Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[food4thought]

Fair enough.

It seems to me that if the thinking is "something as complicated as life could not have arisen without a designer" (and please tell me if that is not a fair summation of your thinking), then the insertion of a designer doesn't actually solve the problem, but instead just pushes it back one step. Because that designer must be at least as complicated as the life that it creates and, therefore, that means you're left with exactly the same question about the designer.

The usual answer to this is that God created himself, or that God is eternal or outside of time, but are these arguments not just special pleading? A request to apply a certain rigidity of logic to the question of abiogenesis that you then exempt the existence of God from?

Since the God of the Bible created the universe, He must therefore transcend the universe. Relativity theory has demonstrated that time varies with gravity (or mass and speed) and is intracately linked with space, and they have done a very good job of establishing this truth to many decimal places. To me, and many people smarter than me, this indicates that time is a property of our physical universe. If God stands outside the universe, then He must also stand outside time. If God stands outside time, then the idea of cause and effect goes out the window, therefore God does not need a cause/creator, He simply is, and from our perspective inside time He always has been and always will be. So it is my understanding that the claim that God needs a creator/cause is based upon false assumptions.

Obviously, you were not surprised by this answer. Oh well. But it is not special pleading, it is a truth readily discernible from logic based upon what the Bible says about God and what we know of the physical universe. We have no reason, aside from the denial of a Creator, to think that abiogenesis could happen... every theory I have encountered is falsifiable.

The question you asked was why do you need a theory to explain life when you have one that satisfies you. The answer is - because your theory might not be true. Whether you find having the right answer to be more important than having just any answer is entirely up to you. On a personal level, there's absolutely nothing wrong with you filling in any blanks with whatever you choose - be that answer the Christian God, Vishnu, Ra, hyperintelligent aliens, or whatever. But if you're interested in what actually is true, rather than what you'd like to think is true, then more rigorous questioning is required.

As for evolution vs. abiogenesis, it's been said a few times on this thread, but there really is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it. It can perhaps seem a little more nebulous than some other thories. Relativity has some far more far-out concepts than evolution does, but you can test it. They've taken synchronised atomic clocks and flown one around the world at fast speeds and have shown that when that gets back to Earth it shows a different time to the one on the ground. Sat-navs have to take both special and general relativity into account in order to be accurate. So, even though relativity has some very counter-intuitive parts to it, you can hold things in your hands which make use of it, and you can practically test it.

Evolutionary theory is somewhat more nebulous. The kinds of predictions is makes are what sequences we should expect to see in the DNA of bonobos, or where and in what strata of rock we should find a certain kind of fossil. It doesn't have the immediacy or the tangibility of something like relativity.

But what it does have is masses and masses of evidence supporting it. If you were to do some research with an open mind, looking at non-Apologetic sources, and took the time to really understand why the evidence points where it does, I think you might surprise yourself with how credible you find it.

Bottom line... I am not inclined to believe that it is true for several reasons, not JUST my faith. No one has the time or energy to study everything for themselves exhaustively, and I have chosen other things to study in depth. I find the question of evolution to be far less important than the existence of God and judgment... so I direct my energies in that direction. I only posted here to state my opinion on the matter, not to defend it rigorously, so forgive me if I bow out of the discussion.

 

[joshua 1 9]

In which case, if what you mean by "the random theorys" is that there is a random process involved, the claim I'm going to have to ask you to support is the claim that it's only a minority of evolutionary scientists that believe that random mutation plays a role in evolution. Quote me a published, scientific paper by an evolutionary biologist which cites, uses or attempts to establish a model of evolution which does not involve random mutation.

What you want supported is a direct quote from Berkeley University. So your going to have to talk to them about supporting their claim. I do not want to get in the way of you and them. What you do not seem to realize it that there is a huge amount of disagreement between evolutionists. The concept of punctuated equilibrium was, to some, a radical new idea when it was first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. Now it is widely recognized as a useful model for one kind of evolutionary change. The relative importance of punctuated and gradual patterns of evolution is a subject of debate and research. So your theory pretty much has more holes in it then swiss cheese and I did not put them there, they were created by your fellow evolutionists.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Since the God of the Bible created the universe, He must therefore transcend the universe. Relativity theory has demonstrated that time varies with gravity (or mass and speed) and is intracately linked with space, and they have done a very good job of establishing this truth to many decimal places. To me, and many people smarter than me, this indicates that time is a property of our physical universe. If God stands outside the universe, then He must also stand outside time. If God stands outside time, then the idea of cause and effect goes out the window, therefore God does not need a cause/creator, He simply is, and from our perspective inside time He always has been and always will be. So it is my understanding that the claim that God needs a creator/cause is based upon false assumptions.

Obviously, you were not surprised by this answer. Oh well. But it is not special pleading, it is a truth readily discernible from logic based upon what the Bible says about God and what we know of the physical universe. We have no reason, aside from the denial of a Creator, to think that abiogenesis could happen... every theory I have encountered is falsifiable.





