CHRISTIANS: With all the evidence for evolution, why not believe in it?

Question

CHRISTIANS: With all the evidence for evolution, why not believe in it?

Answer 1

Well yahoo just posted an article saying Atheists are more intelligent than theists, so you can go from there.

Answer 2

Micro-evolution makes very much sense, those tiny little changes throughout a population. We do believe in that. It just makes good, clean, sense, with tons of proof. As for macro-evolution, it's very choppy, some historical samples (a very, very few) have been falsified, such as the Piltdown man. There is no such thing as a missing link, micro-evolution simply does not allow for it, and we've already proven it to be true. Plus, none of the skeletal samples that we have can be tested genetically to prove a link. That might solve the problem, but it's quite impossible given the state of technology.

Plus, simple logic says something can't come from nothing, therefore Someone/thing from outside of the present order of things must have caused this universe to come into being (God). And once you've made that step, creation just makes sense. However, I am by no means saying that Genesis is absolutely literal. However, they must have gotten something right.

Answer 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LgDaViPUfZY

Many people say that evolution is fact and that there is a mountain of evidence to prove it. Should Christians just cave in and admit that Genesis is a myth? This episode examines and refutes key evolution evidences such as:

Embryo similarity

The Miller/Urey experiment

Peppered Moths

Homology

Horse evolution

Fossil record

Dinosaurs

Archaeopteryx

Whale evolution

Tiktaalik

Vestigial organs

Ape men

Natural selection

Mutations

Chimp/human DNA 98% similarity

Junk DNA

Answer 4

I am a Preacher's Kid. When I was in Second Grade (or maybe Third), my older brother came home from college and said to our Dad (the preacher), "Dad, I've decided that I believe in evolution." My Dad replied: "I've believed in evolution since before you were born."



That was almost 50 years ago--back when mainline Christianity (that generally did believe in evolution) looked down on the Fundamentalist Christians (who didn't believe in evolution), and generally thought of the Fundamentalists as uneducated hicks.



The Reagan Revolution created an alliance between the John Birch Society kind of Republicans and the Fundamentalist kind of Christians; and ever since, the mainline Christians decided they should be more kind to the Fundamentalists. There was good in doing that, but it also gave the Fundamentalists free rein to claim to represent all of Christianity (when they do not, and never have).



(Edited last paragraph to correct a typo.)

Answer 5

evidence for evolutoin? really? Where is it?



If you think evolution is proved, then you must be referring to natural selection.



The word evolution can have different meanings.



Evolution, as understood in its broadest sense, meaning goo-to-you, amoeba-to-ape, is not the same thing as Natural Selection and variation.

Natural (and artificial) Selection can be observed. We have different breeds of dogs. Lions and tigers are descended from the same 'big cat' type - they can interbreed to give Tions and Ligers.



Goo-to-you evolution is the hypothesis that animals can change into different kinds of animals by means of natural selection working on genetic mutations.

These alleged mutations need to add genetic information. However no such genetic mutation has ever been observed. Mutations are information neutral or lossy.

'But evolution is too slow to see' protest the evolutionists. Well then it's not observable and not worthy of being even called a theory. In any case, time is the enemy - mutations are resulting in the degradation of the gene pool - that is observable.



Perhaps you will respond by claiming that there a beneficial mutations - a common riposte from evolutionists.



There are some mutations which could be considered beneficial - for example wingless beetles on a small island have the benefit of not being blown to sea. But the key point is not whether there is any benefit, but whether there is any new genetic information. Evolution requires a massive net increase in information. All observed mutations are information neutral or lossy.



These alleged evolution-aiding mutations need to have added vast amounts of genetic information. However no such genetic mutation has ever been observed. Mutations are information neutral or lossy. Notice that all examples of evolution provided by evolutionists fall into this category: Galapagos finches, peppered moths, wingless beetles, bacterial resistance, sickle cell anaemia, dog varieties, fruit flies, etc. It is simply not good enough to provide these as examples of proof that anything has evolved into anything

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-2-variation-and-natural-selection-versus-evolution

Answer 6

Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. It is true that no man has seen God. (John 1:18; compare 2 Corinthians 5:7.) Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated.

