Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Spireguy]

(In latin Scientia meaning knowledge, where we get the term science from) The Science of Philosophy, the Science of Theology, the Science of Metaphysics, the Science of Biology, the Science of History, the Science of Chemistry, the Science of Physics, ect. Let us recall that the term science simply means the knowledge of. The modern popular utilization of the term, usually, incorrectly excludes all "sciences" that are not physical or tangibly observable and therefore knowledgeable.

As Christians we believe in a God where all things are possible. God is a cosmic being that is beyond imagination. I, nor anyone else, should assume we know anything about God; if we believe in God this way. The only things we know about him is what has been revealed to us and God allows us to know.

It seems to me that God has made it clear that he is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He is existence.

I see no reason to think that, as amazing as he is, that he could not create something to change over time and dictate how that creation had changed and might still be changing. Evolution is not something that explains a beginning. Just like the Big Bang Theory was originally intended to only show why celestial bodies and stars are growing farther and farther apart not what started everything. (look up Fr. Georges Lemaître, Father of the Big Bang) To say God can't do this is putting him in a box. Granted by this reason God could have just as easily done it another way too.

Keep in mind the scriptures give us a gimps of God through what he as revealed to humanity. God is still greater than that which can be thought.

 

[2consider]

It's because of ignorance based on bad Bible teaching from childhood. The first chapter in the Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. The next verse says the earth was void and without form, and darkness was upon it. Now, between the "God created the heavens and the earth" and "the earth was void..." was a whole lot of civilizations that lived and were extinguished for whatever reason. A fate this age will surely face.

Adam and Eve was the beginning of a new age, our age, so God got the planet ready for life again before creating them to facilitate it with additional human life. People who hate evolution only calculate from the time Adam and Eve was born, which was some six-thousand plus years ago, and they try to fit the creation of this planet into that timeframe, despite evidence to the contrary.

Our evolution is based on our ever-advancing ability to develop and learn. We don't come from ape, that's a theory. We arrived from Adam and Eve, and I don't discount the possibility that some of us was brought here from other planets, and even from below ground where people survived while the earth laid dormant, dark and void (there are ancient underground dwelling all over the planet; no one knows how old they are, because stone cannot be carbon-dated).

Hopefully this helps.

"In the beginning, the earth was without form and void describes exactly what science describes. The big bang says, "in the beginning..." This makes it clear the universe had a beginning. Einstein confirmed this, thousands of years after the bible describes it.

Moving on, "the earth was without form and void." Science tells us that all mater, time, space and energy came into existence at the moment of the big bang, but it had no form. Science tells us that matter didn't have any form. In time, the matter became the stars and planets, taking on form.

The word void could indicate that after the earth was formed, it was void of life, but this doesn't seem to be the case, because it says, in the beginning, so it isn't referencing the earth, because there was no earth, it was just unformed matter. Void means nothingness or empty.

The phrase, in the beginning, the earth was without form, seems to describe what science calls the big bang. Out of nothing (the void) matter came into existence, then took form. This was how it began. This "Pemberish" (H.G Pember promoted this idea of recreation) idea that the earth was created and recreated doesn't fit the bible description.

The only reason to accept this idea of recreation is to make it fit with the humanistic view that we evolved. It's a compromise for those who want to believe the bible, but are not able to refute science.

 

[Heifer]

As should be clear from some of the responses in this thread, many Christians who reject evolution are pretty fuzzy about what the theory actually states (or even what a scientific theory is).

That's an ad hominem descriptive. Replace 'Christians' with any general category of 'Non-Christians' (such as 'Atheists'), and the accuracy of the description is the same.

 

[pat34lee]

Christianity isn't opposed to evolution; certain Christians and Christian sects (mostly Protestant, and mostly American) are. Lots of Christians were cautious about evolution, since it requires a reappraisal of our understanding of the origins, history and nature of humanity, and since it raises questions about the origins of sin. Vehement opposition to evolution, however, mostly stems from the fact that it became identified in the U.S. with the Modernist side of the Fundamentalist/Modernist split, and therefore became a marker for belonging to the wrong camp.

Most 'Christians' have no idea what the bible says, and don't believe sin or evil is real.

 

[Aman777]

I asked for a peer reviewed published paper. Not your copy/pasted ad-nauseam response that has been refuted umpteen times on this board.

Are you unable to provide a peer reviewed paper? Yes or no?

I will give you my peer reviewed published paper just as soon as you show me your endorsement from Liberty University. The only thing that has been refuted on this board is the False ToE. It's really silly to believe that Humans who were made some 14 Billion years ago, could have possibly evolved from the common ancestor of Apes who lived only 10 Million years ago. Ask one of your peer reviewed buddies to do the math for you. God Bless you

 

[2consider]

(In latin Scientia meaning knowledge, where we get the term science from) The Science of Philosophy, the Science of Theology, the Science of Metaphysics, the Science of Biology, the Science of History, the Science of Chemistry, the Science of Physics, ect. Let us recall that the term science simply means the knowledge of. The modern popular utilization of the term, usually, incorrectly excludes all "sciences" that are not physical or tangibly observable and therefore knowledgeable.

