Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[justlookinla]

I know you will continue to deny the evidence. Accepting the evidence would be against your religion.

I can make a similar statement. I know you'll continue to deny the evidence for intelligent design, it's against your religion.

Other's can make a similar statement...I know you'll continue to deny the evidence for a literal six day creation, it's against your religion.

See how that works? Claims without discussion.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I can make a similar statement. I know you'll continue to deny the evidence for intelligent design, it's against your religion.

Other's can make a similar statement...I know you'll continue to deny the evidence for a literal six day creation, it's against your religion.

See how that works? Claims without discussion.

Yup. Now please consider the evidence for whale evolution presented by the vestigial hip bones. Don't forget to include acknowledgement of the discovery of other transitional whale species.

And you can explain why similarity isn't evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

Yup. Now please consider the evidence for whale evolution presented by the vestigial hip bones. Don't forget to include acknowledgement of the discovery of other transitional whale species.

And you can explain why similarity isn't evidence.

Similarity results in a subjective conclusion. As you pointed out, it looks like....and then you made a guess, a supposition, biased by a preconceived evolutionary viewpoint.

That's not evidence for it's not a process based on the scientific method.

 

[Calminian]

God gave us science. ...

Technically, no, God did not give us science. God has given us the ability to reason and use logic.

Science is a man-made form of investigation. It's an epistemological system in which we recognize patterns in nature and then extrapolate from them. But the methods of science, themselves, strictly speaking, require that we preclude supernatural causes, and this is the big rub. When we try to apply it to the Bible as an absolute authority, we run into the problem of miracles and supernatural causation. Miracles are not uniform events and therefore wreck havoc on scientific calculations of time, since miracles negate the necessity of time.

All miracles (defined as special non-normative acts of God) are violations of science. This is why liberal theologians (like Bishop Spong for instance) dismiss all biblical miracles. They're just being true to science, and perhaps unaware are preferring science over scripture.

 

[Alawishis]

Well, yes, there is evidence for evolution. For example, one can see vestigial, useless bones in whale skeletons, easily explained as left overs from the evolutionary process, difficult to explain as the result of intelligent design process.

The shrinking island of so called vestigial structures. One by one we discover that structures that scientists were pretty sure were completely useless do in fact have function. Bones that look like they don't do anything actually provide an anchor to tendons and cartilage. Here is another example once thought to be irrefutable evidence, still occasionally paraded around as such.

A paper in the journal Evolution reports that rather than being a useless reminder of the evolutionary past, when whale ancestor Pakicetus strode the land on all fours, they in fact serve an unquestionably important purpose.
The pelvic bone supports the muscles that guide the penis. In male whales and other cetaceans, performance and thus successful sexual competition hinge on the size of the hips.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=DF4546AF7BD6BF84617C115219EFE6F0.f03t03
Article first published online: 20 OCT 2014 DOI: 10.1111/evo.12516​

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Similarity results in a subjective conclusion. As you pointed out, it looks like....and then you made a guess, a supposition, biased by a preconceived evolutionary viewpoint.

Where in this post does Paul say "looks like"?

Well, yes, there is evidence for evolution. For example, one can see vestigial, useless bones in whale skeletons, easily explained as left overs from the evolutionary process, difficult to explain as the result of intelligent design process.

You accused him of saying "looks like" as if it were a guess earlier here:

If you wish to present a view on the basis of 'looks like'

Misrepresenting someone is dishonest justlookinla. Are you going to address the evidence of vestigial bones in whales? It is not a matter of "looks like" as if it were a guess. VESTIGIAL BONES IS WHAT WE SEE!

 

[jacob2i]

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

Because the bible teaches the God created everything that was and is, including all the animals and Man himself.

There is no room in the bible for evolution.

 

[Bradley Harris]

To put it simply, the old testament proposes that the earth and life was made within 6 days, however evolution could NEVER happen in such a small space, it takes millions of years for it to occur

Here, I believe, is one possible underlying reason for the opposition between evolution's proponents and many of those within Christian camps who oppose evolution...American fundamentalist Christians, especially in and near the South, are among the most vehement anti-evolutionists. A look at pop-creationist literature says that much of it originates in the South. Overwhelmingly, it's literature by males. The same's true of literature from the Australian and other non-American sources. Those authors are men, almost all the time. They are men, most typically, who believe in one form or another of the subordination of women to men. This and other high control needs often hinge on "literal" interpretations of scripture. Being (like me) a Christian who buys evolution and an ancient earth requires non-literal interpretations. If the fundies let me have my evolutionist view, they can't have the literalist interpretations they require to satisfy their need for control.

It's interesting to note how much vitriol is tossed across the fence by fundamentalist anti-evolutionists. I and my ilk are never, it seems, "mistaken." We do not have an "incorrect view." No, we're immediately elevated to "liars" who commit "frauds." We're "evil," we're "fools," and (a couple of Kent Hovind favourites) "idiots" and "morons." Why, I'm given to wonder, all that rage? That kind of anger carries, to me, a thick whiff of intellectual and moral desperation.

 

[justlookinla]

Where in this post does Paul say "looks like"?

Didn't say he did.

You accused him of saying "looks like" as if it were a guess earlier here:

Review basic punctuation and the difference between single quotes and double quotes.

Misrepresenting someone is dishonest justlookinla.

I agree. This is exactly what you're doing about me.

Are you going to address the evidence of vestigial bones in whales? It is not a matter of "looks like" as if it were a guess.

