Christians rejecting Darwinism - Why?

the reason why we have this new age of christians who believe in evolution and no longer take the bible as literally as it once was, is because they have recognised the orthodox method was flawed in so many ways, that in the 21st century you sounded rather dumb trying to explain certain biblical events. this wouldn't have been the case 300 years ago, and believing in virgin births, noah's ark and adam & eve was the norm.

should the evolution process or natural selection be mentioned in the bible if that's what god set in motion...rather than the adam and eve creationist's theory?

i dont get how some christians can believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and say that there isn't even evidence for evolution, yet you have other people who also call themselves christian who say evolution is a factor and that god set it in motion. its just one big joke. how many more things does christianity need to steal to get people to believe in their religion, they already stole the christ myth from the egpytian horis and other legends.

The reason many Christians dont belive in evolution is because since they were born they were fed bible dribble and were told if they questioned it they would go to hell.
Also it goes against the creation of 7 days and the 'fact' the EArth is 6000 years old. If you begin to accept science the entire bible will fall apart (well thats what happened to me anyway.)

Originally posted by Shenroon
The reason many Christians dont belive in evolution is because since they were born they were fed bible dribble and were told if they questioned it they would go to hell.
Also it goes against the creation of 7 days and the 'fact' the EArth is 6000 years old. If you begin to accept science the entire bible will fall apart (well thats what happened to me anyway.)

Interestingly enough, the exact opposite happened to me. I wasn't fed Bible "dribble" growing up, I came to know Christ after I had moved away from home. I'm fairly educated in science, and the only possible contention the Bible has with science is evolution. If you've read through any or all of the creation v evolution-type threads, you'd see that the evolutionary model does have a lot of questions to it that are unanswered.

The 6000 number comes from the lineage described in the Bible. That's from Adam. There's also question about the word "day"; did it mean a literal day or age. It's possible that evolution would work with the Bible, but armchair scientists like yourself (and me back in my hayday) have taken the theory to mean the rejection of religion. It's the banner we hold up proving the Bible is "dribble", but the exclusiveness of the two are created in our minds, not in reality. I know that now, I didn't know it before.

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by Shenroon
The reason many Christians dont belive in evolution is because since they were born they were fed bible dribble and were told if they questioned it they would go to hell.
Also it goes against the creation of 7 days and the 'fact' the EArth is 6000 years old. If you begin to accept science the entire bible will fall apart (well thats what happened to me anyway.)

Interestingly enough, the exact opposite happened to me. I wasn't fed Bible "dribble" growing up, I came to know Christ after I had moved away from home. I'm fairly educated in science, and the only possible contention the Bible has with science is evolution. If you've read through any or all of the creation v evolution-type threads, you'd see that the evolutionary model does have a lot of questions to it that are unanswered.

The 6000 number comes from the lineage described in the Bible. That's from Adam. There's also question about the word "day"; did it mean a literal day or age. It's possible that evolution would work with the Bible, but armchair scientists like yourself (and me back in my hayday) have taken the theory to mean the rejection of religion. It's the banner we hold up proving the Bible is "dribble", but the exclusiveness of the two are created in our minds, not in reality. I know that now, I didn't know it before.

YEs there are a lot of holes in evolutino adn there are good reasons for that but the bible has so many holes I;m, surprised that once science came along it still existed.

Originally posted by Shenroon
YEs there are a lot of holes in evolutino adn there are good reasons for that but the bible has so many holes I;m, surprised that once science came along it still existed.

What holes are you referring to?

Well O.K then what holes are you refering to in evolution.

And here are some of the holes you asked for:

Well the hole where god created everything but came from no where.
Where the stars were created twice.
Where the hole world was flooded with no real evidence.
The lack of any evidence bar the bible of itself.

I guess what most people that are against the evolution theories refer on the "holes" is actually the so call "missing link" that will united us with the "common ancester" as in the Darwin theory.

The claim of the missing link is the point on evolution in which the transition to modern man is evident and irrefutable.

Originally posted by Shenroon
Well O.K then what holes are you refering to in evolution.

And here are some of the holes you asked for:

Well the hole where god created everything but came from no where.
Where the stars were created twice.
Where the hole world was flooded with no real evidence.
The lack of any evidence bar the bible of itself.

