Why is Evolution feared by many Christians?

[Edx]

Please, try to read the thread more carefully. The issue is materialism, not atheism..

I did read it actually, but these guys equate materialism to atheism and atheism to materialism.

Ed

 

[Delphin]

As a general rule, the young Earth creationists [YECs] tend to exhibit such a fear--but most other Christians tend not to.

Most Christians' spiritual lives would probably not be affected by the validity or invalidity of the theory of evolution. It might, however, affect YECs, since it would indicate that their interpretation of certain biblical scriptures was untrue. The principal problem in this area seems to be that YECs generally do not view their interpretation as merely being an interpretation. Rather, they are convinced that their interpretation is precisely what the Bible says and means. Thus, if they are proven wrong, then the Bible has been proven wrong. And they reason that if the Bible were wrong in one area, then it may be wrong in other areas ["slippery slope" argument].

There is a huge difference between the Bible "being wrong" and someone's interpretation of it that is wrong. Just because people say that is what they believe doesn't mean that is what the Bible says. Few seem to read the Bible closely enough to see exactly what it says.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I did read it actually, but these guys equate materialism to atheism and atheism to materialism.

Doing so is invalid. Don't encourage them by doing it yourself. Literally, I'd say all materialists are atheists, but one can be an atheist without being a materialist.

 

[Edx]

Doing so is invalid. Don't encourage them by doing it yourself. .

fair enough

 

[flashwizard]

Did the belief in evolution come first or the believe in creation? I ask this because someone can only learn something that they have been told correct? According to the Bible creation was first. These manuscripts were written around 1900BC by Moses. Unless we can find manuscripts that express ideas of evolution during or before that time then the logic is that there is no argument for evolution at all because it wouldn't be backed by history.

 

[Edx]

Did the belief in evolution come first or the believe in creation? I ask this because someone can only learn something that they have been told correct? According to the Bible creation was first. These manuscripts were written around 1900BC by Moses. Unless we can find manuscripts that express ideas of evolution during or before that time then the logic is that there is no argument for evolution at all because it wouldn't be backed by history.

I am too stunned by the "logic" of this post to begin to address it.

Maybe later.

 

[gluadys]

These manuscripts were written around 1900BC by Moses. Unless we can find manuscripts that express ideas of evolution during or before that time then the logic is that there is no argument for evolution at all because it wouldn't be backed by history.

No they weren't. Although there are differing estimates of the date of the exodus, none go back that far. A reasonable estimate of Moses lifetime is c. 1250 BCE, though some would put it back as far as the 1500s.

But the manuscripts are still younger and they were written from approximately the 9th to the 5th century BCE. And not by Moses.

Finally, yes, some ancient versions of "evolution" very different from the scientific model, do predate the biblical writings. The Hindu Vedas for example, which are much older than any part of the bible.

 

[flashwizard]

Ok I did some timeline searches, most of them claim that Moses led the Israelites from Egypt (The Exodus) around 1500 - 1400 BC.

 

[Dal M.]

Did the belief in evolution come first or the believe in creation? I ask this because someone can only learn something that they have been told correct? According to the Bible creation was first. These manuscripts were written around 1900BC by Moses. Unless we can find manuscripts that express ideas of evolution during or before that time then the logic is that there is no argument for evolution at all because it wouldn't be backed by history.

You've expressed two very bizarre ideas in this post: 1.) that you can only obtain information if someone tells it to you, and 2.) that older ideas are by default true.

Rebuttal to Bizarre Idea #1: Who told Epicurus that atoms have weight? Who told Newton that objects fall due to gravity? While it's possible to gain knowledge that others share, you're completely ignoring the source of knowledge that forms the basis of all science: observation.

Rebuttal to Bizarre Idea #2: Alchemists used to believe that fire burned due to a mysterious substance called phlogiston. We now know that fire is in reality fueled by oxygen. The older idea-- the one which was "backed by history"-- turned out to be untrue. This is very often the case.

 

[flashwizard]

According to Jewish tradition Mosaic Law (Law, Prophets, Writings) were written by Moses.

 

[flashwizard]

You are correct, that is what I was waiting to hear, that is the only logical rebuttal to Bizzare Idea #1, however observation can be interpreted by anyone and doesn't have to begin with Newton or Epicurus. So, it can even be interpreted by those before them.

 

[gluadys]

According to Jewish tradition Mosaic Law (Law, Prophets, Writings) were written by Moses.

