Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Loudmouth]

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?

We don't know. It is possible that life started elsewhere and was transported to Earth on rocks like the meteors that transported material from Mars to the Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite

All we can really say is that we can put dates to the first appearance of evidence for life on Earth.

http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/the-oldest-signs-of-life-on-earth/

Those earliest signs of life are 3.5 billion years old, about 1 billion years younger than the Earth itself. We also see that life starts out very simple, and for billions of years all we see is evidence for very simple unicellular organisms. No mammals, no fish, no trees, no grasses, no reptiles, just mats of unicellular organisms for billions of years. This is what we would expect to see if life started very simple and evolved over time.

 

[ecco]

And as I suggest in the image, "the shift is about to hit the man" because we are on the steps of ushering in that 1000 years of peace Christ most notably spoke about. How we get there is our choice.

Are you saying that the 1000 years of peace is about to start? That's not going to effect me.

 

[Xalith]

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

"Pyschological gymnastics"... okaay. Not sure what Psychology has anything to do with this...

 

[Aman777]

Scripture is not evidence. Are you going to write your paper and submit it for peer review in relevant fields of study? Yes or no?

False, ole unbeliever, since I support my posts with the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science, and History. The agreement means that my view is NOT a belief since it is True in EVERY way. That is WHY NO godless person can possibly refute God's literal Truth. Amen?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't reject facts.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

You seem to be ignoring those facts.

Parables are clearly labelled as parables in the Bible. When a Parable comes along, Jesus tells you it is a parable.

He does? You may want to reread the Gospels and understand that Jesus did not write the Gospels. When it says "Then Jesus told them a parable" it is the author of the Gospel saying that it is a parable, not Jesus. Jesus just seems to move right into the parables without telling anyone they are parables.

Also, if talking animals, magical gardens, and magical trees are not enough to tell you that it is an allegory, then you need to retune your perception of reality. Did someone have to tell you that the Harry Potter movies were fiction?

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.

Harry Potter has a real name. Does that mean it is true because it is written in a very literal language?

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.

Bishop Ussher is not God.

If we can't trust the creation to tell us how old it is, why should we trust the Bible?

 

[ecco]

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?

Give an all encompassing definition of life. Then we can discuss.

 

[bhsmte]

"Pyschological gymnastics"... okaay. Not sure what Psychology has anything to do with this...

If you can't figure out, how one's personal psyche impacts what they believe, I can't help you.

 

[Grandpa4]

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

Because evolution is a lie of the devil and totally false. it is Satan's effort to refute the truth of creation and give people an alternative to believe instead of the truth in the hope of turning them from the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because evolution is a lie of the devil and totally false. it is Satan's effort to refute the truth of creation and give people an alternative to believe instead of the truth in the hope of turning them from the truth.

Then why don't you show us what the lie is. Or are you unable to show how it is false?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

False, ole unbeliever, since I support my posts with the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science, and History.

Scripture is the claimYou did not answer the question. Please answer yes or no. Will you write a paper outlining your claims and submit it for peer review in the relevant fields of study?

That is WHY NO godless person can possibly refute God's literal Truth.

The burden of proof belongs to you. You know this as you have been told on multiple occasions. It is dishonest to ask someone to prove a negative. Again, write your paper and see if you can pass it through peer review. Until then, your claims are easily dismissed.

 

[wilts43]

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

Evolution is not a lie.
Evolution is the method by which life develops in this universe/planet.
Creation (of the universe) is an entirely different matter.
"Chance", as far as we know, can only operate in a universe; when atheist-cosmologists speculate that chance brings a universe (& chance itself) from nothing, they do it because they don't like the big bang. They are indulging in the baseless, speculative "theologising" that they castigate theists for doing.
And when they posit an infinite number of universes it is no more then a desparate clutch at a device to make our (infinitely unlikely) universe probable. Not that an infinite number of universes is any more explicable than one!
But their motive is to kick the can so far down the street that we will give up even thinking about Theism.
It is all without evidence so it is not science.

