Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[justlookinla]

Yeah, dodging the evidence so you don't have to address it. Same story, different post.

The evidence is the product of a fertile imagination.

 

[justlookinla]

And yet, you've got vestigial digits on your feet.

Subjective conclusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Regardless of the imagined failings of evolutionary theory, it will never be abandoned until a better theory comes along to replace it.

Or until the Creator shows up and pwns it.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Vestigial? Says who? God designed us this way, he decides how many digits we have, regardless of how useful they are or not.

Whales have vestigial hind legs. They evolved from four legged land mammals. Cetaceans, in my opinion is one of the most interesting pieces of evidence for evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Humans are apes.

And we're bananas too. Or is it bananas are us?

Depends on how one looks at life.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Vestigial? Says who? God designed us this way, he decides how many digits we have, regardless of how useful they are or not.

Well, the design was done by the means of common descent and selection.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

And we're bananas too. Or is it bananas are us?

Depends on how one looks at life.

You don't know how the tree of life works. All you seem to be able to do is build strawman arguments that demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about what evolution states. Open a book.

 

[justlookinla]

Macrevolution = microevolution + time.

= all life forms we observe today? I guess if one has enough faith, one could believe that.

 

[food4thought]

It's complicated.

Part of the reason so many reject evolution is because of their understanding of what the Bible says. I personally think there are minimal problems outside Genesis 1-2, but understanding those 2 chapters in a way that honors Biblical inspiration and can coexist with evolution does present some difficulty.

Another reason is because evolutionary theory has not been able to account for some things very well, meaning it doesn't have all the answers yet, which leaves plenty of stuff for debate if one is not inclined to accept the theory based upon just a preponderance of evidence, but instead want answers to some very difficult questions before changing what they believe about what the Bible says. One example would be the rate of beneficial mutations needed for just the difference between us and our nearest ancestors... from what I understand the rate of beneficial mutations currently measured cannot bring about the kind of changes we see between humans and apes in the time frame that paleontology suggests (no, I don't remember where I heard this).

But for me it's not so much about the evidence that causes me to doubt macro-evolution as it is about the lack of evidence for abiogenesis... if we cannot demonstrate how life could come from non-life, we are left with the need to account for it by some other way... aside from natural processes, that probably means a designer (I can't think of any other options). If life in general requires a designer, then why do I need a theory, one that happens to cause problems with my understanding of my Scripture, to account for the diversity of life when I can account for it just fine with a designer?

Just to be clear, I do not doubt that life changes over time (even the bible recognizes that), but I do doubt that all the biodiversity we see today descended from one simple cell some 4 billion years ago.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, the design was done by the means of common descent and selection.

Only mutation 'made' it....allegedly. Natural selection only populated that which existed.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And we're bananas too. Or is it bananas are us?

Depends on how one looks at life.

That's not how the "we are" game is played. You don't look for the differences. You look for the similarities, traced back to the roots of the great tree of life. In this case - bananas vs humans - the relevant root would be those life forms that developed a cell with a nucleus. "We're both Eukaryotes!"

 

[justlookinla]

You don't know how the tree of life works. All you seem to be able to do is build strawman arguments that demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about what evolution states. Open a book.

This 'tree of life' is nothing more than more fertile imaginations of man.

Apparently you don't know about your banana cousin.

 

[justlookinla]

That's not how the "we are" game is played. You don't look for the differences. You look for the similarities, traced back to the roots of the great tree of life. In this case - bananas vs humans - the relevant root would be those life forms that developed a cell with a nucleus. "We're both Eukaryotes!"

Thing is, there's not a life form close to the human life form in it's ability, complexity and function.

Any comparison to other life forms is simply a exercise in futility.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

This 'tree of life' is nothing more than more fertile imaginations of man.

Nope. Mountains of evidence that you ignore to protect your deeply held beliefs.

I'd be shocked if you could ever manage an argument that isn't a logical fallacy.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope. Mountains of evidence that you ignore to protect your deeply held beliefs.

I'd be shocked if you could ever manage an argument that isn't a logical fallacy.

The mountain of evidence is also the product of a fertile imagination.

 

[lasthero]

It's complicated.

Part of the reason so many reject evolution

This is a minor thing, but it always bugs me - 'many' do not reject evolution. Some do. A small minority worldwide, and the vast majority of them are people with a very poor understanding of it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's complicated.

Part of the reason so many reject evolution is because of their understanding of what the Bible says. I personally think there are minimal problems outside Genesis 1-2, but understanding those 2 chapters in a way that honors Biblical inspiration and can coexist with evolution does present some difficulty.

Another reason is because evolutionary theory has not been able to account for some things very well, meaning it doesn't have all the answers yet, which leaves plenty of stuff for debate if one is not inclined to accept the theory based upon just a preponderance of evidence, but instead want answers to some very difficult questions before changing what they believe about what the Bible says. One example would be the rate of beneficial mutations needed for just the difference between us and our nearest ancestors... from what I understand the rate of beneficial mutations currently measured cannot bring about the kind of changes we see between humans and apes in the time frame that paleontology suggests (no, I don't remember where I heard this).

But for me it's not so much about the evidence that causes me to doubt macro-evolution as it is about the lack of evidence for abiogenesis... if we cannot demonstrate how life could come from non-life, we are left with the need to account for it by some other way... aside from natural processes, that probably means a designer (I can't think of any other options). If life in general requires a designer, then why do I need a theory, one that happens to cause problems with my understanding of my Scripture, to account for the diversity of life when I can account for it just fine with a designer?

Just to be clear, I do not doubt that life changes over time (even the bible recognizes that), but I do doubt that all the biodiversity we see today descended from one simple cell some 4 billion years ago.

Even if the first life form were created by a miracle instead of forming from natural reactions, that would not rule out evolution afterwards.

But lets think about the rate of evolution. Say a given gene mutation takes about 200 generations to take over a population, when actively selected for. Say at any one time there are about 3 beneficial mutations working their way into the whole population. Say a generation among evolving proto-humans is 15 years. Then in a million years one could accumulate . . . hmmm . . . 3 times 1 million divided by 15 divided by 200 . . . a thousand beneficial mutations.

I see no reason why there could not be 10 or 20 beneficial mutations working into a population at any one time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because evolution is lie. There, I answered the OP. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Denial is not an answer. It is a psychological issue.

 

[food4thought]

This is a minor thing, but it always bugs me - 'many' do not reject evolution. Some do. A small minority worldwide, and the vast majority of them are people with a very poor understanding of it.

There are millions of evangelical Christians who doubt evolution... forgive me if you think many overstates millions.

 

[justlookinla]

Even if the first life form were created by a miracle instead of forming from natural reactions, that would not rule out evolution afterwards.

But lets think about the rate of evolution. Say a given gene mutation takes about 200 generations to take over a population, when actively selected for. Say at any one time there are about 3 beneficial mutations working their way into the whole population. Say a generation among evolving proto-humans is 15 years. Then in a million years one could accumulate . . . hmmm . . . 3 times 1 million divided by 15 divided by 200 . . . a thousand beneficial mutations.

I see no reason why there could not be 10 or 20 beneficial mutations working into a population at any one time.

Or detrimental mutations?