Why is Evolution feared by many Christians?

KeithB said:

...and isn't it true that there are many layers with prostrate fossils (such as trees) going through multiple layers that are not explained by evolutionists? ...and that the geologic column isn't consistent and found in bits here and there... whereby, it can be interpreted to agree with whatever you require at the time?

Click to expand...

Polystrate tree fossils are explained here.

KeithB said:

...and isn't it true that there are many layers with prostrate fossils (such as trees) going through multiple layers...

Click to expand...

yes. in fact, in some places you find a polystrate forest with another polystrate forest on top of it. of course, this is not consistent with the idea of all layers being layed down by a single event.

... that are not explained by evolutionists?

Click to expand...

no, they have been explained.

...and that the geologic column isn't consistent

Click to expand...

how so?

... whereby, it can be interpreted to agree with whatever you require at the time?

Click to expand...

no. not at all. the column is either consistent or inconsistent with a given theory. interpretation is not a part of it.

Both sides can explore the physical evidences the see TODAY.

Click to expand...

and one side uses the scientific method for explanation, while the other does not.

However, once they start trying to determine how it got to that point, both sides rely heavily on assumptions and tend to lean towards the options that best fit their "belief."

Click to expand...

no, both sides are not on equal footing here. creationists assume their conclusion. scientists do not do that.

Personally, I fear Creationism far more than evolution. With the movement comes this baggage of not trusting science and observation, and crazy notions that any who accept other sources of truth than the Bible are trying to undermine faith. Faith and reason were never truly at odds with one another, but if the majority of the Church pits itself against science, I don't think she will win. Human religious institution versus the glory of the universe God created is no contest. So it worries me a little.

Human religious institution versus the glory of the universe God created is no contest. So it worries me a little.

Click to expand...

Quoteable post, I wish all Christians thought more along these lines.

tattedsaint said:

i have read many posts here about the "great" debate of Evolution vs. Creationism. it just seems the more and more i read, the more and more i see Christians being afraid of the idea of Evolution being correct.

so if this is true, i would like to know the reasons why.

Click to expand...

A variety of reasons.

1. Many fundamentalist Christians (ie, Biblical literalists) believe that a literal Adam and Eve had to have existed, invented sin, and caused The Fall, thereby creating the need for redemption through Jesus' death. They fear that if evolution* is true, then there was no literal Adam and Eve, no Fall, no need for redemption, and no need for Jesus. That's unthinkable to them.

2. Other fundamentalist Christians that are ultra Bible-oriented recognize the obvious conflict between evolution and a literal Genesis. These are simplistic, all-or-nothing people. To them, the Bible must be read literally. If any of it is falsified or conceded as literally incorrect, then it's all got to be junked. They allow no room for metaphor or allegory because to do so would require the reader to decide for himself which parts are literal and which parts are allegory. Egotisitc, tyrannical fundamentalist pastors cannot tolerate independent thinkers. These types of Christians have painted themselves into a corner (or have allowed an idiot pastor to paint them into a corner) where they have to choose either science or religion. They opt for religion, unaware they can have both.

3. Ignorance. As evidenced here, most fundamentalist Christians know very little about evolution or science in general. Most likely, when they were growing up they had little or no interest in evolution and they never had any formal exposure to it in high school or college. Then later in life they get "saved." Now their fundamentalist preacher, whom they trust entirely, starts to tell them that evolution is from Satan and is the source of all social evils. Some preachers even hold "classes" on evolution and this is where many adult fundamentalist Christians get their first exposure to "evolution." I put that in quotations because what the preacher is teaching is only some twisted, ignorant caricature of evolution, not actual evolutionary science. This is exactly how my brother-in-law and nephew were turned to the Dark Side.




* Here "evolution" refers to the Big Bang, a 14 billion year-old universe, a 4.6 billion year-old earth, and actual biological evolution. Basically, most of science.

