Why is it that Darwin's theory of evolution can not be accepted by Christianists?

Question

Since Darwin answers many more questions than the Bible, and has so much more empirical data, and why does Darwin have to share the stage with Creation, when Creationists main argument is not fact, but faith?

Interesting answers so far...This question comes from my belief that Creationists emphasize the faults of Evolutionists, moreso than finding their own evidence that supports their Bible theory. A theory is nothing without 2 things:

1. a steady progress that solidifies your theory based on evidence and measuring criteria.

2. A belief that to seek the truth is ultimate, and to not being afraid to revise history based on new findings. I think this makes it tough on Christians because according to the Bible, History has already been written, so their motivation to seek the truth is tempered, because of their fear that their findings will be proven false.

Only truth, and empirical proof, not faith, not belief, will eventually answer the question of Man's origins.

So, is Creation really a theory? If so, what solid proof do Creationists have that supports their case? I want to know....

Answer 1

Many Christians do indeed accept evolution as a proven fact. The ones who deny reality are probably worried that evolution is a threat to religious belief... And they're right!

Answer 2

I think I understand what you're trying to say, it's just that I'm not clear about the way you're saying it. You wrote:
" A theory is nothing without 2 things:

1. a steady progress that solidifies your theory based on evidence and measuring criteria.

2. A belief that to seek the truth is ultimate, and to not being afraid to revise history based on new findings. I think this makes it tough on Christians because according to the Bible, History has already been written, so their motivation to seek the truth is tempered, because of their fear that their findings will be proven false.

Only truth, and empirical proof, not faith, not belief, will eventually answer the question of Man's origins."

I mostly agree with number one. Number two is a bit fuzzier though. What I read is you "believe" that "seeking truth"
is "ultimate". Then you imply that history is flexible.
"and to not being afraid to revise history based on new findings."
That, my friend, is part of the problem right now. How can you change (revise) history. It already happened. You can change your perspective of what you believe happened, and you can base your perspective on whatever you put your faith in. The term "empirical" doesn't change that fact that speculation about the evidence in question is speculation.
The Bible doesn't claim that "history has already been written." History HAS already been written.
Darwin never states that God doesn't exist. It's "Darwinists" who make that leap of faith.
What Darwin's theory strongly suggests' is that life forms undergo change that can be measured and codified. That over time is likely that certain changes did occur. The empirical data are the recorded results of experiments done by scientists that suggest strong correlations to his theories.
What's there to absolutely prove his theory as THE correct model to explain the ORIGIN of man?
You say Believer's have a tempered motivation to seek the truth because of a fear that "their findings" will be proven wrong.
So are you conceding that they too have evidence enough to postulate a theory?
Your final point that only truth will eventually will out, diminished by your characterization of what truth is not, "not faith, not belief" puts your quest for the alleged truth in the negative right from the beginning. Sort of like, guilty until proven innocent, instead of innocent before proven guilty. Technically both statements yield the same condition, a "thing's" status is unknown. But the approach on the one hand results in a finding based on the presumed innocence of the thing and on the other it's based on the presumed guilt.
Actually, that's how this Believer tries to view everything. Panoramically.
I think Darwin had some interesting ideas. His theories have gone a long way toward moving the field of medicine and genetics forward. I haven't read all his work but I'm fairly certain that he didn't dispute the existence of God. Most scientists of his era didn't dispute God's existence either by the way. In fact, even today God is alive and well in the so-called "scientific community". Don't let the empirical data of FoxNews and CNN cloud your view.
Finally, here's a rule of thumb for Creationists, Darwinists, Reincarnationists and any other "ists". Just because you know where something isn't doesn't mean you know where it is.

Answer 3

Because the answer to the question, if Darwinism is right or wrong, is also the answer to whether God exist! Or is it?

I have seen a lot of material on this topic, mainly by Dr. Kent Hovind & Rev. Charles Darwin. As a matter of fact, he's having a debate on Creation vs. Evolution, against local scholars & scientists, less than a stone's throw from my house in South Africa, in August. See the website www.mPowerMinisteries.co.za.
I suspect it has something to do with the theory that humanity has originated from Africa.