Sure it's a guess. One has to surmise the purpose for the shape and location of the bones.

VESTIGIAL BONES IS WHAT WE SEE!

To you that's apparently what it 'looks like'...

 

[TheGuide]

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

It's because of ignorance based on bad Bible teaching from childhood.

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 were 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 were brought here from other planets while others emerged from below ground where people survived during the earth's dark and void age (there are ancient underground dwellings all over the world; no one knows how old they are, because stone cannot be carbon-dated).

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..." were probably thousands of civilizations that lived and were extinguished for whatever reason. A fate this age shall also face.

God bless,

The Guide

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Didn't say he did.

You did. You said he is saying "It looks like" when he is saying vestigial bones is what we see.
You misrepresent the post by saying:

If you wish to present a view on the basis of 'looks like'

When we look at the evidence for evolution, it is not a guess that "it looks like vestigial bones" THEY ARE VESTIGIAL BONES.

Are you going to address it or not? I'm going to guess you won't.

 

[2consider]

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

There are many reasons that a Christian should have a problem with evolution. The reasons you mention are examples of how it tears down the foundations for which the religion is built on. How can anyone understand the need for salvation, if they don't understand creation? The need for salvation is directly tied to creation.

Ken Ham explains it well here...

Beyond that, evolution is basically a man made concept, it presumes the answers to the problems facing mankind can be solved by men. This is tied directly to original sin, that is deciding that we don't need to follow god or his word. It's a humanistic approach to solving any problems.

Finally, there's virtually no solid evidence to support evolution! I see many people posting that many Christians believe in evolution, and that's to be expected when from our youth, the dogma of evolution is pounded into the subconscious. Children at 2, 3 4 years old are told by characters like Barney the Dinosaur that Dinosaurs are millions of years old, planting the seeds of doubt and seeds of acceptance of evolution. This indoctrination continues for as long as a person stays in the education system. I say indoctrination because that's what it is. Indoctrination is teaching one point of view and purposefully withholding any other points of view. I'll even go a step further and say the teaching of evolution is brainwashing, because the definition of brain washing is forced indoctrination, and we are all forced into the system of indoctrination.

Link to my youtube channel where I challenge evolution and other humanistic views.

 

[IvybyReader]

Why do people see things as black and white, this way or that way, right and wrong? I think it is how we interpret our world around us. I see our bodies as part of Earth, thus as part of evolution and we can physically see our bodies evolve over time as we age. Clearly they change and evolve. Yet our soul, the core of our being which gives us the gift of life, is from above... it is what we choose to believe, our reason for being, our energy and faith.

 

[justlookinla]

You did. You said he is saying "It looks like" when he is saying vestigial bones is what we see.
You misrepresent the post by saying:

No, I didn't. There's a difference between 'looks like' and "looks like".

When we look at the evidence for evolution, it is not a guess that "it looks like vestigial bones" THEY ARE VESTIGIAL BONES.

Are you going to address it or not? I'm going to guess you won't.

Call it whatever you think it 'looks like'. That's pretty well the basis for all your 'evidence' .

 

[BukiRob]

As new evidence comes along then science and religion need to re evaluate what they believe. In some cases people are stuck with their traditions and are resistant to change. Look at science. At one time a lot of babys died because the doctors did not wash their hands. When a doctor came along that advocated washing their hands he ended up getting fired for his efforts to try and save lives. So in science and religion they like to cling to their traditions and change is not always easy.

.

 

[rubyinprogress]

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

The idea that "science" can encompass origins is really quite ridiculous in itself. The scientific process involves observations and experimentation. Understood this way, evolution of species doesn't even qualify as a theory. It seems to be a hypothesis at best and as yet untested. The evidence that gets touted as "proof" of "evolution" supports change within species, or micro evolution. There is no genuine supporting evidence for macro evolution, or species to species change. The evolution that is supported by the science is micro evolution which is not incompatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis (6 day creation). As far as cosmology, there are many holes in the "Big Bang Theory." For example, it doesn't explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Science is a useful tool, but it is not the answer to every question. When we start trying to answer questions such as "where did we come from?" "Why am I here?" we enter the realm of philosophy and religion, not science.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Ken Ham explains it well here...

Ken Ham is a liar who intentionally misrepresents the theory of evolution on his website and continues to so even when he is shown his arguments are misrepresentations.

 

[gigman7]

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

First of all, the "theory of evolution" is a theory. Which means it has not been proven. It does not say that there was no Adam and Eve, the original sin, nor especially the coming of Jesus. It is possible that some of the theory is true but it does NOT disprove God or Jesus.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

First of all, the "theory of evolution" is a theory. Which means it has not been proven.

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.

 

[rubyinprogress]

I find it difficult to understand your stance if it's not because of your religious beliefs. I mean, actual scientists who have been educated to a higher standard than you in biology, paleontology etc, etc, and who work in these fields every day accept and research the evidence. Are they lying, deluded, conspiring to aid satan or what? Why are you so special that as an interested amateur you can tell professionals they're wrong?

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. Good science has often taken a back seat to the "herd" mentality. Scientific progress can only be made when people are willing to challenge assumptions. Einstein completely turned the status quo of his day on it's head. Galileo and Copernicus did as well. ACCEPTING macro evolution as fact is more likely to hinder the progress of science than advance it. Is there only one explanation for the phase shift in stars? No, but there is one that is touted as THE answer because it fits with the Big Bang theory. There have been several supposed discoveries of "missing links" that turned out to be pig bones and such. 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.