Vastavus said:

In 1953 chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago devised and experiment using methane, hydrogen, ammonia and water vapor to simulate atmospheric conditions during the Archean Period (Beginning of life on Earth). The equivalent of lightning, generated by an electric discharge, was arced though the gassy mixture, and eventually formed four amino acids, which are the basic building blocks of protein. Further experiments produced carbohydrates and the ingredients for nucleic acids: RNA and DNA. The building blocks of life.

In this matter scientists have show how life can form from non-life.

Click to expand...

...and this is scientific proof?? That a couple of intelligent beings established an ideal environment with specific chemicals (and specifically left out certain items such as free oxygen) and produced some simple amino acids. Oh by the way, they had to devise a special cold trap to save even these...and they were both left and right handed acids so they would have been combined and been useless...and lightning would have destroyed more than it created...and this doesn't account for the enourmous amount of other complex items required for life such as fats, carbs, DNA, RNA, etc. -- nice bunch of tar though.

Yet, this "showed how life can form from non-life."

Wow, your faith is much greater than mine, for there certainly isn't any scientific proof.

Lucretius said:

Polystrate tree fossils are explained here.

Click to expand...

I went to the site and after reading through the rhetoric, the best explanation I think they were stating is the following:

As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not."

Basically then, both sides are saying the beds were deposited rapidly. Why not during a large flood? This is saying evolutionists are willing to accept large deposit layers when it is convenient and smaller deposit layers otherwise. Is this really scientific proof either way? One is an "explanation" without God, the other is an "explanation" with God.

caravelair said:

yes. in fact, in some places you find a polystrate forest with another polystrate forest on top of it. of course, this is not consistent with the idea of all layers being layed down by a single event.

Click to expand...

What if the event lasted over 6 months, as in the Biblical global flood?

caravelair said:

no, they have been explained.

Click to expand...

True, my bad wording...I meant scientifically proven. Evolutionist are very good at creating explanations...although, the explanations change on a continual basis.

caravelair said:

how so?

Click to expand...

Name 1 place on the earth that has the complete geological column as diagramed by Lyell? Interesting that it was created by a lawyer.

caravelair said:

no. not at all. the column is either consistent or inconsistent with a given theory. interpretation is not a part of it.

Click to expand...

How convenient -- Isn't a "theory" just an "interpretation" of events?

caravelair said:

and one side uses the scientific method for explanation, while the other does not.

Click to expand...

By "scientific method" you really mean uses "natural method." Science is observable and repeatable. "Origins" are by their very nature not very observable or repeatable.

caravelair said:

no, both sides are not on equal footing here. creationists assume their conclusion. scientists do not do that.

Click to expand...

Scientists who study origins, such as evolutionists assume everything occurred via natural causes. That is an assumption, not a scientific basis.

KeithB said:

What if the event lasted over 6 months, as in the Biblical global flood?

Click to expand...

What if? You think you can grow a mature forest, bury it, grow another mature forest on top of it, and bury that one as well, all in just six months? or even a year?

True, my bad wording...I meant scientifically proven. Evolutionist are very good at creating explanations...although, the explanations change on a continual basis.

Click to expand...

You mean "scientifically unfalsified". Science doesn't do proof.

Name 1 place on the earth that has the complete geological column as diagramed by Lyell? Interesting that it was created by a lawyer.

Click to expand...

North Dakota

How convenient -- Isn't a "theory" just an "interpretation" of events?

Click to expand...

It is also an explanation of events and a predictor of events.

By "scientific method" you really mean uses "natural method." Science is observable and repeatable. "Origins" are by their very nature not very observable or repeatable.

Click to expand...

Depends on how unique the origin event is. Species continue to form today so we can observe the origin of species repeatedly. More rarely we can observe the origin of stars.

Scientists who study origins, such as evolutionists assume everything occurred via natural causes. That is an assumption, not a scientific basis.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Many scientists are theists and do not assume that observable nature is all that is. It is not a requirement of the theory of evolution or any scientific theory to assume in advance only natural causes. It is only a matter of determining if there are plausible natural causes, and if so, what those natural causes are.

