Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[wilts43]

Now that's funny.

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

Are you deliberately missing my point?
All the noise about Creationism vs Evolution comes from the US.

And if by "instant creation" you refer to The Big Bang, most christians even today would think it likely.

But even early Christian Fathers such as Origen & Augustine rejected literal interpretations of biblical creation accounts saying they were couched for Jewish listeners. Hence Catholic & Orthodox Christianity has been open to evolution in the way that certain strands of Protestantism were definitely not, due to their very concrete and universal biblical literalism.
These strands often being descended from groups who sought refuge in America and where this grouping is largely based today.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

It is disingenuous to reject abiogenesis because there is no evidence, but claim that life must have been created without presenting any evidence to support it.

The God of the Gaps fallacy that you are trying to use is disingenuous. If we don't have any evidence, then we simply don't know. Putting, "IT'S MAGIC", where we are ignorant of something doesn't help anyone.

There are no scientific grounds for rejecting theology.

Where is the evidence needed to accept it?

 

[rrguy]

Evolution & the Theory are two different subjects. Actually the way I understand it was, the theory of evolution was opposed to Creation! It was an effort to try refute Creation.

The theory, which has so many missing links, Even Darwin doubted it before death! There is difference between Micro & Macro evolution. An animal with certain characteristics surviving & adapting over years is not the same as a one growing feathers, wings & deciding to lay eggs! Explain how can you adapt try to fly & lay eggs? The first breed that partially evolved would die end of story! It blows my mind people who can have faith in some theory with so many holes laugh at People for believing in a Creator.

 

[eclipsenow]

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*

I'm not denying the facts, I just believe that those facts are proof that God did both make the world through evolution AND always has done what He said He did.... it's just we shouldn't read poems literally!

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

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.

So the only thing you can be sure about is that life begets life.

Perhaps you believe that living organisms have eternally existed? If so, this view would overcome the difficulties of Abiogenesis.

In reality, you are just placing the issue of Abiogenesis further into the past.

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

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

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

See my definition of life at http://lifefromgod.com/evolution-is-simple/

 

[eclipsenow]

From the Centre for Public Christianity, (CPX) a Centre that opened years ago with a letter of congratulation from our then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Christianity and Darwinism
Historically some of the most conservative Christians did not react to Darwin or evolution like today’s creationists. In 1855, four years before Origin of the Species was published, Charles Darwin was assiduously refining his arguments and collecting data in support of his theory. Darwin's key idea was that all life was descended from a common ancestor. Natural selection was the means by which life descended into its multiplicity of forms. In gathering his evidence, Darwin sought the assistance of Harvard University's professor of botany, Asa Gray. Gray is now regarded as America's foremost botanist of the nineteenth century. Few people were granted a preview of Darwin's explosive (and secretive) theory prior to publication. So it is a measure of Darwin's respect for Gray that he sent him an abstract in 1857.​

Gray was born in upstate New York and raised in a Christian home. However in early adulthood his spiritual outlook had drifted into an agnostic rationalism then popular among north-easterners. But when Gray moved to Harvard in 1842 he chose not to join the spiritualistic, unorthodox Unitarian chapel services which most of his colleagues attended. Instead, Gray transferred his membership to an evangelical Congregational church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His return to an evangelical faith was steadfast. Gray became a leading defender of Darwinism in America. He corresponded with Darwin at length, often turning to a Congregational minister, G.F. Wright (also an advocate for evolution) for theological expertise when dealing with Darwin's agnosticism.

by 1867 the phrase 'Christian Darwinism' was already in use to describe the vigorous defense of the theory by prominent conservative Christians

Despite his best efforts Gray never resolved Darwin's doubts. But this did not cause Gray himself to waver on either the scientific case for Darwinism, or its compatibility with orthodox Christianity. Gray was not a lone voice. Others including Princeton theologian James McCosh, James Iverach and Audrey Moore defended Darwinism in Britain as well as America. Indeed by 1867 the phrase 'Christian Darwinism' was already in use to describe the vigorous defense of the theory by prominent conservative Christians.


https://publicchristianity.org/library/the-history-of-creationism#.VigQOxArLUY

 

[GraceSeeker]

Hattington, your question, "Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?" assumes facts that are not in evidence. The fact is that Christianity, as a religion, is NOT inherently opposed to the theory of evolution. Some Christians are opposed to it, they may even try to claim that they are opposed to it on some sort of religious grounds. But the fact remains that many genuine and sincerely practicing Christians do believe in the theory of evolution. Many Christian bodies have even affirmed that they do not oppose it. So, your question assumes something to be true about Christianity that, simply put, just isn't true.

May I suggest that you rephrase your question, "Why do some Christians oppose the theory of evolution?" and then pose your question to them personally, and not the whole of the Christian faith.

 

[Anonymous5372]

nm

 

[Heifer]

You claim that the process of producing these single mutations can not accumulate into the differences we see between genomes.

