Why are some Christians so hostile to the theory of evolution?

Question

Some scientific evidence for evolution
1.Fossils of extinct plants and animals, including homonids
2.Age of the earth (4.5 billion years)
3.Age of the universe (11 billion years)
4.Different races of humans
5.Adaptation of organisms to their environment
6.Application of microevolution to medicine & biotechnology
7.Miller-Urey experiment
8.Comparative anatomy shows proof of common ancestry in different species
9.Bacteria mutate and develop resistance to antibiotics
10.Nothing is biology makes sense without evolution
.

Different races of humans belong to the same species - Homo sapies descended from Homo erectus, etc, etc, etc,.

Answer 1

In the face of all that evidence, they still deny:
"It's just a therory"
"There's no proof"
"where's the missing link"
"the evidence is all hoaxes"
and the number one answer: "It's not in the Bible"

(covering ears and closing eyes) "Blah Blah Blah I'm Not Listening To You Blah Blah Blah You'll Burn In Hell For Your Beliefs Blah Blah Blah"

Answer 2

It runs counter to what the Bible states happened.

1. Fossils can be created in less than 50 years.
2. Assumed based on certain carbon-14 and other radioactive decay rates. These may have been different rates or concentrations earlier.
3. Assumed based on beliefs of certain varibles.
4. Easily accountable through the story of the Tower of Babel in the Bible.
5. That is natural selection, not Evolution.
6. Medicine does not require knowledge of evolution to function or expand.
7. Cannot comment.
8. No. It just shows that many species were created with similar features since that is all that was needed.
9. No. Actually, it is the bacteria that were already resistant to that antibiotic is placed in an environment that now has less competition since the antibiotics killed the competition.
10. Everything in biology makes sense without evolution.

I agree there is natural selection. But there are NO examples of one cat becoming a dog or some such.

I recommend reading the articles on this website to help understand my responses.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

Answer 3

Dear Michael X,

I do not know if you are familiar with proper scientific experimentation, but evolution is poor science at its best! Michael, just because a canterpillar, giraffe, goat, and an ape have legs, does this mean they all came from the same ancestor and is man also in that list? Legs are the means of locomotion for the animals and man listed above, but just because they have similar appendages for movement does not mean that they are related! DNA is a molecule that contains the genetic information for organisms. It contains 4 bases that can be arranged in a variety of sequences. All of the organisms listed above and man have DNA. Does this mean the all cam from a priordial ancestor? Absolutely not! The DNA of every single animal type (I hate using the terms genus and species), can be put onto one teaspoon). Michael, I think this just speaks of the wisdom of a master Designer who could arrange these bases in different configurations to produce the organsims described above. And we have not even begun to speak on translation. Random events could never arrive at such complexity and organization.
Michael, you also have excluded much of the geological evidence that has been found. We know that particulate matter enters our atmosphere at a constant rate along with erosion of the land from rain, etc. If the age of the earth were 4.5 billion years as evolutionists suppose, the oceans would have filled with sediment many years ago! But this not the case. You can also check this situation with regards to our moon. When Apollo 11 landed on the moon, the lunar module was eqipped with large pods because scientists had theorized that over the millions of years there should be approximately 15 of lunar dust on the moon. There was less than a quarter of an inch. This is further explanation for a young moon.
As for your fossil evidence, radioactive dating is only accurate to 5000 years! In addition, about all the scientific scams that have perpetrated the so-called discoveries of Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian man. Some of these skeletons were hoaxes altogether, constructed fro the tooth of a pig!! All these have come from "scientists", and i use that term very loosely, having an agenda and then gabout to establish that agenda.
Michael, take a look at the Creation Scientists-- they do research the old fashioned way. May I suggests that you look at this website: www.familyradio.com.

Answer 4

1. Nobody has found a fossil of an actual homonid.
2. Nobody knows the age of the earth.
3. Nobody knows the age of the universe.
4. The different races are related. Scientists believe we all have common ancestors.
5. Adaptation is not a change from one kind to another.
6. No evolution going on here.
7. The Miller-Urey experiment has been rejected by evolutionists and should no longer appear in textbooks.
8. The only areas of common ancestry are things like wolves and dogs. They are the same kind anyway.
9. Bacteria that mutate are still bacteria, they don't become something else.
10. Plenty of biologists do not believe in evolution. It is not necessary to believe in evolution to be a biologist. In fact, micro biologists tend to disbelieve in evolution.

Other than that, evolution is a fine hypothesis. I object to people who are so poorly taught in science that they believe evolution has been proven.

Answer 5

Both sides of this argument are silly. When you tolerate people who CLAIM they support science but then attack religion, then some religious people who do not realize that most scientist have no interest in attacking religion will hate science.
When you tolerate people who CLAIM to be religious but attack science, then you will have some scientists who hate religion.

It's sort of like the various Islamic nations sheltering terrorists and then saying, "But it isn't us? How can the U.S. judge us? We didn't do it!"

It's silly, and deserves the same answer we gave Afghanistan, as Israel is giving to Syria.

Religion explores those things not subject to science or scientific method.

Science explores the testable, observable universe, not those things that cannot be tested, such as is in religion.

Each has their place. Imagine a world where all thought about things that couldn't be tested were banned and no one could believe one way or another until they had scientific proof?

What a nightmare! People forget that Religion is the father of Philosophy, which is the father of Science.

End this patricidal nonsense. Give each other the respect each deserves for what they do.

Religion, give science room to grow. We may find proof of God one day. Evolution is a theory, and scientists in the field are trained in scientific method and ACCEPT that tomorrow, as more evidence is found, that the entire theory may fall apart. For now it is the best theory we have. That's it. Theory.

Science, stop whining. Evolution is a good theory, but far from completely proved, and won't be until we can actually go back into time and see it happen. Until then, it IS our best scientific theory for how life has changed. It allows us to explore further ideas and further shape our knowledge of reality, but may not be true. We accept that. It is not a religion.

Stand together against the people who keep setting you against each other. They want Darwinism to silence religion, and Creationism to be taught instead of science.

Silly.

Answer 6

I'm Christian and I believe in Creation with allowance for Evolution - which is basically change over time. You listed some dates there and there is also proof that things evolve over time. The Galapagos Island experiments provide concrete proof.

I think that a lot of Christians are opposed to the idea because revised versions of evolution rule out God out of the equation.

Answer 7

Because it undermines the idea of a God that is actively involved in his creation. Evolution implies, at best, a standoffish Deist clock-maker God, or else a decieving God who made it *look* like evolution did everything. At worst, it removes the need to believe in God in order to explain the universe.

Also, it more-or-less proves (or provides evidence for) that the Bible is not 100% correct. If parts of the Bible are wrong, how can you tell which parts are right?

Answer 8

Christians are hostile to the theory of evolution because it possibly disproves the basis of their entire religion. How earth shattering would that be if proven true? So of course they are going to be hostile. Evolution is basically telling Christians everything they believe and everything they were taught is a complete sham. Wow!

Answer 9

The simple answer: some Christians are against (hostile to) any issue you raise. Christainity is a religion that encompasses people and groups with widely divergent views on social and scientific issues. For example, I am a Christian who accepts evolution while I know many who wholeheartedly believe that to accept it would be to undermine their faith.

Answer 10

I back up Mark's question. It comes down to a difference in beliefs. Evolutionists don't like to hear what Christians have to say and visa versa. I could make a list of reasons why I believe in the creation, but it wouldn't do any good. ;)