As Christians we believe in a God where all things are possible. God is a cosmic being that is beyond imagination. I, nor anyone else, should assume we know anything about God; if we believe in God this way. The only things we know about him is what has been revealed to us and God allows us to know.

It seems to me that God has made it clear that he is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He is existence.

I see no reason to think that, as amazing as he is, that he could not create something to change over time and dictate how that creation had changed and might still be changing. Evolution is not something that explains a beginning. Just like the Big Bang Theory was originally intended to only show why celestial bodies and stars are growing farther and farther apart not what started everything. (look up Fr. Georges Lemaître, Father of the Big Bang) To say God can't do this is putting him in a box. Granted by this reason God could have just as easily done it another way too.

Keep in mind the scriptures give us a gimps of God through what he as revealed to humanity. God is still greater than that which can be thought.

Sure he could create something that changes over time, but why would he? If he did create evolution and that is the means of our origin, then that means, we are not what god intended. We're just a by product of chance events, and that means, we don't have a personal relationship with god, we're just accidents.

Look, there is no reason to try to reconcile God with evolution. The theory of evolution is falling apart piece by piece. Instead of trying to reconcile the two differing views, try learning the details of both. A lot has been revealed to us, but it can't be gleaned without a through study of the word.

 

[rubyinprogress]

Your entire post was basically "I don't understand this, therefore it's false" That is an argument from ignorance. Your post here is confusing what the theory of evolution is. You are confusing it with abiogenesis, which is a completely separate study that is not a scientific theory yet. Evolution explains the diversity of life.

Ok, technically you are correct. Abiogenesis is a separate theory, but since both macro-evolution AND the transition from non-living matter to living organisms have to occur in order to explain what the Genesis account of creation explains, it makes sense to cover them in the same conversation. Even according to evolution, if life didn't begin it obviously couldn't evolve.

 

[GodB4S]

Evolution is a lie because the bible tells the truth! God did the creating not chance!

 

[bhsmte]

Is it because it refutes the idea of Adam and Eve, original sin, and coming of Jesus?
Or are there any other reasons?

Most Christians, agree with evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientific theories explain facts.

Like Phlogiston theory?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Do they? Are you sure about that? There are plenty of scientists out there that believe in evolution but admit that the evidence currently does not support it.

Well scientists are judged by their contributions to science and not their degree, so could you name ONE reputable biologist who states that there is no evidence.

Scientific progress can only be made when people are willing to challenge assumptions.

Evolution has been challenged for over 150 years. It has passed every test it's faced.

ACCEPTING macro evolution as fact is more likely to hinder the progress of science than advance it.

Why would it hinder scientific progress? Do scientists test new drugs that could advance medicine on rats for no reason or is it because the rat and human genome are 85% similar? "Macro evolution" has already been demonstrated as a fact. There is this massive fossil record but DNA & genetics is a slam dunk of evidence.

There have been several supposed discoveries of "missing links" that turned out to be pig bones and such.

Oh really? Name these several discoveries.
Tiktaalik says hi

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

I think it is more likely that the scientists lied to get funding for their research rather than deliberate conspiracy with Satan, but the end result is the same.

Research is subject to rigorous peer review. Peer reviewers try to disprove discoveries. Homo Naledi was discovered in 2013 but wasn't announced until this year. Why? Because it is subject to peer review. Why don't creationists write papers and have them peer reviewed in the relevant fields of study? Let me guess. BIAS!?

 

[Aman777]

Definition of a scientific theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Science isn't in the business of proving anything. Scientific theories explain facts.

Definition of a False Assumption: A scientific theory based on incomplete information. A good example is the False Theory of Evolution since it begins with the False Assumption that Humans had our origin on Planet Earth. This is totally FALSE since Adam, the common ancestor of ALL Humans, was made on the world which was totally destroyed in the Flood. ll Peter 3:3-7

 

[Spireguy]

Sure he could create something that changes over time, but why would he? If he did create evolution and that is the means of our origin, then that means, we are not what god intended. We're just a by product of chance events, and that means, we don't have a personal relationship with god, we're just accidents.

Look, there is no reason to try to reconcile God with evolution. The theory of evolution is falling apart piece by piece. Instead of trying to reconcile the two differing views, try learning the details of both. A lot has been revealed to us, but it can't be gleaned without a through study of the word.

Oh, ultimately I don't put too much stock in it either, but to be intellectually honest means to be open to all possibilities, which on the topic of what God did do, can do, and will do is just too enormous for us to make any exhaustive conclusions about.

