Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[iam13]

Other Christians choose to believe that the Bible is not, in fact, the inspired word of God, and people have gotten so smart over the last 300 years that we now realize there's no need for God.

Might better look at it like this..... we (and especially America) bought God for a dollar, and are mesmerized by that which is outside of us (Material). Anyhoo, Gods dead. And our Material consumption is what's led us to being the species accountable for hurling the planet into her 6th Mass Extinction (which has been proven scientifically). Evolution of Spirit comes from within. Also an act that doesn't deprive our mother; nature.

Personally, I happen to believe that some very, very keen sources, were able to somehow infiltrate the bibles production at some point, and hence have elements therein for their cause. I may even suggest that some of this source may very well not be human. (.. or human yet?). But for the most part the bible is truly a work inspired by the Grand Master of Creation. We just need to learn to live it.

 

[moneyholster]

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

NT Wright, a well respected Christian apologist and scholar, recommends the Hewbrew scholar John Walton's work. John Walton was a younh earther for most of his life, but after trying to interpret Genesis without bias, he came to the conclusion that it makes no scientific claim. This is a video that summarizes some of his interpretations:

Whether or not the scientific evidence leads you to young Earth creationism or another theory, it is not biblical to try and cut people off from the faith if they disagree.

 

[Heifer]

Can you point to a single difference between the human and chimp genomes that could not be produced by a microevolutionary event?

Are you claiming to have an infallible understanding of, and knowledge of, the mechanisms that actually exist---mechanisms for which the graph you present you presumably are presenting to represent?

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Evolutionists understand that the first life arose spontaneously through a process known as ‘Abiogenesis.’

Life began with the simple. How simple is simple?

The smallest ‘known’ genome that can constitute a cell is Mycoplasma genitalium. It consists of 521 genes (482 protein encoding genes) within one circular chromosome of 582,970 base pairs.

In the sphere of biology this is ‘incredibly simple’ – only 582,970 base pairs.

How would the first life-form compare? What elements would constitute its makeup?

The first simple life would have consisted of a selection of the following elements — Boron (B), Calcium (Ca), Carbon (C), Chlorine (Cl), Chromium (Cr), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Germanium (Ge), Hydrogen (H), Iodine (I), Iron (Fe), Magnesium (Mg), Manganese (Mn), Nitrogen (N), Oxygen (O), Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Selenium (Se), Silica (Si), Sodium (Na), Sulphur (S), Zinc (Zn).

These are the elements which are found within tissues, cells, and organisms — where all such elements are intricately arranged. Living creatures are built of this stuff.

First life? In the first life-form, the required elements all spontaneously came together perfectly positioned and intricately arranged so as to provide the all-important chromosome.

It was a spontaneous development. It was simple. It was perfect.

The single remarkable thing about it was that it could reproduce itself.

Evolution is simple. Life can only ever start with the simple, and with ongoing multiple simple steps it progresses to the complex.

See http://lifefromgod.com/evolution-is-simple/

For a creationist’s view, see http://lifefromgod.com/

 

[Loudmouth]

Whether or not the scientific evidence leads you to young Earth creationism or another theory, it is not biblical to try and cut people off from the faith if they disagree.

Even as an atheist, I would agree with that. What puzzles me is why Christians would require people to abandon knowledge, science, and reason in the name of Christianity. As one Christian writer and famous geneticist put it,

"Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

 

[bhsmte]

NT Wright, a well respected Christian apologist and scholar, recommends the Hewbrew scholar John Walton's work. John Walton was a younh earther for most of his life, but after trying to interpret Genesis without bias, he came to the conclusion that it makes no scientific claim. This is a video that summarizes some of his interpretations:

Whether or not the scientific evidence leads you to young Earth creationism or another theory, it is not biblical to try and cut people off from the faith if they disagree.

Science as we know it, didn't exist when the bible was written, so it would be quite difficult, for the bible to make scientific claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolutionists understand that the first life arose spontaneously through a process known as ‘Abiogenesis.’

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. If the first life form was created by a deity and life evolved from there, the theory of evolution would be unchanged.

You might as well claim that you have to accept abiogenesis in order to accept the Germ Theory of Disease.

 

[bhsmte]

Evolutionists understand that the first life arose spontaneously through a process known as ‘Abiogenesis.’

Life began with the simple. How simple is simple?

The smallest ‘known’ genome that can constitute a cell is Mycoplasma genitalium. It consists of 521 genes (482 protein encoding genes) within one circular chromosome of 582,970 base pairs.

In the sphere of biology this is ‘incredibly simple’ – only 582,970 base pairs.

How would the first life-form compare? What elements would constitute its makeup?

The first simple life would have consisted of a selection of the following elements — Boron (B), Calcium (Ca), Carbon (C), Chlorine (Cl), Chromium (Cr), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Germanium (Ge), Hydrogen (H), Iodine (I), Iron (Fe), Magnesium (Mg), Manganese (Mn), Nitrogen (N), Oxygen (O), Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Selenium (Se), Silica (Si), Sodium (Na), Sulphur (S), Zinc (Zn).

These are the elements which are found within tissues, cells, and organisms — where all such elements are intricately arranged. Living creatures are built of this stuff.

First life? In the first life-form, the required elements all spontaneously came together perfectly positioned and intricately arranged so as to provide the all-important chromosome.

It was a spontaneous development. It was simple. It was perfect.

The single remarkable thing about it was that it could reproduce itself.