Bottom line... I am not inclined to believe that it is true for several reasons, not JUST my faith. No one has the time or energy to study everything for themselves exhaustively, and I have chosen other things to study in depth. I find the question of evolution to be far less important than the existence of God and judgment... so I direct my energies in that direction. I only posted here to state my opinion on the matter, not to defend it rigorously, so forgive me if I bow out of the discussion.

One theory is that there are multiple or even an infinite number of universes. That would mean God is what joins all the different universes or dimensions together in unity.

 

[AV1611VET]

I explained exactly why this example of yours doesn't support the interpretation you're giving it yesterday. What you've posted here is a lie - the evidence did not support thalidomide as a safe drug to take during pregnancy.

As you seemingly have no problem lying, I can only suggest you read what the Bible says about liars and in which direction they're headed when they die.

...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Since the God of the Bible created the universe, He must therefore transcend the universe. Relativity theory has demonstrated that time varies with gravity (or mass and speed) and is intracately linked with space, and they have done a very good job of establishing this truth to many decimal places. To me, and many people smarter than me, this indicates that time is a property of our physical universe. If God stands outside the universe, then He must also stand outside time. If God stands outside time, then the idea of cause and effect goes out the window, therefore God does not need a cause/creator, He simply is, and from our perspective inside time He always has been and always will be. So it is my understanding that the claim that God needs a creator/cause is based upon false assumptions.

You could say the same about any cause of the Big Bang, could you not?

But it is not special pleading, it is a truth readily discernible from logic based upon what the Bible says about God and what we know of the physical universe.

Saying that the laws of physics and logic apply to everything except God is the very definition of special pleading.

We have no reason, aside from the denial of a Creator, to think that abiogenesis could happen... every theory I have encountered is falsifiable.

We have no reason, aside from a desire to believe, to think that a Creator could exist.

Bottom line... I am not inclined to believe that it is true for several reasons, not JUST my faith. No one has the time or energy to study everything for themselves exhaustively, and I have chosen other things to study in depth. I find the question of evolution to be far less important than the existence of God and judgment... so I direct my energies in that direction. I only posted here to state my opinion on the matter, not to defend it rigorously, so forgive me if I bow out of the discussion.

One of the joys of evolution is that it's actually a remarkably simple theory, and doesn't require a great deal of study to understand.

But, as I said, if you beliefs bring you comfort, then it's entirely up to you whether that alone is good enough for you.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What you want supported is a direct quote from Berkeley University.

No. There's nothing in that quote I disagree with. What I'm asking you to provide support for is the assertions in this post:

Yes I am talking more about the random theory which a lot of evolutionists reject. They are esp fast to claim that natural selection is not random. Some evolutionists do try to depend on various random theorys though.

Nothing you have yet cited comes close to supporting those assertions.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

...

Either you believe in the literalism of the Bible, or you don't. And if you really do, then you need to accept that it says that those who lie will end up in hell. So you ought to think about the honesty of your arguments.

And if you don't believe in the literalism of the Bible, then there should be no problem reconciling evolutionary theory with Genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Either you believe in the literalism of the Bible, or you don't. And if you really do, then you need to accept that it says that those who lie will end up in hell. So you ought to think about the honesty of your arguments.

And if you don't believe in the literalism of the Bible, then there should be no problem reconciling evolutionary theory with Genesis.

For your information:

Researchers at Chemie Grünenthal also found that thalidomide was a particularly effective antiemetic that had an inhibitory effect on morning sickness. Hence, on October 1, 1957, the company launched thalidomide and began aggressively marketing it under the trade name Contergan. It was proclaimed a "wonder drug" for insomnia, coughs, colds and headaches.

SOURCE

That sure sounds like evidence shows it to be a prenatal wonder drug to me.

If you think otherwise, that's your prerogative, but calling me a liar is a cheap shot.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That sure sounds like evidence shows it to be a prenatal wonder drug to me.

As I pointed out to you yesterday, it was never tested whether or not the drug crossed the placental barrier.

If you think otherwise, that's your prerogative, but calling me a liar is a cheap shot.

Ignoring evidence that you do not wish to be true is lying. Misrepresenting evidence is lying. Cherry-picking evidence is lying.

But, hey, it's not me you're going to have to answer to for it, is it? Either you believe what you claim to believe or you don't, and if you truly think that God will be fooled by your legerdemain, then knock yourself out.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I pointed out to you yesterday, it was never tested whether or not the drug crossed the placental barrier.

Bologna -- you mean thoroughly tested, don't you?

During this time period, the use of medications during pregnancy was not strictly controlled, and drugs were not thoroughly tested for potential harm to the foetus. Thousands of pregnant women took the drug to relieve their symptoms. At the time of the drug's development, scientists did not believe any drug taken by a pregnant woman could pass across the placental barrier and harm the developing foetus, even though the effect of alcohol on foetal development had been documented by case studies on alcoholic mothers since at least 1957. There soon appeared reports of findings of abnormalities in children being born, traced back to the use of the drug thalidomide. In late 1959, it was noticed that peripheral neuritis developed in patients who took the drug over a period of time, and it was only after this point that thalidomide ceased to be provided over the counter.
Hence, while initially considered safe, the drug was responsible for teratogenic deformities in children born after their mothers used it during pregnancies, prior to the third trimester. In November 1961, thalidomide was taken off the market due to massive pressure from the press and public.