Just to clarify I did mean to mention that God's creation changes with him being present and with him still having a hand on things every moment of existence. Part of this idea would infer that if humanity did develop from some form of animal the human soul would not have developed from an animal. There would have to be a certain point where God directly inserted the soul in to the equation. From what I understand Benedict XVI came up with a similar conclusion. It would be the only realistic way evolution and our Judaeo-Christian beliefs would make sense together.

 

[klatu]

Is it because it refutes the idea of Adam and Eve, original sin, and coming of Jesus?
Or are there any other reasons?

Evolution hardly refutes "idea of Adam and Eve, original sin, and coming of Jesus?" as even the church cannot with precision explain what the exact 'sin' or disobedience was that caused the Fall. And history has yet to agree upon the significance of Jesus. Yet evolution does strip away one particularly coveted religious idea shared by all monotheisms. That 'we' our species are created in the image and likeness of God. Yet even without evolution, the unfolding environmental crisis, exposing the appallingly destructive stewardship of the planet by our species, hardy suggests that we have anything to do with God. Without that wisdom of sustainability, our claims to be either moral or spiritual before God, look like the emperors new clothes!

 

[justlookinla]

Most Christians, agree with evolution.

I know I do. I'm a Christian who believes in evolution. But I don't believe in evolution.

 

[Spireguy]

Evolution is a lie because the bible tells the truth! God did the creating not chance!

Maybe God is the one to guide the change? We must have open minds when considering an all powerful being.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I will give you my peer reviewed published paper just as soon as you show me your endorsement from Liberty University.

Liberty University doesn't have a graduate or doctorate biology program. It doesn't publish scientific papers. So.....this would be like having your dentist look at your car. It's nonsensical.

Write your paper Aman and then have it peer reviewed in the relevant lines of study. Lets see if you can win this Nobel Prize!

It's really silly to believe that Humans who were made some 14 Billion years ago, could have possibly evolved from the common ancestor of Apes who lived only 10 Million years ago.

You're right this is silly.....because modern humans have only been around for no less than 100,000 years. You should really stop making up numbers Aman unless you are willing to write a paper and have it reviewed. You're just blowing smoke until you do this.

 

[Reyes4Christ]

Christianity denies evolution because creation is what God did. That is in accordance to how he works. To not believe that is to not believe the book of Genesis. Why be christian at all if you are willing to throw that out? Evolution is a lie that is in accordance to how satan works. If you study ancient pagan gods, you see that the deity stays the same (Tammuz for example) but the name used for him changes over time. But your still worshipping that original deity. Like how the catholic church added pagan deities into the church and called them Mary and saints. The lie satan uses to fool the religious is the same kind of lie he uses in the theory of evolution, so you know who it comes from because it is in accordance to how he works.
Saying that animals just change over time and yet remain separate and distinct species as well just doesn't work when we have so many animals becoming extinct and not one of them is evolving to survive. I am willing to give some thought to something like a bird changing the color of its feathers over long periods of time or when it migrates to new lands but not its species. With as many things as God is credited for in the bible one would think accepting creationism would be an easy task. When you have control over all of creation you can do whatever you feel like. We didn't get explanations in the bible of things that might have been buried for millennia, we were given an explanation of what was living on the surface after God parted the waters and such. Science and religion try to explain everything but neither can do so with absolute proof. It looks like this reality was set up in such a way to only allow for faith as a bridge between this reality Gods Kingdom. God said he created the sun and the stars and such and yet we put more faith in how science said they came together. God doesn't answer every "how" question because humans won't believe him anyway. They hardly believe he had a son, why should they believe the rest? Thats why the bible tells churches to not keep unrepentant people among them. They won't stop arguing long enough to properly worship their creator and savior.
Who cares what the non christ believing world thinks anyway? This world is satans kingdom right now and its all going to go away and not be remembered or missed when it is replaced with Gods kingdom. Evolution is not going to be the one making that happen, God is. And when that happens there are not going to be any evolutionists around to be able to debate it unless they repented and worshiped Jesus Christ as their savior.

 

[Kutte]

Is it because it refutes the idea of Adam and Eve, original sin, and coming of Jesus?
Or are there any other reasons?

It may be that we like to see things happen instantly. Instant coffee, instant soup, an instant Adam created out of dust in Eden, as well as an instant Eve from one of Adams ribs.

Kutte

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Abiogenesis is a separate theory

Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory. It is a study with hypothesis'. Science has not explained the origin of life yet.

it makes sense to cover them in the same conversation.

I disagree. Science doesn't have an answer yet on the origin of life. Evolution can explain the diversity of life with an overwhelming amount of evidence. Why would it make sense to talk about life's origin in the same conversation if science doesn't have an answer for it? I think that would be dishonest if science included something that it doesn't have an answer to yet into the conversation of something it does have an answer to.