Tradition is wrong. After all, they didn't really know who wrote the Torah. It was their best guess at the time. And attributing it to Moses provided the value of authority which was very important in ancient cultures.

By the way, Jewish tradition does not assign the prophets or the writings to Moses. Only the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy).

 

[flashwizard]

Also, another interesting point of observation is geographic population observation. If there are over 6 billion people in the world, how many years would it take backwards to get to 0 people? Scientifically this has been calculated to be no less than 15000BC. Is 13000 years enough time for dramatic evolution to take place? If so then how?

 

[Dal M.]

You are correct, that is what I was waiting to hear, that is the only logical rebuttal to Bizzare Idea #1, however observation can be interpreted by anyone and doesn't have to begin with Newton or Epicurus. So, it can even be interpreted by those before them.

Yes, everyone is capable of making observations. Therefore you're astonishingly, mind-bogglingly wrong when you claim that our only source of information is what's been given to us by other people, who only have that information because others passed it along to them, and so on. Do you have a point or are you just admitting error?

Also, another interesting point of observation is geographic population observation. If there are over 6 billion people in the world, how many years would it take backwards to get to 0 people? Scientifically this has been calculated to be no less than 15000BC.

Agriculture was invented about 10KYA. Before then, the demands of a nomadic hunter/gatherer lifestyle prevented the human population from increasing at all. If someone gives you a certain percentage by which the human population supposedly grew each year, they're making things up.

The age of the Earth, incidentally, is calculated at approximately 4.6 billion years old.

 

[Edx]

Also, another interesting point of observation is geographic population observation. If there are over 6 billion people in the world, how many years would it take backwards to get to 0 people? Scientifically this has been calculated to be no less than 15000BC. Is 13000 years enough time for dramatic evolution to take place? If so then how?

And please tell me how the divercity of life managed to become so varied in only a few thousand years from only the few on the ark, without evolution.

Creationists cant answer this without invoking a miracle.

Ed

 

[flashwizard]

It is equivalent to note how evolution could drastically change people in a couple thousand year period.

Nomadic tribes may provide evidence of a delayed population growth, but how long can it be delayed? And can a people be nomadic and not express their beliefs and way of life and even intellectual capabilities in written language or evidence of a creation or evolution?

 

[Edx]

It is equivalent to note how evolution could drastically change people in a couple thousand year period.

Eh? I dont think you appreciate how many different a distinct species there are. Just how many species was supposed to be included on this ark?!

Nomadic tribes may provide evidence of a delayed population growth, but how long can it be delayed? And can a people be nomadic and not express their beliefs and way of life and even intellectual capabilities in written language or evidence of a creation or evolution?

I'll be impressed if anyone else can understand what you are talking about here.

Ed

 

[flashwizard]

Agriculture was invented about 10KYA.

You have to note that according to the Bible Agriculture was revealed in Genesis 3:17 by God to Adam. According to Christian believe Adam was the first of creation. Therefore, Adam had knowledge of agricultural means and thus would have no means for being nomadic. This does not however, mean that there were not nomadics, it just states that agriculture was there from the beginning. With that said, the delay in population would most not likely occur for the time period it would take for complete evolutions to take place. But you and I both know that the Bible states in Genesis that Man began as an adult and possessed knowledge from God, (the Tree of Life).

 

[Edx]

You have to note that according to the Bible Agriculture was revealed in Genesis 3:17 by God to Adam. According to Christian believe Adam was the first of creation. Therefore, Adam had knowledge of agricultural means and thus would have no means for being nomadic).

<snip>

No no, explain what this has to do with how the divercity of life we see in the world today got to where it is today, without evolution from only a few species that were on the ark. Since you cannot define a "kind" you will find this very difficult.

Ed

 

[flashwizard]

Another point that I should make. I am obviously using the Bible as a source of Authority because of the Historical accuracies and the dates back to which it was written. From an evolution standpoint you must agree that knowledge must first originate from observation (according to your earlier claims). The Bible claims that knowledge originated from God, and thus was not a part of evolution theory. So knowledge is passed by not just observation but also by hearing. Observation is also a form of listening. But, how can you learn how to listen and thus be able to observe unless you were taught how to do so? Since God (highest Authority) gave Adam the ability to learn (observe, listen) he is able to make is own observations.

So then another question: where did observation according to evolution originate from? Can observation be learned? It is a form of listening, so how did it get there?