the real reason creationists hate evolution?

[drfuzzy]

Ok, so we know that Catholic seminaries are teaching that the Bible is NOT to be taken as literal truth. New priests are taught that evolution is true. (Actually, they are taught something like "intelligent design", and that the creation myth was just a way for people who didn't have scientific language to explain it.)  They are taught that there was a flood in the middle east, ages before it was written down, and that priests used that story to say that God had drowned evildoers.  The story grew into the Great Flood. They are taught that there was no Exodus. They are taught that Jesus never raised Lazarus, walked on water, or quieted a storm. I clearly remember one sermon about the "three wise men" that started "You know that there weren't any wise men, don't you? No "kings from the east", no gold, frankincence, or myrrh?"  -- I loved that!

>>> But the entire base of Xtianity is the sacrifice of Jesus, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve. So wait, if evolution is true, there was no Adam and Eve. No talking snake, no apple from the forbidden tree. No Adam and Eve, no original sin, no need for a sacrifice. <<<

I have asked a handful of Catholic priests about this, and have gotten many different responses.

One tried to say that there was an Adam and Eve, the original progenitors of the Hebrews. And this solves the problem of who Cain and Abel married: there really were other people in other towns, where they could go to look for wives.  But that doesn't work either, because then "original sin" would only apply to the Jews. So when they have Jesus say, in Matthew 15:24 that "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel" that would be fitting.
     Another said that we are all flawed and sinful creatures. The creation myth is simply a way to say that we were made perfect, and that we fell from perfection somewhere along the way, and therefore need a "holy redeemer".

I call BS.  I'm going to stand with "no original sin, no need for a sacrifice".  In fact, I'm going to go one step further and claim that no amount of blood from any creature can erase sin. If we murder someone, that's on our conscience forever, it is not erasable. 

Any thoughts? Does evolution, by itself, negate Christianity?

[Minimalist]

Basically, yes.

The whole thing is a house of cards.  Pull cards from the bottom and the whole shaky edifice comes tumbling down.  That's why the dumbest ones ( fundies) are really the smartest.  They know their story cannot survive much editing so they dig in their heels, put their fingers in their ears and insist that it all true.

They are idiots but they understand the weakness of their own beliefs.

[Chad32]

There's a lot of things that negate christianity, and probably multiple reasons why christians may dislike evolution. One being that Humans evolving from the same ancestors that Gorillas and Chimps did makes us not special. We're just another animal that's farther down the line of intelligence than most animals. Though there are some really smart animals in the world. This includes being self aware, using tools, and even having the same mental capacity as our children.

[MentalGiant]

From what I've always gathered, creationists are extremely uncomfortable with the concept humans evolved from great apes (and going back even further, from bacteria and simple organisms). Because the bible told them so, they believe homo sapiens are "better" than any other animal and do not see how t would be possible for us to have evolved from "lower beings". Yes, humans have superior intelligence NOW, but theres lots of things we didn't evolve (such as flight, echolocation, ability to breath underwater unaided, ability for newborns to walk right away ext...) and it seems to be luck of the draw that we happened to be the first (known) species to advance technologically. Dolphins, great apes and certain species of bird (psittacines and corvids) can all reach the mental capacity of a 5-6 year old child, learn to speak in-context (through sign language or in the case of birds, our own language), count, do basic math, identify shapes, colors, materials... The levels of intelligence early hominids had isn't even rare in the animal kingdom, it's literally luck we managed to exploit and refine it faster than these other species who posses the same capabilities, less the refinement of tens of thousands of years. However, this makes creationists very uncomfortable to think about. They are, after all, an extreme example of a speciesist mindset and comparing us to "lesser beings" makes them have to consider the fact we aren't particularly special.

Edit: I also don't think they're particularly thrilled to ponder the fact humans were not always the dominant species. Think about it, you believe to the core of your being you were put here as the best thing that ever lived, and some old dinosaur bones threaten to disprove everything you've ever thought and believed. That's a threat, so they came up with ludicrous explanations that fit their perceptions rather than letting the evidence speak for themselves.

[Gawdzilla]

I sat next to a young man on a flight from JFK (New York) to Leonardo da Vinci (Rome). We got to talking and he mentioned he was a Jesuit. I laughed and said I wasn't at all religious. He replied that he no longer was either, in fact he was going to Rome to get kicked out of the Society of Jesus. I asked what had happened to him and he said "I read too much about evolution. God doesn't make sense when you know anything about that." I wished him luck.

[vorlon13]

. . .

One tried to say that there was an Adam and Eve, the original progenitors of the Hebrews. And this solves the problem of who Cain and Abel married: there really were other people in other towns, where they could go to look for wives.  But that doesn't work either, because then "original sin" would only apply to the Jews. So when they have Jesus say, in Matthew 15:24 that "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel" that would be fitting.
   
 . . .

So Jesus is inapplicable to gentiles, and the Jews reject him.

Sucks to be a useless son of god, don't it ??

[Aoi Magi]

Does evolution, by itself, negate Christianity?

No, Christianity, by itself, negates Christianity.


Besides, they are running out of room to do their mental gymnastics. Evolution is only a minor contributor. Without political powers backing them up, religion will fall.

[brewer]

To the OP question, for non christains, yes. For christians, can't really speak for them, but I think no. For them it's just one of many issues that they excuse away, side step or ignore.

Like Tommy, that deaf dumb and blind christian sure can rock a belief.

[Jenny A]

I think the bulk of Christians who hate evolution hate it because it takes away their specialness, and not because of the fall of man. They want to be made in god's image and therefore a special part of his plan. If they evolved than they're just like all the other animals and not so special.

I don't think many of them see the fall as so necessary. Whether it came of eating an apple, sleeping with women, or what, they find humans inherently sinful (and if that means not perfect, we are). That's all it takes. Sinfulness equals death and hell fire. No apple required.

For fundamentalists the problem is that they are sure the Bible is inerrant, and that makes evolution, the big bang, and all sorts of other facts extremely uncomfortable.

[robvalue]

I notice certain people tend to reject precisely the parts of science that contradict their religious narrative, and don't much care about the rest of it. Then suddenly science is their friend when they want to pull some silly argument from fine tuning of universal constants.