By the way, how does it affect your theology if science succeeds in showing natural causes? Do you think "natural" means "God is excluded"?

KeithB said:

...and this is scientific proof?? That a couple of intelligent beings established an ideal environment with specific chemicals (and specifically left out certain items such as free oxygen) and produced some simple amino acids. Oh by the way, they had to devise a special cold trap to save even these...and they were both left and right handed acids so they would have been combined and been useless...and lightning would have destroyed more than it created...and this doesn't account for the enourmous amount of other complex items required for life such as fats, carbs, DNA, RNA, etc. -- nice bunch of tar though.

Yet, this "showed how life can form from non-life."

Wow, your faith is much greater than mine, for there certainly isn't any scientific proof.

Click to expand...

Life forms from non-life all the time, Keith, there's no faith about it. We are composed of non-life.

Gluadys said:

KeithB said:

Name 1 place on the earth that has the complete geological column as diagramed by Lyell? Interesting that it was created by a lawyer.

Click to expand...

North Dakota

Click to expand...

Don't forget the other 30 basins which have the entire geologic column
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

[size=+0]The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco
The Essaouira Basin in Morocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
The Parana Basin North, Paraguay and Brazil
The Cape Karroo Basin
The Argentina Precordillera Basin
The Chilean Antofagosta Basin
The Pricaspian Basin Kazakhstan[/size]

Asimov said:

Life forms from non-life all the time, Keith, there's no faith about it. We are composed of non-life.

Click to expand...

Give me a break... I came from 2 living parents through a very complex cell union process.

I'll give you a whole bowl of non-alive flies (lots of building blocks) and you bring them back to life.

gluadys said:

What if? You think you can grow a mature forest, bury it, grow another mature forest on top of it, and bury that one as well, all in just six months? or even a year?

Click to expand...

No, but I do think you could have multiple masses of trees get deposited during a catrosphic event such as a global flood.

gluadys said:

Depends on how unique the origin event is. Species continue to form today so we can observe the origin of species repeatedly. More rarely we can observe the origin of stars.

Click to expand...

Speciation is not forming new critters. You're just loosing genetic material. ...and even if you do happen upon a "good" mutation, it doesn't mean all of life came about that way. Too many complex interdependencies (male/female, bee/flowers, internal cell mechanisms, internal body system, etc).

gluadys said:

Not necessarily. Many scientists are theists and do not assume that observable nature is all that is. It is not a requirement of the theory of evolution or any scientific theory to assume in advance only natural causes. It is only a matter of determining if there are plausible natural causes, and if so, what those natural causes are.

Click to expand...

I'm only going by what the evolutionists are saying right here on this sight. Some are willing to accept a God as long as He didn't do anything - let it all happen naturally. If you're accepting evolution, how does your god fit into it? What part did he play?

gluadys said:

By the way, how does it affect your theology if science succeeds in showing natural causes? Do you think "natural" means "God is excluded"?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what natural causes your talking about. If it's origins (i.e., we came from a pile of sludge), then I'm not sure. The Word of God I trust in doesn't say I came from a pile of sludge.

Vastavus said:

In 1953 chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago devised and experiment using methane, hydrogen, ammonia and water vapor to simulate atmospheric conditions during the Archean Period (Beginning of life on Earth). The equivalent of lightning, generated by an electric discharge, was arced though the gassy mixture, and eventually formed four amino acids, which are the basic building blocks of protein. Further experiments produced carbohydrates and the ingredients for nucleic acids: RNA and DNA. The building blocks of life.

In this matter scientists have show how life can form from non-life.

Click to expand...

I've read this before and found it interesting. However, a few things have been pointed out concerning it. I'll work through the thought processes of those who have worked on this idea since Urey-Miller's time:

First of all, much of this hinges on whether or not experimenters used an atmosphere that accurately simulated the environment of the early earth. IIRC, Miller's initial experiments were relying heavily on the atmospheric theories of his doctoral adviser -- the Nobel lauriate Harold Urey.