Ahh, many of these have been addressed around here on ATS through the various threads. There is physical evidence that could support a global flood, and modern geology even recognizes this and accounts for it by saying that, originally, the entire Earth was covered in water before volcanic and tectonic activity raised some of the seabed above the water level, creating Pangea.

The part with God creating everything but coming from nowhere is addressed in the Bible, where it talks about Him having always been. Science is beginning to understand this concept through temporal physics. The current explanation for the existence of the universe, the Big Bang, has this problem too -- where did that Bang come from? Both of these can be accounted for by the belief that the 4th dimension loops, but this is relatively new science and needs to be fleshed out a bit before it's even really at the theory stage, from what I understand.

There's also secular historical evidence that corroborates historical references in the Bible, adding weight to the reliability of the it. Nothing has been able to show that the historical events documented in the Bible were inaccurate.

What are you referring to with the stars twice? I've not heard that before.

Hello all,

I've been following along with your discussion here, and believe that I might have some input. I come from a background where Christianity was very much ingrained in my belief system as I was being reared, yet I am a scientist by profession. You may find my other recent thread on a similar topic interesting, and I'd invite you to join in over there too!

I will try to make my comments without interjecting disrespect for the Christian religion, but I have to preface them by saying that it is difficult for me. I have seen so many people over the years use Christianity for the basis of bigotry and hatred, that it is sometimes hard for me to realize that not every Christian feels this way. Those of you who are Christian on this board, I want to lend my respect to you. It is not your beliefs that bother me - I think everyone should be allowed to believe or do whatever they want to, as long as it isn't harming anyone. The innate problem I see with Christianity is its necessity to spread to everyone else. I will never understand why Christians aren't able to keep the religion to themselves - it is a very personal thing, after all. Instead, they feel it necessary to "save the world", by giving their 'knowledge' about Jesus to everyone else. They seem to have a difficult time just accepting that other people may not want or need to subscribe to their beliefs.

Therein lies the problem, I feel, when you mix this group with a bunch of other people who subscribe to all different types of philosophies. We share a country together, mixing politics, values, careers, and everyday lives. Since we have so many people of differing philosophies (including Christians) involved in the country, we must include everyone in our decisions, not just the majority (or even the perceived majority).

Our public schools must take everyone's beliefs into account when subjecting our children to educational topics. Prayer in school? Forget about it - you can't possibly include everyone's religion. Creationism? Forget about that too - what about the Buddhists? Or the Taoists? Or the Muslims? Or Atheists? Etc., etc. etc. Evolution? Here is the problem...

The Theory of Evolution is one of the fundamental scientific topics. It is the basis for many other scientific issues, that, if someone were to pursue a career in the sciences, they would find that it is necessary to know or at least understand the concept. Here you will find an explanation of scientific terminology about Laws, Theories, and Hypotheses. If you don't want to look at it, here's the important part:

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

So, now we have this problem. The scientific community, having made multiple observations that prove the original hypothesis to be true, accepts evolution as a theory, meaning, we believe it to be true.

So, is this just a differing philosophy? Should we teach science in our schools without addressing either evolution or creationism? That is how I am leaning. Personally, I don't see why Christians can't accept basic scientific theories - it is science, after all. Why not find a way to make it jive with your book? As someone who was raised as a Christian (and, no, I'm not one anymore in case you didn't get that already) by a parent who was also a scientist, I know you can mesh the two together. I remember my father telling me the "God directed evolution" story. And I also remember his scientific Christian friends talking about how the phrase in the bible "Let there be light" sounds an awful lot like the Big Bang Theory.

What is my point, you are asking? Well, I think we all need to find a way to live together. I see conservative Republicans (many, many Christians) referring to the "Angry Left". There's a reason why we're angry. We don't want your philosophy forced on us. It is infiltrating our politics, our schools, our everyday lives! I'm tired of hearing "God bless America" when I don't even believe in a God. This country isn't about majorities - it is supposed to be for everyone. Since I subscribe to that belief, then I guess we need to take a scientifically accepted and believed topic out of the public schools. But, if we do that, then Christians shouldn't be allowed to become scientists, because you can't be a scientist and not accept the Theory of Evolution. I remember taking classes where my science teachers would tell the class they could be both (why is it that scientists in general are more accepting of Christians than vice versa?). But, conservative Christians in this country are going to make it impossible for someone to subscribe to both beliefs. If I were a liberal Christian, I'd be furious!

There, that ought to stir up the pot a little...