God is not a mechanic. He makes things be; right now.
In Him we (& everything) "lives & moves & has its being".
Remember everything is composed only of energy (God's?). And we don't actually know what "energy" really is.
And the so-called "particles" are only energy charges that form energy "structures" which are almost completey nothing.
Biblical literalism (especially of Genesis which incorporates near-eastern myths and "just-so" stories) leads into an overly concrete view of God & us.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Because evolution is a lie of the devil and totally false.

Are you willing to write a paper and submit it to peer review in the relevant fields of study? If you were to demonstrate with verifiable and testable evidence that evolution was incorrect, you'd win a Nobel Prize.

 

[Roberto Fiad]

The Biblical account of the Creation and Charles Darwin's theory of evolution are mutually exclusive and rightly so. The studies gyrating around the theory of evolution defend the Big Bang theory of the Universe which remains unproven. The Biblical account of the Creation narrates the process from start to finish of the Creation of the Universe and declares the sovereignty and glory of God. It reveals the authority and creativity of God. Then there is the account of the Creation of the First Man in history created from the earth. Bear in mind how each human body contains the same gamut of minerals contained in the earth, in dirt. The Biblical account explains how God's Will is the reason for the existence of humankind, created in God's own image and likeness and not that of a subhuman creature. According to Genesis, when God created man, He created Man as fully human from the very start. He crowned the man with glory and honor. This attests to the dignity of the human spirit in the eyes of God. The Biblical account shows the worth and significance of man before the eyes of God. The theory of evolution cavalierly sweeps all this truth aside. Furthermore, after the fall, the Bible in both testaments discusses how the disobedience of the first Adam cursed man and the earth itself on account of that very disobedience. Then it shows that because of the disobedience of that one man, sin entered the world and there could be no blotting out of it without the shedding of perfect blood, the precious blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It tells in the New Testament how Jesus took away the sins of the whole world. Jesus was God made man in the flesh, to redeem man and reconcile him to God. According to the theory of evolution, we're descendants of animals and we're fine just the way we are. In short, the theory of evolution is atheism, for the atheists, of the atheists, and by the atheists.

 

[eclipsenow]

(Sighs at OP question).

Christianity is NOT opposed to evolution: people who cannot respect different writing genres within the bible are. Most Sydney Anglican ministers are evangelical, respect the doctrine known as the Sufficiency of Scripture, and yet accept evolution.

This is my friend Dr John Dickson's paper on the ancient understanding of Genesis 1. It's theological gold! Genesis 1 has nothing to do with HOW God made the world, and everything to do with WHY! That is, an over-reaction to Darwin's theories has distorted the modern reading of Genesis and made people read it as some kind of dry, boring, arbitrary list of what-God-did when, when it's actually closer to a highly structured poem taking us on a tour of why God knit the world together in the particular *relationships* He has put together. It's theological, not scientific. And I personally feel sorry for modern day Creationists, not just because they have to live in such terrible fear of everything 'sciencey' that indicates an old earth, but because they're missing out on the theological GOLD that is in Gensis 1 because of their literalistic reading of it!
http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything

Here is some more exploration of some of the problems if we do accept evolution. EG: Animal suffering before the fall? Do creationists, in reading Genesis 1 literally, have a serious problem with their own theology of creation because they've missed the theological messages in the passage by reading it literally? Etc.
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/day-music-died.html

http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-i.html

http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-ii-on_21.html

http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-iii-tale.html

http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-iv-when.html

http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-iv.html

http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-v-god.html

http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-v-god_30.html

 

[jj3pa]

Well, the theory of evolution depicts animals coming out of the sea, the way the story is told, this is actually an allegory of the great beast nations and how they formed. So i'd imagine christianity innately disagrees with it, because it would almost seem like the expounding on evolution in a physical paradigm was the voice of the prophet of iron the beast that devours the earth and stamps the residue under its feet.