While nobody knows for sure what the early atmosphere was like, the consensus (now) is that it was not at all like the one Miller used.

Miller seems to have chosen a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor. This is what was consistent of what scientists thought the atmosphere was like back then. But scientists don't believe that anymore. Even back in the 1960's there was doubt. For example, the geophysicist at the Carnegie Institution said, "What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it."

By the mid 1970's, Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin was already declaring that the concept behind MIller's theory of the early atmosphere "has been abandonned". In fact, two of the leading origin-of-life researchers, Klaus Dose and Sydney Fox, confirmed that Miller had used the wrong gas mixture. Science magazine said in 1995 that experts now dismiss Miller's experiment because "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Urey-Miller simulation."

The best hypothesis now is that there was little hydrogen in the atmosphere because it would have escaped into space. Instead, the atmosphere probably consisted or carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. The Miller experiment seems to use assumptions about the earth's early atmosphere that most geochemists have rejected since the 1960's.

If you replay the experiement using an atmosphere that geochemists suspect, you do not get amino acids. Some would claim that if you replayed the experiment using an "accurate" atmosphere, you'd still get organic molecules.

While "organic molecules" might sound promising, it quickly deflates when one realizes exactly what would have been formed if using an acurate atmosphere: formaldehyde and cyanide.

Sure, these might be "organic molecules" -- but most researchers couldn't even keep a capped bottle of formaldehyde in their room because the stuff is so toxic. If you open the bottle, it would fry proteins all over the place (just from the fumes). It kills embryos and is otherwise known as embalming fluid.

While there's no doubt that a good chemist can turn formaldehyde and cyanide into biological molecules, suggesting that formaldehyde and cyanide gives you the right substance for the origins of life are humorous.

Now let's say that someone actually did manage to produce amino acids from a realistic model of the early earth's atmosphere, or perhaps assume that amino acids came from a comet or some other means: how far would this be from creating a living cell?

You would have to get the right number and the right kind of amino acids to link up and create a protein molecule -- and that would still be a long way from creating a living cell. Then you'd need dozens of protein molecules, again in the right sequence, to create a living cell. The odds against this are astonishing (and I think that this is what an athiest once mentioned in an article -- that the chances of this happening are so remote that one could realitically invoke an intelligent agent for its initial formation). The gap between nonliving chemicals and even the most primitive living organisms is absolutely tremendous.

If you put a sterile, balanced salt solution in a test tube, and then you put in a single living cell and poke a hole in it so its contents leak into the solution, you would now have all the molecules you would need to create a livng cell. You've already accomplished more than what the Miller experiment ever could -- you've got all the components you need for life.

If one wants to create life, on top of the challenge of somehow generating the cellular components out of non-living chemicals, you would have an even bigger problem in trying to put the ingredients together in the right way.

So even if you could accomplish the thousands of steps between the amino acids in the Urey-Miller (which apparently didn't exist in the real world anway) and the components you need for a living cell (all the enzymes, the DNA, and so forth), you're still immeasurably far from life despite claims to the contrary.

Now I'll grant that the "first cell" could possibly be even more primitive than the most simple single-cell organism today. But the point still seems to remain the same: the problem of assembling the right parts in the right way at the right time and at the right place, while keeping out the wrong material, is (in some people's opinions) simply insurmountable.

Even biochemist (and spiritual skeptic) Francis Crick cautiously invoked the word a few years ago, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have satisfied to get it going."

If there isn't a natural explanation and there doesn't seem to be the potential for finding one, then some believe its appropriate to look at a supernatural explanation -- at least in so far as the Scriptures appear to make such claims. They think it's the most reasonable inference based on the evidence in accordance with their faith.

KeithB said:

I'm not sure what natural causes your talking about. If it's origins (i.e., we came from a pile of sludge), then I'm not sure. The Word of God I trust in doesn't say I came from a pile of sludge.

Click to expand...

