Why are Christians against evolution?

[Cleanthes]

I'd like to ask you this question:

You say you are a christian but accept evolution. Do you think that evolution is part of " God's plan "? i.e. created by God.

In a word, yes.

[Darwinian]

I'd like to ask you this question:

You say you are a Christian but accept evolution. Do you think that evolution is part of " God's plan "? i.e. created by God.

In a word, yes.

But doesn't that go against the teachings of Genesis? I take it that you interpret this part of the bible in a non literal, poetic sense. If that is the case, how do you know that the whole bible isn't intended to be taken that way.

Basically, how do you pick and choose which parts to take as gospel and which not, if you'll excuse the pun..

[bozo]

I'd like to ask you this question:

You say you are a christian but accept evolution. Do you think that evolution is part of " God's plan "? i.e. created by God.

In a word, yes.

Thought so.

[moleque]

Hi, here goes.

I'm a philosophy and theology student in the UK, and the more I study the more I struggle to understand why (some) Christians have a problem with evolution. I think there's no reason why we shouldn't come at it looking at the evidence like everyone else - and there are much more important things to worry about! I thought I'd investigate some of the reasons and try to put together an article on why Christianity doesn't require a rejection of evolutionary theory. Basically, I'd like to look at the arguments for a Christian rejection of evolution one by one and dismiss them. The ones I've come up with so far are:

1: Evolution contradicts the Bible ('we can't say the earth is 6000 years old')
2: Evolution insults human dignity ('we can't say we're different from animals')
3: Evolution defeats arguments to design (we can't say 'God made that!')
4: Evolution leaves no room for the doctrine of the Fall (we can't explain where right and wrong come from)
5: Religion and Science are naturally conflicting ('whose side are you on?')

So my questions are: Have you come across other arguments for a Christian rejection of evolution? What are they? Why do birds, suddenly appear, every time, you are near?

Thanks, much appreciated.

Cleanthes

Animals adapt
man adapts
that is evolution
it happened in the bible
it happened before the bible

dignity is individual


each has their own beliefs

science and religion being conflicting is up to the individual
science is knowledge
tested knowledge

Put them together and you have the knowledge and cultural history of any people.

Morality has to do with environment

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@peace2u



From your posts it sees to me are a true believer trying to bring light to kafirs.

I will answer your posts from a slightly different angle,accepting [for the sake of argument] your claims about the scientific truths in Al Qur'an are 100% true.

My response; So what?

My friend,I am an atheist.That means I do not believe in God(s) To me that means there is no such thing as "the revealed word of God" .Al Qur'an is in many ways a noble document,but it was written by men for men.That there may be truths in the book written by some Arab genius in the C7thCE,proves only that there was an Arab genius of the kind who later invented algebra and trigonometry.It proves nothing about the existence of God(s).

Unthinkingly quoting the lesson of your Madrassa,using Al Qur'an as proof,will avail you nothing here. Sadly,neither do you seem to posses the wit or rational thought processes of Mulla Sadra.

I am unwilling to engage you in discourse,it serves no purpose

Wa Salaam.

[Cleanthes]

But doesn't that go against the teachings of Genesis? I take it that you interpret this part of the bible in a non literal, poetic sense. If that is the case, how do you know that the whole bible isn't intended to be taken that way.

Basically, how do you pick and choose which parts to take as gospel and which not, if you'll excuse the pun..

Pun excused!

It's a good question. If I'm willing to say Genesis is not literal, how do I refute someone who says that the resurrection isn't either?

To answer this, I will assume that miracles happen. I know that's a big assumption, but it should enable me to explain things from my point of view, and we can always discuss it in another thread.

I decide which parts to view as literal in various ways. One is literary analysis - e.g. the Psalms are written in a poetic style, and so don't need to be taken literally (although you can still learn a lot from them).

Another way, and the one I'll focus on, is based on types of evidence. The evidence against the resurrection runs as follows: We have never in our lives observed someone rising from the dead. Therefore, people do not rise from the dead. But I believe in miracles, so I can say that God intervened and the normal laws of nature do not apply (I'm putting this crudely, I know, but it saves lengthy exposition).
The evidence against a literal reading of Genesis runs as follows: Genesis says that the earth was made in 7 days (etc.), but we have evidence to the contrary. Therefore, Genesis cannot be taken literally.

The difference between the two is this: With the resurrection, we have inferential evidence against that kind of event occurring. With Genesis, we have evidence against that specific event having occurred.
With the resurrection, the evidence says 'This kind of event is extremely unlikely', to which I can reply that there may have been a miracle.
With Genesis, the evidence says 'In this instance, there was no miracle' (at least , none of that kind).

So when there is evidence against a specific event having occurred the way a literal reading of the Bible would have it, then I'm inclined to take that as showing we shouldn't read it literally. When there is evidence against an event of that type, but not the specific event itself then I have no problem with a literal reading.
So no amount of still-dead dead people will convince me that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Show me the bones of Jesus (I don't ask for much!) and I have a problem.

Remember, this is an explanation of my beliefs, not an argument for them. I am fully aware that as an argument it closely resembles a colander.