But I'd imagine for church goers that ended their biblical education in sunday school or the pulpit, it's probably related to the order of events being reversed from genesis.

What ?
First, there are plenty of Christians who see evolution as scientific fact that does not interfere with their beliefs

Second, as many have said, the only way it would cause issues was if you took the Bible literally. And no one in any of these forums can do that because no one has read the original Bible .. There are varying copies and no one copy matches another identically (A Protestant Bible historian once lamented that there were more differences between Bibles than there were words in the Bible).

So if you want to say the Bible has scientific facts in it, you really need to read it - or them. Not the King James, the NJB, the NR or any of the other variants. They are all someone's opinion of what you should be reading. All are interpretations. Read the history of the King James Bible to get an idea. Translators pick words to support their beliefs - such as church instead of congregation ...

 

[jj3pa]

The Biblical account of the Creation and Charles Darwin's theory of evolution are mutually exclusive and rightly so. The studies gyrating around the theory of evolution defend the Big Bang theory of the Universe which remains unproven. The Biblical account of the Creation narrates the process from start to finish of the Creation of the Universe and declares the sovereignty and glory of God. It reveals the authority and creativity of God. Then there is the account of the Creation of the First Man in history created from the earth. Bear in mind how each human body contains the same gamut of minerals contained in the earth, in dirt. The Biblical account explains how God's Will is the reason for the existence of humankind, created in God's own image and likeness and not that of a subhuman creature. According to Genesis, when God created man, He created Man as fully human from the very start. He crowned the man with glory and honor. This attests to the dignity of the human spirit in the eyes of God. The Biblical account shows the worth and significance of man before the eyes of God. The theory of evolution cavalierly sweeps all this truth aside. Furthermore, after the fall, the Bible in both testaments discusses how the disobedience of the first Adam cursed man and the earth itself on account of that very disobedience. Then it shows that because of the disobedience of that one man, sin entered the world and there could be no blotting out of it without the shedding of perfect blood, the precious blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It tells in the New Testament how Jesus took away the sins of the whole world. Jesus was God made man in the flesh, to redeem man and reconcile him to God. According to the theory of evolution, we're descendants of animals and we're fine just the way we are. In short, the theory of evolution is atheism, for the atheists, of the atheists, and by the atheists.

And the Bible says its right, so.

No, most people who came up with the theory of evolution were devout Christians

 

[Xalith]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

You seem to be ignoring those facts.

"Evidence" of Macroevolution. Not "Proof" of Macroevolution.

I'm not denying the facts, I just don't believe that those facts are proof that God didn't say He did what He said He did. *shrugs*

He does? You may want to reread the Gospels and understand that Jesus did not write the Gospels. When it says "Then Jesus told them a parable" it is the author of the Gospel saying that it is a parable, not Jesus. Jesus just seems to move right into the parables without telling anyone they are parables.

He does, actually, if you study the language he uses. "A certain person did this, this, and that."

This kind of language is ONLY used for Parables and He never uses anything other than this kind of language for Parables. It's called consistency.

Also, if talking animals, magical gardens, and magical trees are not enough to tell you that it is an allegory, then you need to retune your perception of reality. Did someone have to tell you that the Harry Potter movies were fiction?

You mean in the Garden of Eden? That was Pre-Curse, before Adam and Eve took the Fruit. There's a way to take that literally without bending any of the laws of physics that we've come to know today and it is quite easy -- before the Curse, Earth was a lot like Heaven. Then Adam and Eve took the Fruit, God cast them out of the Garden and if you notice, He placed Angels to guard the Garden. This Garden cannot be found today. Why? Because it was a spiritual realm, one that no man will enter until the whole plan of redemption is complete.

Harry Potter has a real name. Does that mean it is true because it is written in a very literal language?

Okay, so you're comparing a fictional work against the Word of God. Nice. Yes, yes, I get that YOU don't believe in Christianity, and hey that's OK. He gave us all free will.