For example, scientists have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began.

For years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.” This four-word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned.

Answer 7

Because your logic is flawed. They tell you an apple maybe an orange because they both have skin and seeds. And you believe it.



Science can tell you that fossils exist but it can't tell you that they made each other. Radiometric dating can determine a ratio but the age part is speculation. What I am trying to tell you is there is a difference between facts and conclusions.



One may believe the conclusions but that doesn't make it fact. The fact is that most all the fossils had to be covered by mud moved by flood waters and that most fossils are shells. So the fossil evidence also gives weight to the world wide flood of the Bible. Also the water effects the amount of radio active particles in a rock so the ratio of mother/daughter particles is effected.



I can go on and on but I assume you know most of the evidence and choose to believe in evolution, your religion. Of course it may just be a bad assumption on my part to think that you can think for yourself.

Answer 8

The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!



Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!



Nice that Christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at fundie expense!



But behind the laughter is the despair at the fundamentalists striving so hard to destroy Christianity by turning it from a religion to an ideology!



Surveys suggest that 29% of American Christians are so extremist in their beliefs that they fall well outside of the accepted bounds of Christianity!

Answer 9

Not defending fundamentalist "Creationism" with it's unscientific and unscriptural "7,000-year-old universe", but you should know that there is plenty of evidence of an intelligent Creator in the world of living things.



For instance, ever tried to swat a fly? Not necessarily easy, right? Know why? It has to do with the fly's navigational system. It has a single vibrating rod in its abdomen, and as it changes direction in flight, it senses the changes in the vibrations of that rod and is able to dodge you, fly and land upside down and backwards. What would the Air Force pay to have flying and navigational systems that good?



How did the fly manage to evolve such a system? Even if it evolved a flopping rod, what good would it be without the muscles to vibrate it? And the unusual vibrating motion? And the nerves to send the signals from the rod to the brain? And the section of the brain to interpret the signals? And the correct instructions to interpret them? And the correct instructions to the part of the brain that controlled the wings as to what to DO about those signals? All AT THE SAME TIME. ALL USELESS UNTIL COMPLETE, giving natural selection no advantage to select during all the early "developmental stages". Wouldn't that be a remarkable coincidence? I ask people, "Could YOU sit down, right now, and write the code for such a set of instructions? And if your ten billion well trained and coordinated neurons put together can't do it with an education and a computer, is it really sensible to think that flies did it by themselves?"



The fly has a complete navigational system that is self-constructing (in its egg), self-reproducing, self-programming, self-correcting, that can fly upside down and backwards, avoiding dangers and locating and recognizing fuel (food), that requires even MORE entire, completely developed systems that even large groups of highly educated humans cannot or are only now beginning to be able to copy (and only by intelligent design), all microminiaturized into a space smaller than the head of a pin, with the code for it in characters that are the size of molecules (I wonder how many characters per inch that works out to? Pretty hi-tech data storage).



So I ask people, "In your experience, how many complete flying and navigational systems do you know of that have happened completely by accident, with no intelligent thought or design?" "Did you ever read the story of all the thought and work needed to design and build a flying machine, as told by the Wright brothers themselves? So how scientific is it to say that it just happened by blind accidents in the case of the lowly, incredibly complex fly?"



All of the animal and plant world is full of examples like these. Your body is, too. Johns Hopkins University made the newspapers by making one enzyme. It must have been pretty hard to do. It was no accident. But your liver manufactures over nine hundred enzymes, all necessary for you to live, and no one thinks about putting THAT in the paper. "Could have happened completely by accident" (which is what evolution equates to, isn't it?) But if 900+ enzymes could happen so easily, simply by accidents of evolution, then why did the university make the news when it was finally able to produce ONE?



This isn't defending the indefensible things done and taught supposedly in God's name...



Best regards,

MichaelM

Answer 10

I believe in God and I believe in evolution, too. There are some aspects of evolution that seem a little too odd to be true, though, and those are the ones I don't believe. Like how man's superior intelligence could have come from a monkey.