Cleanthes

[Kyuuketsuki]

I am fully aware that as an argument it closely resembles a colander.

ROFLMAO ...

I read through that thinking all the cynical things atheist like me always think and then I reached that line and nearly spat my bloody coffee over my computer it was that funny!

Brilliant, just brilliant!

Kyu

[bozo]

But doesn't that go against the teachings of Genesis? I take it that you interpret this part of the bible in a non literal, poetic sense. If that is the case, how do you know that the whole bible isn't intended to be taken that way.

Basically, how do you pick and choose which parts to take as gospel and which not, if you'll excuse the pun..

Pun excused!

It's a good question. If I'm willing to say Genesis is not literal, how do I refute someone who says that the resurrection isn't either?

To answer this, I will assume that miracles happen. I know that's a big assumption, but it should enable me to explain things from my point of view, and we can always discuss it in another thread.

I decide which parts to view as literal in various ways. One is literary analysis - e.g. the Psalms are written in a poetic style, and so don't need to be taken literally (although you can still learn a lot from them).

Another way, and the one I'll focus on, is based on types of evidence. The evidence against the resurrection runs as follows: We have never in our lives observed someone rising from the dead. Therefore, people do not rise from the dead. But I believe in miracles, so I can say that God intervened and the normal laws of nature do not apply (I'm putting this crudely, I know, but it saves lengthy exposition).
The evidence against a literal reading of Genesis runs as follows: Genesis says that the earth was made in 7 days (etc.), but we have evidence to the contrary. Therefore, Genesis cannot be taken literally.

The difference between the two is this: With the resurrection, we have inferential evidence against that kind of event occurring. With Genesis, we have evidence against that specific event having occurred.
With the resurrection, the evidence says 'This kind of event is extremely unlikely', to which I can reply that there may have been a miracle.
With Genesis, the evidence says 'In this instance, there was no miracle' (at least , none of that kind).

So when there is evidence against a specific event having occurred the way a literal reading of the Bible would have it, then I'm inclined to take that as showing we shouldn't read it literally. When there is evidence against an event of that type, but not the specific event itself then I have no problem with a literal reading.
So no amount of still-dead dead people will convince me that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Show me the bones of Jesus (I don't ask for much!) and I have a problem.

Remember, this is an explanation of my beliefs, not an argument for them. I am fully aware that as an argument it closely resembles a colander.

Cleanthes

You are a creationist. You believe God created everything. I believe it less improbable that everything has always existed. In that belief I don't have to answer the question " who created the creator? "....you have to.

[chatpilot]

Aside from the fact that there are two versions of the creation story in Genesis chatpers 1 and 2 that completely contradict each other,I think that christians hate evolution because it does go against creationism on many different points.The main one being the span of time for the existence of the universe and the world we live in.Also,specifically the evolution of man takes away from God the act of creating us from dirt with his own hands thus taking away our special place in creation.Evolution brings man down from his ego trip and puts us where we rightfully belong on Earth as yet another evolved animal as opposed to a divine creation above all other species.

[Johnny]

Hi, here goes.

I'm a philosophy and theology student in the UK, and the more I study the more I struggle to understand why (some) Christians have a problem with evolution. I think there's no reason why we shouldn't come at it looking at the evidence like everyone else - and there are much more important things to worry about! I thought I'd investigate some of the reasons and try to put together an article on why Christianity doesn't require a rejection of evolutionary theory. Basically, I'd like to look at the arguments for a Christian rejection of evolution one by one and dismiss them. The ones I've come up with so far are:

1: Evolution contradicts the Bible ('we can't say the earth is 6000 years old')
2: Evolution insults human dignity ('we can't say we're different from animals')
3: Evolution defeats arguments to design (we can't say 'God made that!')
4: Evolution leaves no room for the doctrine of the Fall (we can't explain where right and wrong come from)
5: Religion and Science are naturally conflicting ('whose side are you on?')

So my questions are: Have you come across other arguments for a Christian rejection of evolution? What are they? Why do birds, suddenly appear, every time, you are near?

Thanks, much appreciated.

Cleanthes

My old pastor said that he rejects evolution because he couldn't mesh it with original sin. He said that if we evolved then there could be no point in history where Original Sin entered the human narrative. At the time it kind of made sense, but then later on I was like what the hell? How can you reject something so out right because it doesn't vibe with your (twisted) theology?

---

Aside from the fact that there are two versions of the creation story in Genesis chatpers 1 and 2 that completely contradict each other,I think that christians hate evolution because it does go against creationism on many different points.The main one being the span of time for the existence of the universe and the world we live in.Also,specifically the evolution of man takes away from God the act of creating us from dirt with his own hands thus taking away our special place in creation.Evolution brings man down from his ego trip and puts us where we rightfully belong on Earth as yet another evolved animal as opposed to a divine creation above all other species.

When I was a Christian I had no problem with evolution. I didn't understand why God couldn't have created us through a process?
Also, it's mostly fundamentalist protestants who take the Bible very literally who object to evolution.
http://www.calvarychapel.com/our_teachings.cfm
If you follow that link, and click on the very first "teaching" Genesis 1: 1-18 you will get a pretty generic fundamentalist defense of creationism.