Bishop Ussher is not God.

I never said he was?

If we can't trust the creation to tell us how old it is, why should we trust the Bible?

There was only One who was there during the Creation. He told us how it came to be. You can either take His word for it, or try to do some mental gymnastics and go looking for evidence trying to disprove Him, which you will never succeed at doing.

The things I see and hear some people saying while trying to give excuses as to why they think the Bible isn't real is just plain ridiculous. The hoops they go through, the jump-roping they have to do to try and disprove the Bible is really kinda sad, when you consider just how hard they fight to disprove the Bible, and yet... they fail every single time.

 

[whereisthetruth]

I have a daughter who is not a Christian believer but is a PHD biotechnologist researcher. We have had many spirited discussions around the origin of life. Her admission is the science is still at a loss to explain how no Irving matter could ever arrange itself into any form of life as we define it. Period. Her admission is that no theory of biogenesis has ever been demonstrated as being possible in the real world, and that honest scientists know this. In light of this it is disingenuous to malign the proposition that life was created, not evolved. This is the beginning of Theology - the quest to know about this One who could possibly do such a thing. Similar admissions are made by cosmologists and physicists. There are no scientific grounds for rejecting theology. We should all humble ourselves and start from this point. True science is either religious nor anti-theological.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Evidence" of Macroevolution. Not "Proof" of Macroevolution.

Those pieces of evidence are facts. You are ignoring them.

I'm not denying the facts, I just don't believe that those facts are proof that God didn't say He did what He said He did. *shrugs*

Then what facts would support evolution if they were found? What would disprove God's word, if found?

He does, actually, if you study the language he uses. "A certain person did this, this, and that."

Not even close to the same thing. Jesus doesn't come out and say, "I am now going to tell you a parable." He just launches right into it without any warning. It is only the gospel writers that identify them as parables.

You mean in the Garden of Eden? That was Pre-Curse, before Adam and Eve took the Fruit. There's a way to take that literally without bending any of the laws of physics that we've come to know today and it is quite easy -- before the Curse, Earth was a lot like Heaven. Then Adam and Eve took the Fruit, God cast them out of the Garden and if you notice, He placed Angels to guard the Garden. This Garden cannot be found today. Why? Because it was a spiritual realm, one that no man will enter until the whole plan of redemption is complete.

Magical human archetypes, talking serpents, magical fruits, magical trees . . . at what point is it not an obvious allegory?

Okay, so you're comparing a fictional work against the Word of God. Nice. Yes, yes, I get that YOU don't believe in Christianity, and hey that's OK. He gave us all free will.

But it uses names. How can the Harry Potter books be fiction if they use names?

There was only One who was there during the Creation. He told us how it came to be.

Moses wasn't there.

You can either take His word for it, or try to do some mental gymnastics and go looking for evidence trying to disprove Him, which you will never succeed at doing.

The universe was there. Why can't we take the universe's word for it?

 

[bhsmte]

I have a daughter who is not a Christian believer but is a PHD biotechnologist researcher. We have had many spirited discussions around the origin of life. Her admission is the science is still at a loss to explain how no Irving matter could ever arrange itself into any form of life as we define it. Period. Her admission is that no theory of biogenesis has ever been demonstrated as being possible in the real world, and that honest scientists know this. In light of this it is disingenuous to malign the proposition that life was created, not evolved. This is the beginning of Theology - the quest to know about this One who could possibly do such a thing. Similar admissions are made by cosmologists and physicists. There are no scientific grounds for rejecting theology. We should all humble ourselves and start from this point. True science is either religious nor anti-theological.

Science doesn't concern itself with religion when making discoveries in it's work. Science has never had to adapt to religion in doing it's work, but religious beliefs, have clearly had to adjust, to what science has discovered.

100 years ago, very few Christians agreed with evolution. Today, the majority of them do.