings of science with an earth only 6000 years old. There's no other reason to suggest it. There is no religious reason to predict it and no scientific reason to predict it. It only has its merit as a rescue mechanism for the young earth hypothesis in its favor.

Can't defend the 6,000 years idea, but I can reasonably postulate that a Being of light could, under Einstein's theory of Relativity, oversee in 6 of His days natural processes that took 6 billion years on earth.

 

[Armoured]

Can't defend the 6,000 years idea, but I can reasonably postulate that a Being of light could, under Einstein's theory of Relativity, oversee in 6 of His days natural processes that took 6 billion years on earth.

Um... I don't know that that works. Seriously, just get over the idea of a LITERAL 6 days, and this whole things gets much easier.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review. There is too much flaming.

 

[MissRowy]

MOD HAT ON
THIS THREAD IS BEING CLOSED PERMANENTLY
PLEASE REFRAIN FROM FLAMING OTHERS AND MAKING IT PERSONAL
FLAMING BANS WILL BE ISSUED TO THOSE WHO KEEP FLAMING
ABIDE BY THE SITE WIDE RULES IN FUTURE
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

From the Centre for Public Christianity, (CPX) a Centre that opened years ago with a letter of congratulation from our then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Christianity and Darwinism
Historically some of the most conservative Christians did not react to Darwin or evolution like today’s creationists. In 1855, four years before Origin of the Species was published, Charles Darwin was assiduously refining his arguments and collecting data in support of his theory. Darwin's key idea was that all life was descended from a common ancestor. Natural selection was the means by which life descended into its multiplicity of forms. In gathering his evidence, Darwin sought the assistance of Harvard University's professor of botany, Asa Gray. Gray is now regarded as America's foremost botanist of the nineteenth century. Few people were granted a preview of Darwin's explosive (and secretive) theory prior to publication. So it is a measure of Darwin's respect for Gray that he sent him an abstract in 1857.​

Gray was born in upstate New York and raised in a Christian home. However in early adulthood his spiritual outlook had drifted into an agnostic rationalism then popular among north-easterners. But when Gray moved to Harvard in 1842 he chose not to join the spiritualistic, unorthodox Unitarian chapel services which most of his colleagues attended. Instead, Gray transferred his membership to an evangelical Congregational church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His return to an evangelical faith was steadfast. Gray became a leading defender of Darwinism in America. He corresponded with Darwin at length, often turning to a Congregational minister, G.F. Wright (also an advocate for evolution) for theological expertise when dealing with Darwin's agnosticism.

by 1867 the phrase 'Christian Darwinism' was already in use to describe the vigorous defense of the theory by prominent conservative Christians

Despite his best efforts Gray never resolved Darwin's doubts. But this did not cause Gray himself to waver on either the scientific case for Darwinism, or its compatibility with orthodox Christianity. Gray was not a lone voice. Others including Princeton theologian James McCosh, James Iverach and Audrey Moore defended Darwinism in Britain as well as America. Indeed by 1867 the phrase 'Christian Darwinism' was already in use to describe the vigorous defense of the theory by prominent conservative Christians.


https://publicchristianity.org/library/the-history-of-creationism#.VigQOxArLUY

Excellent review and glad this was developed