Christians and Evolution?
People don't want to accept evolution as fact. Fine.
People want to stick to their own ignorant, religious beliefs. Fine.
But PLEASE, do not pose your PSEUDO-science crap as actual science. Why is it that Christians (Evangelicals, mostly) don't question the bull they are getting fed by the likes of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham? Do you really think these liars are educated enough to know more than the world's leading evolutionists, cosmologists and geologists? Evangelical Christian folk, please tell me why you don't believe the world's leading scientists but believe these two-bit idiots who are only deceiving you to make a dollar?
Ms Lady: Evolution is as much a theory as is the Theory of Gravity but you wouldn't know much about the scientific term, would you? It's childish to believe in something without questioning it. That's how your religious belief would be "childish" in my eyes. Needing a "saviour" or some kind of thing to believe in like an imaginary friend is also childish, don't ya think? I'm merely sick and tired of having religious people sell their pseudo-science as real science. The real scientific community shouldn't have to tolerate that crap.
no1home2day: I don't know who this Dr. Flue is but it's ironic that the name is "Flue" since it's the flu virus that proves evolution because it mutates and evolves. You can read up more on viral evolution. And also, being an atheist has nothing to do with being an evolutionist.
You have a very bleak view of scientific discovery. Once a theory is theorized, that's not the end. Further research will bring new things into light. Today's evolutionists have tested and found answers different from what Darwin had predicted. Science is cumulative.
Chey_17: If the Bible is so scientific then why did the Church believe that the Earth is flat for so many years? Because the Bible is *not* scientific at all. And the Big Bang is not a new theory (but just another one denied by the Christian Right). We *do* see changes in viruses and we see random variation all around us. We did not evolve from the apes you see today. We share a common ancestor! You need to read a lot more on evolution.
heavymetalrick: You're as bad at reading people than you are at biology and science in general. There's is overwhelming proof that the Earth and the Universe are older than 6000 years! For one, the dinosaurs who have lived on Earth for millions of years. Carbon dating is the scientific method to prove that. Look into it.
What kind of "facts" point to the Grand Canyon having taken an HOUR? Evangelical Christianity's Biblical "facts" (notice the quotations)? If evolution is "totally debunked" then why is there still a whole field of evolutionary biology taught in university lecture halls and not a shred of mention of creationism? Because it's the academia deciding what they take as FACT and what they believe to be FICTION.
By the way, if you were trying to scare me into something, too bad. It hasn't worked. It's "types like me" who are smarter than the likes of you and aren't scared of a "creator" who leaves no proof for his existence and then demands that I love him. Pfft.
- 1 decade agoBest Answer
The worst are the ones in denial that evolution hasn't been proven. The fact is the process of evolution has been proven. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, which leads to some question as to the "why", but the process does occur, has been documented, and leaves no question as to the "how".
The only thing keeping creationists from having a true scientific theory is the fact that they have no scientific evidence to back their claims, and there is very little evidence they are doing any decent research to try and find that scientific evidence. Hovind, Ham, Cameron, and the rest are salesmen, not researchers.
EDIT: Felt the need to comment on a couple other answers.
>>"Oh, by the way, Charles Darwin theorized evolution out of an ignorance of the human cell, not even aware of such a thing as DNA, he was under the assumption that the individual cell was the smallest part of the body, and thought it to be filled with what he referred to as an "ambiotic fluid". He concluded that this fluid, when put under duress during the formation of the body, can change the outcome of the body to match the stress. Sadly, even though his theory is founded on false presumptions, people actually take it as fact. Just remember, when you start with a mistaken assumption, the conclusion will always be wrong, and science has shown Darwin to be wrong on all counts."
The biggest difference here is that scientists don't remain ignorant of the physical evidence...they embrace it. Just because they have something that makes sense, doesn't mean that's the end of it and there is nothing else to do.
>>"...evolution believed that the earth was always here..."
>>"and if evolution really exists then why don't we see any changes in anything, scientist have been studying animals for over a hundred years, and none of them have changed at all, and neither have humans, and if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys wouldn't they all have evolved?"
We have seen and there is evidence for it. I don't know who taught you biology, but they did a very bad job. We have seen very little documented change in large mammals (monkeys and humans, your examples, not mine) because it has taken approximately 3-5 million years for them to get to the point they are at today from an original common ancestor.