SOURCE

Note also:

On 31 August 2012, Grünenthal chief executive Harald F. Stock, PhD, who served as the Chief Executive Officer of Grünenthal GmbH from January 2009 to May 28, 2013 and was also a Member of Executive Board until May 28, 2013, apologized for the first time for producing the drug and remaining silent about the birth defects. At a ceremony, Stock unveiled a statue of a disabled child to symbolize those harmed by thalidomide and apologized for not trying to reach out to victims for over 50 years. At the time of the apology, there were 5,000 to 6,000 sufferers still alive. Victim advocates called the apology "insulting" and "too little, too late", and criticized the company for not compensating victims. They also criticized the company for their claim that no one could have known the harm the drug caused, arguing that there were plenty of red flags at the time.

SOURCE

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Evolution helps medicine develop better treatments for disease, by understand how bacteria and other disease causing agents, evolve and adapt.

Next time you go to your physician, ask them how evolution has benefited medicine. You likely won't like the answer.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01

And yet despite your and their claims (the die-hards) they do not prepare next years flu shots on the random possibility that it might mutate randomly. They understand which one is likely to pop up next, because actual mutation experiments have shown them it is all pre-ordained.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf


But of course you will have us all believe that they are able to predict which flu virus is likely to strike this year because it's all random. Yah - if you all say so, lol.

 

[joshua 1 9]

x

You miss understand me. I am not saying anything different then what Berkeley university is saying.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Next time you go to your physician, ask them how evolution has benefited medicine. You likely won't like the answer.

There would not be an answer because it has nothing to do with them and their job.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Either you believe in the literalism of the Bible, or you don't. And if you really do, then you need to accept that it says that those who lie will end up in hell. So you ought to think about the honesty of your arguments.

And if you don't believe in the literalism of the Bible, then there should be no problem reconciling evolutionary theory with Genesis.

I accept the literalism of the Bible. I reject your understanding of the Bible. We have the Holy Spirit of God to guide us and to lead us into the truth. So we do not need a man to tell us what the Bible says.

But the anointing which you have received of him abideth in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1John2 27

 

[bhsmte]

There would not be an answer because it has nothing to do with them and their job.

The best way to find out, would be to ask them.

 

[bhsmte]

No... nor does evolution explain in any rational manner how life started, how life evolved, and how species came to be.. without Intelligent Design to put the pieces effectively together for change to happen. This random mutation idea doesn't quite hold it all together neatly ... and in fact leaves almost everything to speculation, where Intelligent Design, which assumes the marshaling of intelligent features and explanations to make things function.

Science already seems to be leaning towards the fact that cells are intelligent or work intelligently, that change, adaptations, and species are driven by the environment and opportunity or need. This can only happen with Intelligent Design, and Intelligent Design, in my opinion, couldn't happen without God kicking it off in the first place.

One thing that also seems to illustrate this is reproductive organs of man and woman. Explain this development without intelligence...

Do you mean the intelligent design that lacks a scientific definition of what it actually is and is absent a falsifiable test to determine if and when it is present?

Do you mean the intelligent design, in which their key witness (Dr. Behe), was exposed under oath during the Dover trial and admitted; if intelligent design is considered science, then astrology would also have to be considered science?

 

[bhsmte]

I can't speak for everyone, only myself... my doubts stem from not seeing compelling evidence and some scientific questions.

What have you done personally, to explore and understand the evidence, from a scientific point of view?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Bologna -- you mean thoroughly tested, don't you?

No, I mean tested. Your own source says: "At the time of the drug's development, scientists did not believe any drug taken by a pregnant woman could pass across the placental barrier and harm the developing foetus".

 

[jackcv]

Thanks for the reply. It's taking the thread a little off topic though in the rest of your post. If you'd like to have a discussion outside the topic of this thread, feel free to PM me.

Quick note, JonFromMinnesota. The topic of this thread is not whether evolution is true, but "why is Christianity opposed to the theory?"

To sum up my post, macroevolution is pleasing to the pride and hubris of people who think they are wise, but are not. A child can correctly answer the classic question about finding a watch in the forest, but her college educated father gets lost in the mass of conjecture and confusion speculating about oxygen levels 300 million years ago and such, losing track of the simple fact that organization is deliberately created or it automatically degrades. Trying to be independent makes us stupid.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You miss understand me. I am not saying anything different then what Berkeley university is saying.

You have said both that there is a "random theory" that "a lot of evolutionists reject" and that "some evolutionists do try to depend on various random theorys". If by "random theory" you are doing exactly what I initially said you were, and which you are now claiming that you are doing - "conflating the fact that evolution by natural selection relies on random mutations with the idea that the theory itself is entirely random" - then you are saying that "a lot" of evolutionary scientists reject this. That is what I am asking you to provide evidence for, by citing a published scientific paper that does so. The Berkeley link is not even close to being that.