Evolution is simple. Life can only ever start with the simple, and with ongoing multiple simple steps it progresses to the complex.

See http://lifefromgod.com/evolution-is-simple/

For a creationist’s view, see http://lifefromgod.com/

Your first sentence is wrong right off the bat. Science doesn't claim to know how life began to exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

It isn't!
Only a very small proportion of Christians (usually American Protestant fundamentalists) are hung up on this.

Now that's funny.

Christians believed in instant creation long before the United States ever existed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you claiming to have an infallible understanding of, and knowledge of, the mechanisms that actually exist---mechanisms for which the graph you present you presumably are presenting to represent?

I am claiming that we can observe these mutations happening in real time in the lab. We can even find substitution mutations in children by comparing their DNA to their parents' DNA.

" Here we present, to our knowledge, the first direct comparative analysis of male and female germline mutation rates from the complete genome sequences of two parent-offspring trios. Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell lines from which the DNA was derived."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

I can also give you papers where they can trace the production of mutations to the shape of the proteins that make the DNA.

You claim that the process of producing these single mutations can not accumulate into the differences we see between genomes. I am simply asking you to show me which differences could not be produced by the observed processes of microevolution. If you can't, then your claim falls completely flat.

 

[Xalith]

He didn't make the Earth in 6 days. He also didn't say he made the Earth in 6 days. Is it really a surprise that I don't think Exodus is historically accurate, when you already know I don't think Genesis is?

Okay, so at what point do you actually start believing the Bible, then?

I can understand Atheists not believing Scripture, but to actually see Christians who don't believe in the very Word of God astounds me.

Do you know that Jesus Himself taught from the Scriptures, including the Torah, which He says Moses wrote? Why would Jesus teach from these Scriptures if they weren't true?

I just can't wrap my mind around someone who professes Christ, but yet denies His very Word.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, so at what point do you actually start believing the Bible, then?

At what point do you stop rejecting the facts?

I can understand Atheists not believing Scripture, but to actually see Christians who don't believe in the very Word of God astounds me.

Do you have to believe that the Prodigal Son was a real person in order to understand the parable? Do you understand that myth and allegory were ways that truths were taught in the ancient world?

Also, do you not believe in God's creation? Do you think God would lie in the creation of the universe?

Do you know that Jesus Himself taught from the Scriptures, including the Torah, which He says Moses wrote? Why would Jesus teach from these Scriptures if they weren't true?

Do the parables have to be literal events for them to be true?

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. If the first life form was created by a deity and life evolved from there, the theory of evolution would be unchanged.

You might as well claim that you have to accept abiogenesis in order to accept the Germ Theory of Disease.

You of course well recognise that biological evolution would still have occurred even if it had no starting point. You would also recognise that the universe would would still exist even if there was no 'Big Bang.'
So where did life start?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I just can't wrap my mind around someone who professes Christ, but yet denies His very Word.

The theory of evolution does not require someone to reject the existence of God if they understand and accept the theory of evolution. You'll find several posters on this board who have a "Theistic Evolution" worldview.

If you're trying to understand their view more, perhaps give the book "The Language of God" a read. It's by Francis Collins, a devout Christian and well respected geneticist who worked on the human genome project.

 

[bhsmte]

You of course well recognise that biological evolution would still have occurred even if it had no starting point. You would also recognise that the universe would would still exist even if there was no 'Big Bang.'
So where did life start?

What is mainstream sciences position on how life started?

 

[Xalith]

At what point do you stop rejecting the facts?

I don't reject facts. I reject wild theories made without much proof.

Do you have to believe that the Prodigal Son was a real person in order to understand the parable? Do you understand that myth and allegory were ways that truths were taught in the ancient world?

Parables are clearly labelled as parables in the Bible. When a Parable comes along, Jesus tells you it is a parable. Not so with the Old Testament. See, one thing Jesus NEVER did in the New Testament, was put names on anybody in a Parable. It was "a certain person" or "a certain place". But yet in the Old Testament, these people have Names. The places have Names. It is written in a very literal language.

Also, do you not believe in God's creation? Do you think God would lie in the creation of the universe?

What kind of question is that to ask me? Of course I believe in God's creation and I believe in what He said about His creation. He said how long it took Him, not once but Twice.

Do the parables have to be literal events for them to be true?

No, but again, parables are very clearly labelled as such.

 

[ecco]

I believe that micro evolution is true and that it was created by God.

I don't believe that the theory of macro evolution is true.
.

Here's why. From a previous post.

People who take a literal read of Genesis, will not, can not, accept evolution. People, including christian clergy, read Genesis as allegory and accept evolution.

 

[Xalith]

The theory of evolution does not require someone to reject the existence of God if they understand and accept the theory of evolution. You'll find several posters on this board who have a "Theistic Evolution" worldview.

If you're trying to understand their view more, perhaps give the book "The Language of God" a read. It's by Francis Collins, a devout Christian and well respected geneticist who worked on the human genome project.

I was replying to the guy who says he doesn't believe in Genesis -or- Exodus. My question to him was "OK, so when Do you actually start believing in the Bible?"

 

[Aman777]

Most Christians, agree with evolution.

False, since you are assuming that YOU know who is and who is Not a Christian in contradiction to this verse:

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

God Bless you

 

[bhsmte]

I was replying to the guy who says he doesn't believe in Genesis -or- Exodus. My question to him was "OK, so when Do you actually start believing in the Bible?"

Maybe when they are believable, without needing to play psychological gymnastics with one's self.