>>"Legions of top scientists in all major fields are abandoning evolutionary theory..."
um, again, no. Conservative estimates are that 95% of scientists agree with the fact and the theory of evolution, and from 97-98% of biological scientists agree.
>>"Point of fact: there is more SUBSTANTIAL evidence to support the age of the earth as being about 6,000 years old instead of "BILLIONS AND BILLIONS!!" For instance, facts point to the creation of the Grand Canyon as having taken about a half hour to 45 minutes to wash out."
What does this have to do with the age of the Earth? If the Grand Canyon took 45 minutes or 250,000 years, it doesn't change the age of the Earth (about 4.0-4.5 billion years).
>>"Evolution is unproven.Not you or anybody walking this earth can prove it.Ken Ham,Kent Hovind,and plenty of other organizations that support creation have an outstanding challenge for anyone who can prove evolution is true."
um...wow...again, not true. Here are a few historical studies that have actually recorded evolution:
A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).
A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).
(References are cited at http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html)
>>"Why is it that people like Richard Dawkins won't debate Michael Behe face to face?Dawkins will rake him across the coals behind his back,but doesn't have the guts to stand toe to toe with Behe.Why won't anyone debate Jonathan Sarfati head to head?"
First, science principles aren't "proven" or "disproven" in a debate format. As such, a debate would solve nothing. Secondly, Dawkins doesn't speak about any research or scientific principles behind anyone's back...just about everything he has said on the subject has been out there for public consumption. Third, how can anyone be assured the debate will be fair? In the past, similar challenges have been made by creationists, even including monetary prizes to the winner, (Hovind has one right now), but he has made the terms impossible to meet by anyone. (See this site for evidence: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA341.html).
>>"Evolution is A religious worldview called evolutionary humanism"
Not true. It is a philosophy, not an religion. And not all evolutionists subscribe to humanism in that form.
>>"Biology would not skip a beat if evolution wasn't even mentioned,so quit your whining."
Unfortunately, again, you are misinformed. The theory of evolution is one of the foundations of biology, along with cell theory, etc. Much of biology would have no leg to stand on if it weren't for the theory of evolution. Disregarding evolution without better evidence would be to stop the use of vaccines and drugs to treat diseases, just to name the first thing that comes to mind.
- vantil23Lv 51 decade ago
Because we don't accept naturalist unquestionable, unchallenable fundamentalist committment to the philosophy of naturalism to explain all things. If you've removed God a priori out of the invistigation before the investigation even takes places can it hardly be called objective? There's a big difference here between Process science and Ongoing science. Process science is the observable stuff that can be tested and observed in a controlled situtation. Ongoing science is the highly philosophically impressionable stuff that can't be observed or tested like String Theory and Darwinistic Evolution. The likes of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham believe that the data best fits the biblical model rather than a chance caused universe or that blind natural laws are responsible for the mind boggling complexity of biological life forms. Our current knowledge of DNA and mutation actually doesn't support atheistic Darwinistic evolution (see Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe). However, let me say that evangelical Christians have no problem accepting that a species does change over time with respect to their environment, hence Darwin's finches with differnet beak sizes and shapes. But its a huge leap of faith scientifically to say or assert that cows evolved into whales or any other such nonsense. The science of DNA simply doesn't support that hypothesis, becuase you would have to introduce new genetic information for a dog (or any other animal for that matter) to become a non-dog (something completely differnet). There is simply is no observable way to "prove" what you accpet as matter of faith. And please if Creationism has holes in its evidence and lines of reasoning don't act ignorant yourself and be blind to the fact that there are significant holes in evolution as well. Even Stephen Jay Gould wasn't totally critical of the Intelligent Design guys and came to believe that either 1.) His own collegues were totally stupid for believing that observable modification is compatible with Christianity. Or 2.) It really is compatible with Christianity and that philosophically committed atheists are simply high jacking the theory to further their own anti-religious agenda. Dr. Gould choose the later. The fact that Richard Dawkins chooses not to believe that Dr. Gould wasn't serious about what he said is it's own form of "wish fullment."
- no1home2dayLv 71 decade ago
Well then, if you're going to do a little "name dropping", I guess I can too.
Are you familiar with Dr. Flue? He was an avowed atheist. (note the key word "WAS").
He has been studying and working on DNA, manipulating genes, mapping chromosomes, etc.