It seems to me that you are presuming a particular claim on my part, based upon your own thinking/understanding of the matter. I make no such claim, implicitly or otherwise.

In fact, I happen to be entirely empirically ignorant of (and have yet to acquire any initial inclination in wading through) any of the micro-logical mechanisms that anyone has ever claimed exists, never mind the potentials that anyone has ever theorized for those claimed mechanisms.

I, like most everyone in the West, grant that a micro-mechanical world exists. Nevertheless, I do not grant particular authority to any claim as to micro-logical mechanisms, nor to any claim as to the potentials of these claimed mechanisms.

But if I were to point you to something toward which I myself am somewhat inclined to grant some initial credibility, then the following link would be representative of my said inclination. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/can-evolution-explain-the-appearance-of-design-in-biology/

 

[ynneb]

I'm still to hear a credible evolutionary explanation on what 'life' actually is. What is that thing that indwells a mass that give it life? A person dies. The exact same body as moments before, and yet it no longer has life, a spirit.
With all of sciences boasts, evolution doesn't account for what life actually is.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if by "instant creation" you refer to The Big Bang,

By "instant creation," I mean a literal six-day creation week.

A week in which the amount of mass/energy in the universe went from zero to its current amount, over a period of six days.

 

[eclipsenow]

By "instant creation," I mean a literal six-day creation week.

But I thought you believed that God was infinitely powerful? Why is He so 'weak' that He took 6 days? Why not a nano-second? The mystery behind 6 days of 'work' had Philo so perplexed it was immediately an indicator to him that the text was metaphor, a creative narrative with theological intent. And this was 2000 years ago!
http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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

Of course there are, I was just answering the question.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

I'm still to hear a credible evolutionary explanation on what 'life' actually is. What is that thing that indwells a mass that give it life? A person dies. The exact same body as moments before, and yet it no longer has life, a spirit.

From a different perspective -- many ancient philosophies -- Egyptian and Greek, Eastern religions, and many Christians believe that an immortal soul inhabits the body. Only the body can die, we can never die.
Do we remain alive when our body is dead?

At man’s creation God ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.’ Genesis 2:7
‘The soul that sins shall die.’ Ezekiel 18:4
'God alone has immortality.' 1 Timothy 6:16

Does that then mean that we are mortal?
While ever we have within us ‘the breath of life’ we are alive. When dead we are dead. Our only hope of eternal existence is in the resurrection where our entire being is resurrected.
http://lifefromgod.com/the-dead-are-dead/

 

[theDevolutionist]

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

While many try to harmonize the two, the concept of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally at odds with each other. Romans 5:12 tells us that "...sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin..." Additionally, Genesis 3 records that the penalty for disobeying God and eating of the fruit was death. The theory of evolution proposes that man evolved through a process of natural selection, which necessitates death as a mechanism for deselecting inferior traits.

The other issue with trying to harmonize evolution and Christianity is that the Bible records sin as entering the world through one man. If the theory of evolution were correct, then man would have to have evolved as a species, meaning there would likely be many more than one pair of humans at a similar stage of evolution. This introduces the possibility of people not descended from the "one man" through whom sin was introduced to the world (and consequently, death) - which calls into question whether God is just.

The only way to harmonize the Bible account of history with the theory of evolution is to treat the Genesis account as allegorical, but that directly contradicts the Scripture given above. If sin did not enter the world through one man, then why should the Christian believe that sin and death were conquered by one man? And if sin and death were not conquered by Christ, and if Christ is merely an example of how to live the present life, then as Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15 "we [Christians] are of all people most to be pitied."

 

[justlookinla]

Maybe you can explain (in detail) what barriers that are in place, that prevent micro from becoming macro, over time.

This is a typical question attempting to switch the burden of proof from the Darwnist claims. The question is, where's the evidence based on the scientific method for the claim that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

There isn't any.

 

[justlookinla]

Macroevolution is the accumulation of consecutive microevolutionary events.

No it's not. Microevolution does not produce new life forms and is based upon the scientific method. Macroevolution on the other hand CLAIMS that all life forms we observe today is the result of macroevolution but isn't based on the scientific method.

There's a huge difference, scientifically, between microevolution and macroevolution.

 

[justlookinla]

While many try to harmonize the two, the concept of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally at odds with each other.

Depends on which form of evolution you're talking about. Microevolution isn't at odds with Christianity, but macroevolution is.

 

[lismore]

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

Some people see 'evolution' only in terms of the past. But what about the present how does the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest impact social attitudes? Eugenics, euthanasia, racism, naziism, abortion, all directly attribute-able to the vile theory. As professor Richard Dawkins recently pointed out, looking after the elderly and giving food to the hungry, these are all holding back our evolution, better to let the weak die and let the strongest survive.

And the future, what are some humans evolving into now, and which must die to ensure the evolution of the species?

Evolution is the complete opposite of the gospel and is without a doubt the most evil theory ever devised by man.

God Bless All