No, it says you came from dirt that God magically animated by blowing into the nostrils of a statue HE physically molded. Does God have a mouth? Does He breathe air? Does God have hands? Does He like to play in the dirt? Is God exclusively male? Is our likeness to Him physical?

raphael_aa said:

No, it says you came from dirt that God magically animated by blowing into the nostrils of a statue HE physically molded. Does God have a mouth? Does He breathe air? Does God have hands? Does He like to play in the dirt? Is God exclusively male? Is our likeness to Him physical?

Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure that God as presented within the creation account is primarilly focused on the Son in his pre-incarnate form.

If so, then I could answer potentially yes to every one of your questions (except the part about being "magically animated" -- seems more proper to suggest "miraculously brought forth" within a Judeo-Christian context).

Just sayin.

Risen from the Dust said:

I'm fairly sure that God as presented within the creation account is primarilly focused on the Son in his pre-incarnate form.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.


Colossians 1:15-20 (NIV)

​

If so, then I could answer potentially yes to every one of your questions (except the part about being "magically animated" -- seems more proper to suggest "miraculously brought forth" within a Judeo-Christian context).


Just sayin.

Click to expand...

So you're suggesting that in His pre-incarnate form, Jesus was still incarnate in a sense with a physical body of some sort? This is pretty radical christology.

I'm not sure of the points being made, but I'll play along:

raphael_aa said:

No, it says you came from dirt that God magically animated by blowing into the nostrils of a statue HE physically molded.

Click to expand...

Yes, Genesis 2:7

raphael_aa said:

Does God have a mouth? Does He breathe air?

Click to expand...

He is able to talk and breathe. I'd guess yes. Jesus definitely had a mouth (before and after His resurrection).

raphael_aa said:

Does God have hands? Does He like to play in the dirt?

Click to expand...

I guess He does have hands. I definitely don't think a circular blob would suffice. Again, Jesus definitely had hands (before and after His resurrection). Concerning dirt, He is definitely creative -- just take a look at the awesomeness of nature. Maybe that's why I like building sand castles.

raphael_aa said:

Is God exclusively male?

Click to expand...

I'm not totally sure. Eve came from a part of Adam, and I think their joining as 1 is significant to understanding God. Jesus came as a man, He called God, Father. Salvation wasn't limited to just man. Jesus says their won't be marriage in heaven as on earth.

raphael_aa said:

Is our likeness to Him physical?

Click to expand...

No, I think He made His likeness like us in the form of Jesus so that we could relate to Him. Our new bodies will be quite different from our present ones.

Cheers!

Risen from the Dust said:

If there isn't a natural explanation and there doesn't seem to be the potential for finding one, then some believe its appropriate to look at a supernatural explanation -- at least in so far as the Scriptures appear to make such claims. They think it's the most reasonable inference based on the evidence in accordance with their faith.

Click to expand...

For thousands of years nobody had any clue how the planets moved in their orbit. They had no clue and no prospect for getting a clue. They could not have gotten a clue if they had stripped naked, dowsed themselves in clue musk, did the clue mating dance in the middle of clue mating season in a field full of naked, horney clues. Abhoring "I don't know" as an answer, they assumed angels or God pushed the planets around in a circle. Turns out they were wrong.

The mere fact that the origin of life is still mostly a mystery is no reason to invoke the biggest cop-out in the world: "God did it." The correct answer at this time is "I don't know" -- no more, no less. It's fine to invoke God from a theological perspective, but not from a scientific one. The supernatural cannot be measured or detected by science so it has absolutely no place whatsoever in science.

What if 10, 20, or 50 years from now the origin of life has been solved? Where will God retreat to next?

GoSeminoles! said:

The supernatural cannot be measured or detected by science so it has absolutely no place whatsoever in science.

What if 10, 20, or 50 years from now the origin of life has been solved? Where will God retreat to next?

Click to expand...

...and what if God does return and everything He stated through His Word is true? There would be significant consequences involved.

If you're right, I merely die and allow you all to naturally evolve...
If I'm right, God was revealing Himself through His creation and Jesus and He does have a future plan...