He came to the realization that the DNA is just too complex to be an accident. He's not a Christian, but he now believes in "Intelligent Design".
The facts speak for themselves, when you start looking at the details.
Oh, by the way, Charles Darwin theorized evolution out of an ignorance of the human cell, not even aware of such a thing as DNA, he was under the assumption that the individual cell was the smallest part of the body, and thought it to be filled with what he referred to as an "ambiotic fluid". He concluded that this fluid, when put under duress during the formation of the body, can change the outcome of the body to match the stress. Sadly, even though his theory is founded on false presumptions, people actually take it as fact. Just remember, when you start with a mistaken assumption, the conclusion will always be wrong, and science has shown Darwin to be wrong on all counts.
So, please don't talk about Christians being ignorant, when all evolutionists deliberately ignore the facts!
- 1 decade ago
I'm christian and I have no idea who Kent hovind and ken ham are, but I do know that there are things in the bible that science didn't discover until way later, for instance that the earth had a beginning, evolution believed that the earth was always here, and a couple years ago there was a scientific finding that the earth indead had a beginning. and if evolution really exists then why don't we see any changes in anything, scientist have been studying animals for over a hundred years, and none of them have changed at all, and neither have humans, and if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys wouldn't they all have evolved?
and further more if you want to believe in evolution fine, but don't be shoving your beliefs in everyones faces either. if theres one thing I learned in science is that there could be alot of information stating something is right, but its not 100% it takes one experiment or finding to make everything they thought was right to be wrong. so don't put all your faith in the leading scientists, cuz they could be right but they could be wrong.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- AcornLv 71 decade ago
I'm not an evangelical, but I've argued ... er, I mean discussed this with a few of them so:
they want to belive their minimally educated preachers over the world's leading scientists because deep down inside, they're afraid of science: rational thought and analytical thought.
They're afraid that if they apply too much rational/analytical thought to their belief system, it'll all fold like the house of cards that it is.
They have blind faith, and blind faith is weak, doubting faith.
PS I am a non-evangelical, non-fundamentalist (that means relatively sane) Christian.
- Master MaverickLv 61 decade ago
I'm not a Christian, and I can tell you why. Because those people are telling them what they want to hear. Same as the analogy about a tornado assembling an airplane, or the argument about the harmony between conditions on Earth and life on Earth proving creation, rather than that life developed according to its environment. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to support one's preconceived notions.
- Derek BLv 41 decade ago
Evolution is unproven.Not you or anybody walking this earth can prove it.Ken Ham,Kent Hovind,and plenty of other organizations that support creation have an outstanding challenge for anyone who can prove evolution is true.I suppose you believe in evolution because somebody in your past,probably your college professor,if you went to college,told you it was true.Why is it that people like Richard Dawkins won't debate Michael Behe face to face?Dawkins will rake him across the coals behind his back,but doesn't have the guts to stand toe to toe with Behe.Why won't anyone debate Jonathan Sarfati head to head?Evolution is A religious worldview called evolutionary humanism.It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.Biology would not skip a beat if evolution wasn't even mentioned,so quit your whining.Evolution is a big fat lie,and you know it.
- TraceyLv 44 years ago
In built programming of genetic material necessary to provide adaptation to environmental changes.Certainly no transitional species but for contrived charts and false fossil progression. Not a single museum or University can show anyone a link specimen. Maybe because Creation people have stolen them or hidden them before natural decay and predators consume them.
- P.I. JoeLv 61 decade ago
Well the thing about evolution is that it hasn't been proven either. We have a lot of circumstantial evidence, but it comes in spurts. You'd think that if this evolution occured through untold millions of years, we'd be finding a lot more intermediate phases. Instead, we seem to find large groups that all conform to one type, with nothing inbetween.
I personally believe in evolution, but I will not accept it as an irrefutable fact until the evidence has proven it to be so. I always leave that room for doubt.
- Ms. LadyLv 71 decade ago
evolution is not a fact. it's a theory. whether you want to except it or not, people have the right to believe in what they want to believe. maybe you should stop being so close minded and learn to expect that not everyone is going to agree with your beliefs. I'm a christian because i chose to be. i would rather follow God than the world. that is my personal belief and opinion. if you cant handle it...then that's an issue your going to have to deal with on your own time. being disrespectful is very close minded and childish.