[edit on 14-7-2005 by Tidepooler]

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by Shenroon
Well O.K then what holes are you refering to in evolution.

And here are some of the holes you asked for:

Well the hole where god created everything but came from no where.
Where the stars were created twice.
Where the hole world was flooded with no real evidence.
The lack of any evidence bar the bible of itself.

Ahh, many of these have been addressed around here on ATS through the various threads. There is physical evidence that could support a global flood, and modern geology even recognizes this and accounts for it by saying that, originally, the entire Earth was covered in water before volcanic and tectonic activity raised some of the seabed above the water level, creating Pangea.

The part with God creating everything but coming from nowhere is addressed in the Bible, where it talks about Him having always been. Science is beginning to understand this concept through temporal physics. The current explanation for the existence of the universe, the Big Bang, has this problem too -- where did that Bang come from? Both of these can be accounted for by the belief that the 4th dimension loops, but this is relatively new science and needs to be fleshed out a bit before it's even really at the theory stage, from what I understand.

There's also secular historical evidence that corroborates historical references in the Bible, adding weight to the reliability of the it. Nothing has been able to show that the historical events documented in the Bible were inaccurate.

What are you referring to with the stars twice? I've not heard that before.

When the world was full of water was like 2 billion years ago, so actually it isn't explained. The only evidence of a huge flood in ancient humnan times was a break between the black sea and mediterainian(sp?) which is where the bible was written adn in those times the area around them was the entire world so I'm sorry but unless the only sinners on the planet were in this part fo the world then it wasn't a very effective mass killing of all sinners (is the term genicide)

And the stars being created twice is refering to where in genesis pretty much everything was created twice I won't quote scripture because well I find the looking for the rihgt verses slightly pointless.

Originally posted by Shenroon
And the stars being created twice is refering to where in genesis pretty much everything was created twice I won't quote scripture because well I find the looking for the rihgt verses slightly pointless.

Ok, I'll just assume that point was given to me along with the other two you hadn't addressed. Thank you, though, that comment was good for a belly laugh.

Now, to explain what I meant with the geologic record. Geology assumes an old earth. As Tidepooler pointed out, a lot of scientific theories and beliefs are based on this old earth model. I was mearly pointing out that geology as it exists today does believe in a flood, but they don't believe it was as recent as the Bible states. There are a lot of theories involving sedimentary layering that seem to support a global flood. If you'd like, I could go into more detail about them, but if you're not interested I'd rather not because I have a ton of work to do IRL. If you'd like to know more, though, I would be more than happy to go deeper into that.

Sorry for not posting again, I thought that this topic had died...I guess I was wrong!

You all have some very interesting views on it...I personally think that evolution in schools should be taught as a theory, not fact, but it's ridiculous to teach Creationism as well. Then you have to teach the beliefs of every other religion to make everyone happy.

P.S. I thought everyone knew Bigfoot was the missing link!

Oh yeah, and science doesn't make the Bible fall apart...on the contrary, it pulls it together.

[edit on 7/15/05 by ShreddedIce]

Originally posted by ShreddedIce
Sorry for not posting again, I thought that this topic had died...I guess I was wrong!

You all have some very interesting views on it...I personally think that evolution in schools should be taught as a theory, not fact, but it's ridiculous to teach Creationism as well. Then you have to teach the beliefs of every other religion to make everyone happy.

P.S. I thought everyone knew Bigfoot was the missing link!

Oh yeah, and science doesn't make the Bible fall apart...on the contrary, it pulls it together.

[edit on 7/15/05 by ShreddedIce]

Well, by golly, I think this may be the only post in recent memory besides my own throughout ATS that I have completely agreed with, assuming the PS was a joke. Odium was right in our debate, creation science is not proving creation through science. Creation science is proving evolution wrong through science.

Also, Tide, I'd like you to readdress who Christians really are, if you're up for it. The people covered by the news and who get the public engaugements (generally) combining Christianity with politics are not in the majority. The media covers what will bring them the highest ratings, and covering someone who pisses people who are non-Christians off as much as it pisses Christians off when they're talking about religion is fantastic for ratings.

I think what you've noticed is that at ATS you're getting to talk to educated Christians like your father, but you're still seeing us as the exception, not the norm. Einstein was right, religion without science is blind. Most Christians believe that. Those who don't make the news.