Answer 11

i gaggle on my goggle and am begaggled

and boggled this handheld quadcore snapdragon

supercomputer in the palm of my hand



was not found on a desert island

with not a soul around who could have created it.



so yeas i must assume that this smartphone

created itself after 50 billion years of lying around

as a simple pile of sand.



what i ask of evolution that flimsy whorebanger

where are all the inbetween bits?



where are all the half formed fishes with arms coming

out of their navels?



where in the entire sodding universe is there

a scrap of living evidence of a spontaneously

evolved anything?





a cursory glance at any FIFTY WORDS on the CELL page of

encyclopedia brittannica describes

with utterly mindblowingly good english



the highly sophisticated atomic and molecular

processes within any one of 30billion cell membrane:

on the biological, electrical, chemical and communicative

levels, it is plain to any english speaking fruit

that this cacophony of orchestration and on this miniscule level



that evolution is a total effing myth

Answer 12

Actually, most do. The only thing I can figure out why a vocal group in the US do not is that they aren't very strong in their faith so anything that contradicts their lore is not "oh, that was allegory" when it comes to the lore but "LIES!" when it comes to the science. I'm from an officially Christian country, and we don't have these sorts of problems when it comes to rejection of science, because we are taught the bible in school AND how to think critically. If you are religious, this means "if the science says this and the bible says that, which one is most likely allegory for a people that could not understand science to the point they had to actually be told by a deity to bury their poop to prevent illness and which is closer to literal truth?" and it takes care of itself right there.

Answer 13

Because there is more evidence about Christianity.

Answer 14

American Christians maybe but the rest of the normal world has no problem with evolution,



Actually more of a problem with Christianity

Answer 15

There is some philosophical fallacies in the theory the is being investigated when it comes to how genetic information transfers to manifest a different ”creature” . So I wont believe it yet.

Answer 16

When will you stop ignorantly stereotyping over two billion Christians in the world who accept Evolution as if they are part of the tiny group of Creationist Christians who do not?



Truth cannot contradict Truth. -- Pope Leo XIII



Most Jews and Christians do not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. We believe the stories included in first 11 chapters of Genesis tell religious truth but not necessarily historical fact.



One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good.



Catholics can believe in the theories of the big bang or evolution or both or neither.



On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis:



The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.



Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html



And here is the Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996 speaking of the Theory of Evolution: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm



Here is an interesting article about Pope John Paul II's opinion in the matter: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=4627



The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the big bang and evolution are the most logical scientific explanations.



As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and responsible modern science can live in harmony.



Here is a nice list of Christian thinkers in science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science



The Clergy Letter Project an open letter endorsing the Theory of Evolution signed by over 12,000 clergy from many different Christian denominations: http://theclergyletterproject.org/



I suggest you read "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy" by Robert J. Spitzer http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833



http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/



With love in Christ.

Answer 17

They would have to admit it is demonstrates the creation story in the bible is just a myth. Seeing as SOME of it is bogus, what would that say about all the other extrodinary claims within it?

Answer 18

Im a Christian but it doesn't specifically say in the bible do not believe in evolution. I believe that god created the world but it doesn't mention how god created it

Answer 19

Because there is even more scientific evidence against it, that there is for it.

Answer 20

Xtians have blinders on when it comes to real evidence.

Answer 21

What evidence ? bias web sites on the internet...of course they can't put anything on the internet that's not true? Is that your claim ?........Then i am a french model after all.

Answer 22

Preacher..! Why must they convert to Atheism..? Because you want it to?

Answer 23

Because they like the idea of a "heaven" much better...unfortunately.

Answer 24

it's satan lie I believe in Jesus Christ



All throughout human history humans have produced humans

point set match



fossils come from noah flood

Answer 25

It's selective ignorance...

Answer 26

I do.

Probably know tons more than you on the subject.

Answer 27

Well ah dun unnerstayand EEEEVILLLUTION, so it must be wrong!



GAWD DID IT, GAWD DAMN IT, 'ENN IF YUU DUN LAHK IT, YOU CENN GIT AHTTA MAH CUNTRY

Answer 28

sigh

Answer 29

They shun evidence, it disrupts their brainwashing.

Answer 30

They do.

Answer 31

Um...because I do?