Why are Christians against evolution?

[Edwardo Piet]

You cannot base your existence on a theory.

We are not, but you clearly are I'm afraid..

And it's not a scientific theory

EvF

[peace2u]

Seriously, get an education before you spew an idiotic remark like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

As much as there are scientists who support evolution, there are as many scientists who don’t support it. That's why it's not an established scientific fact. For example the earth is spherical is a fact, so if evolution was a fact then it will be an established scientific fact and everybody would agree. This sounds simple so why would anyone need to get an education to understand this? Even Darwin had questions he could not explain or the find the answer to his idea (the intermediate stage or the missing link of the evolution process).

[Darwinian]

As much as there are scientists who support evolution, there are as many scientists who don’t support it.

Because, I suspect, they are not evolutionary scientists or serious scientists but instead those who work in broadly based scientific fields and they, like you, are religiously brainwashed and would rather believe ancient fairy stories written down by those who seek to control through fear and superstition rather than the facts gathered by their intellectual superiors over many, many years.

so if evolution was a fact then it will be an established scientific fact and everybody would agree.

Is is a well established fact and everyone who has studied it with an open mind does agree. Except of course for those who desperately don't want to believe because it would contradict their faith and so they, metaphorically, shut their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and shout "I'm not listening!"

[Edwardo Piet]

The evidence is extremely strong - now I might be wrong here but I would think the reason why it's not a scientific fact - instead it's a scientific theory - is something to do with the fact that all the tons and tons of extremely strong evidence is circumstantial ? Is that perhaps the reason or is there another reason, etc?

As Dawkins has said, to quote from the Dawkins wikipedia page:

' In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers, Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know". When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory, Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English." '

EvF

[Rockthatpiano06]

If you can't base your entire exsistence on a theory, then i guess we really don't have a need for religion. What do you suppose all religions do? They certainly aren't basing their ideas on fact!

[Edwardo Piet]

It's less than a theory. It's a mere hypothesis lol. Totally hypothetical - without any support at all. It's 'made up', whether the writers of the bible or Koran, etc believed in it or not.

Chock full of bare assertions.

EvF

[Cleanthes]

Because Evolution is a theory and not a fact hence 'The Theory of Evolution'

I suppose what peace2u is getting at could be put as

6: Evolution is unscientific

This one has come up on the Christian forum where I'm asking the same question. Quite a lot. I don't think I'll include it, because if evolution was unscientific then that would be a reason for everyone to reject evolution - and I'm looking for reasons why people think Christians specifically have to reject evolution. Plus, I'm a philosopher - I haven't studied the science enough to argue about it. Seems fine to me though!

It's 'made up', whether the writers of the bible or Koran, etc believed in it or not.

Of course it is. In fact, at every general synod the bishops choose a couple of verses to change in the Bible, and to put in every edition from then on. It's getting steadily more contradictory - we're just waiting for you lot to notice.

But don't tell anyone I told you. That'd spoil the joke.

Cleanthes

[Edwardo Piet]

Of course it is. In fact, at every general synod the bishops choose a couple of verses to change in the Bible, and to put in every edition from then on. It's getting steadily more contradictory - we're just waiting for you lot to notice.

But don't tell anyone I told you. That'd spoil the joke.

Cleanthes

Lol...don't worry. LOL

EvF

[peace2u]

The evidence is extremely strong - now I might be wrong here but I would think the reason why it's not a scientific fact - instead it's a scientific theory - is something to do with the fact that all the tons and tons of extremely strong evidence is circumstantial ? Is that perhaps the reason or is there another reason, etc?

As Dawkins has said, to quote from the Dawkins wikipedia page:

' In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers, Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know". When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory, Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English." '

EvF

If you’re going to use this example of the murder scene then it does not support your argument because not all murder scenes tend to be result of a murder regardless of the evidence provided. It could be an accident, a mistake, setup or self defence, I mean you watch movies. So a detective may assume that it's a murder but it's not always the case and many times never proven regardless of the post evidence that the detective have. In the movies, how many times does the innocent person gets the blame for a murder he did not commit and how many times does the murderer gets away with it regardless of the evidence provided? Of course, movies are no guide for us but sometimes they do represent human nature and life as it is

[Edwardo Piet]

Dawkins was giving an example when the evidence is really strong though. DNA evidence would be a good example I suppose.

(And we of course have that to support evolution as well as evidence for what happened at a crime scene!!).

EvF