Well, after I went off with my very long post yesterday, I realized that this was actually a debate about whether Christians should accept the Theory of Evolution, not whether the Theory of Evolution should be taught in schools, which is the angle I was coming from in my post.

No one questioned me on this, but I realized it might come off as somewhat odd to those of you who have been communicating on this thread. However, just to clarify why I took that stance - it is because even though there are some Christians who don't believe in the Theory of Evolution, I don't think the subject would be that much of an issue if it weren't for what we teach in our public schools. If you took the public schools out of the equation, it would be a private and internally fought battle, one for philosophers to debate perhaps, but certainly nothing as heated as what we are seeing!

That said, junglejake, I'm pleased to see your response to my post.

Originally posted by junglejake
The people covered by the news and who get the public engaugements (generally) combining Christianity with politics are not in the majority. The media covers what will bring them the highest ratings, and covering someone who pisses people who are non-Christians off as much as it pisses Christians off when they're talking about religion is fantastic for ratings.

I see your point here - anything even remotely sensational sells in the media - it's why I don't pay attention to it. But, I am referring less to what pops up in the media, and more so what is on the political agenda. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the Bush Administration has been able to gain as much status as it has by catering to the ultra conservative Christian crowd. I don't think that their ideas to take away a women's right to choose, appoint fanatical Christians/conservatives to offices within the administration (or to the high court), or change the constitution of the country to ensure that certain members of the population are without civil rights is pissing off this ultra conservative crowd. Granted, there are some Christians who might raise an eyebrow at some of this stuff, but much of it is agreed upon, and that's why this administration has gotten as far as they have. At least, that's my opinion. You may have a different one.

Many of my own relatives are these ultra conservative Christian types, and I see them use their religion as an exuse for bigotry and ignorance. Because I see so much of it, I tend to have a very cynical view of the entire movement. Perhaps you are surrounded by others, such as yourself, who tend to take a more liberal stance on politics. If that is the case, more power to you and those like you! Since I feel surrounded by the bigots, it becomes very hard for me to seperate the religion from the bigotry. As I said, I try not to do that, but it is very hard.

Thanks for your valuable and thoughtful insight!

Wow. I think that is the first time I've ever been referred to as a liberal

Thanks for your reply, Tide. I understand where you're coming from, I just disagree with it. First off, I agree creation shouldn't be taught in our schools as a science, but if you look here, you'll see some things that creation could add to the scientific discussion in the classroom. Again, I don't really support this, but it was the position chosen for me and I had to defend it, and I did so honestly, as far as my mind goes.

Now, when you had said:

There is no doubt at all in my mind that the Bush Administration has been able to gain as much status as it has by catering to the ultra conservative Christian crowd. I don't think that their ideas to take away a women's right to choose, appoint fanatical Christians/conservatives to offices within the administration (or to the high court), or change the constitution of the country to ensure that certain members of the population are without civil rights is pissing off this ultra conservative crowd.

I had to smile. I can only speak for myself, and not my fellow conservatives, nor my fellow Christians, but you're right, for the most part, I am not pissed off about that. The thing is, I don't see it as you do. Yes, the patriot act pisses me off. I can't stand that piece of legislation, and I'm sure all the Democrats and most of the Republicans are kicking themselves for being so shell shocked after 9-11 as to think this was civic duty rather than what it was.

I actually have no idea which policy you're referring to when you talk about taking the civil rights away from certain Americans, though if you had said simply Americans, I would agree. On top of that, the term "fanatical" is extremely relative. You come across to me as a fairly liberal individual. If you were to go through my posts, you would probably think I was fanatical, because I am pretty gosh darn far right. I'm one of those folks who don't believe the rich should be punished for being rich, I don't believe murder is justified in any situation (be that captiol punishment or abortion), and I don't believe judges should legislate from the bench. I am completely sure you see those three examples I just pointed out from a totally different perspective. Either you're going to laugh at the spin I added to the issue, or you're going to get pissed.

Now my story, I have always been an armchair scientist. Not professionally educated, but I love to learn about all fascets of science, with a focus on physics. There is no doubt in my mind science works perfectly with religion, at least mine. (I don't know the others too well, just cursory exploration). I try not to use my religion as an excuse for bigotry or ignorance. If anything, my religion dictates that I must be in the world, learning at all times. My religion also states that I must love everyone because everyone is equal in God's eyes.

That said, yeah, there is a whole freakin' lot of prejudice in this world. I'm guessing you believe the right wing, wanting to get rid of affirmative action and the like, are racists for doing so. I don't see it that way. I see affirmative action as something creating a larger divide, not bringing people together. Yeah, on the surface races are mingled, but that doesn't solve the problem that lies inside of our minds. Do you think a business owner who is presented with two equally talented people, one white and one black, and is forced to choose the black one by the law is going to stop seeing race? No, that business owner starts seeing race everywhere, "where can I find a talented balck man, or better yet a talented black woman to make my company appear diverse and increase my stock price?" That doesn't bring people together, it creates the exact same situation in this country as existed in the 60s, but it's being reversed.

I ask that you look into some of my previous posts, or if you'd like to continue this conversation you U2U me. I've gotten way off track from this thread's topic. If anything I've said here has helped you to understand, even though you still disagree, with where the ultra conservatives are coming from, I encourage you to check out some of my other posts, because this is how I typically post. If not, then please put me on ignore, I don't want to give my side a worse name in your mind than we already have

Rock, rock on,
The Christian and at the same time, although not as a result of, conservative,
JJ

If Adam and Eve were real, wouldn't we all be inbred? Maybe that explains all of the human ignorance and constant need to self-destruct. (war, smoking, drinking, murder, etc.) Maybe that explains all the mentally handicapped, and diseases that are killing humans. I believe in God, but I also believe in evidence. There are numerous examples of evolution at work. It's nothing you'll see overnight, but life changes to suit the needs of survival. Why should warnings be put on books? Are people really that afraid of truth? (the same people that believe you can fit two of every species on one boat) You have to consider that in the past, when things could not be explained, they were "of the gods", or created by God. Science is very real, and largely based on evidence. Most theories will be proven, or disproved eventually, so why show animosity to one another for beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their own, whether it be hard cold evidence, or blind faith. If church and state are supposed to be separate, then why is this a debated issue in school when the theory (fact) of evolution is taught? It is science and it should be taught. Religion is personal, and should left outside of schools. There are many non-Christian students, right?

u think about this...... ur telling me a guy got two a male and female or the land? the animals willingly come (lions and tigers?) even ones on islands and ones that are over water and seas? then, he gets them on a wooden ship that is sumhow able to fit all these species of animals. then even futher more he can tell that its a gobal flood? because u know noah had satilities and all and the help of his team.....the animal squad to help him sumhow figure out the massive amounts of land flooded for 40 days.....and this water was so high that it covered the mountians so that animals wouldnt even be able to just go to higher elevations like their insticts tell them to. and magically on the 40th day its no longer flooded.....where the water go?

simply this is how i see it..... massive flood in the area. he gets as many animals as he can, which would be the species in the area he knows of. he sumhow manages to pull this off. flood comes. its not a huge flood but its big enough to cover up a decent amount of land. this flood is about a week, but unfortunately for noa he was carried out to sea. now he has no idea where he is. eventually about a month later they wash up on land. no seeing it as they made it 40 days without food is unlikely and water too.

simply even tryin to explain this event in understandable terms is hard because there holes

ok so look what im sayin now is that simply, u wanna believe it go ahead but leave us be we do what we want. ur not goin to be able to convince any person that doesnt have a weak mind that ur ways are liable, because simply ur proof isnt solid enough. and the tests u attempt to prove are weak.

science has a long way to go, things still need to be tested. religion cannot test its against what they are about, they arent supose to test they are just supose to believe, and accept. so when it comes down to it science will push us to understand better while religion is why it took us till the 1900's to start making real advances it science.

stories of virgin births, resurections, healing the blind, curing the paralysed, adam and eve, noah's ark...christians believe in. however, when it comes to some story about the evolution theory, that makes sense, there is evidence however much you don't like to think so, and they say 'we never came from no damn dirty apes'. hilarious to think that they believe in those stories that they have not one single valid piece of evidence for, yet can't seem to grasp evolution, which actually makes sense...hmmmm wierd.

You're right, evolution does make sense. We've seen it on a micro scale, and it would it makes sense that that would be applied to the macro scale, too. So, too, was believing the sun was a ball of iron creating a static charge heating the earth. There are a lot of things that, logically, make sense which aren't true. Look at some of Aristotal's science teachings. His philosophy was to reason through it, rather than experiment. Today we don't seem to have the technology to experiment on macroevolution, so we must logically go through it, and it makes sense. Does that make it true, though? Absloutly not.