Anyway, as with all theories, there are holes in them, patched up with chewing gum, where the theorists have no solution to bridge the gap between facts. The same could be said for both these scholars. However, the rapid increase in scientific evidence (thank you Mr. Steven Hawkins) tips the scale in favour of Darwin for the time being. (Yes, Christians and non-Christians, alike use scientific theory and evidence to condemn suspected killers to be executed.)
Personally, I think that Christians need to adapt to the new world, the same way they were forced to do in the renaissance. Before this, science was magic, witches were burned at the stake and Galileo Galilei was the Darwin of today.

Are we never going to learn from history? If there is something all scholars have to agree upon, is that there had to be a designer (consciousness, God) for the universe. Why is it so hard to except that God uses science to weave it all together? As for the Bible from which Creationists draw their information, respectfully, there seems to be no scientific evidence for its origin. In addition, please don’t take this wrong; it therefore could be compared to Greek, Budist, Egyptian, Inca or whatever other religion used, (and believed in) for centuries, to explain the origins of humankind, until scientifically proved otherwise. You could disagree with this, but that would mean you only disagree in opinion, not fact.

The point is, we should all wake up, straighten out our differences and get our story straight. We are setting a very bad example with our constant bickering to the generations to come. There is much at stake!

Answer 4

Christianists?

There's a lot of faith put into Darwin's theory, too. That's why it's called a THEORY not a proven fact. It's kind of like Einstein. He had a lot of theories backed up mathematically and scientifically, but many of them he couldn't actually PROVE scientifically. Darwin's theory is simply that. A theory backed up with a lot of evidence and faith. Creationism is also backed up with a lot of evidence and faith.

For example, correct me if I'm wrong, but evolutionists believe that somehow a bunch of dirt mixed together and created some sorts of basic life forms and there is probably evidence to back this up. In Genesis, it says that God caused the land to produce living things. The same evidence backs that up.

And many scientists would agree that there was only one continent once and that is backed up by lots of evidence. In Genesis, it says that God put the water in one place and caused dry land to appear. If the water was put into one place, that would mean there was one continent, also backed up by the same scientific evidence.

I believe in Creation for many reasons. One being that the earth is slowly moving away from the sun. At the rate the earth is moving away from the sun, billions of years ago, the earth would have been in the sun and life would have been impossible. Also, the moon would have been so close to the earth that the tides of the ocean would have drowned a lot of life forms. If the earth was only created several thousand years ago, we wouldn't have that problem. Also I believe in Creation because I believe in God and it makes a whole lot more sense that we have a reason for being here and are not the products of an accident. We are all loved by the Creator of the universe. Whether or not you believe that is your choice, but anyway, that's my answer.

Answer 5

Let me answer that question with a question.
Why is it that darwinist's are so afraid of the "theory" of creation?
They go to great lengths to silence it from schools and public view.
After all, darwinist's do call Creation a theory and shouldn't we be open to all interpretations so that a person can make their own decision. And actually, darwinisn cannot be proven fully. It IS just a theory and it takes just as much faith to believe darwin as it does Creation.
You ask why should they have to share the stage with Creation? I say that they fear another "theory" because they cannot fully prove their own

Part two of your question..........It is documented that Christ arose from the dead, this was witnessed by over 500 people during the 30 days that he remained on earth before ascending into Heaven

Answer 6

It has to do with Darwin stating events and times which are science based. Faith is something that does not need to be justified. Christianity is faith, therefore you either believe or not. Call it blind faith, however until we can really explain how life occurred, Christianity is more convenient and simpler.

Answer 7

Why is Darwinist main arguments is lots of written data but still no evidence or proof of how we came about? Why not go to the Science section and figure it out?!

Answer 8

Because the theory of evoloution tries to say that the earth was made without the need of a God, and of course christians believe in God so they should deny it

Also, if your a christian otr a muslim, think of it like this..

do u think Adam, the first man on earth, was a monkey or whatever..?

nope

Answer 9

Darwin's theories were closer to breeding programs than evolution.No new creatures have appeared but many have died.Which will replace what is here now?

Answer 10

Its mainly those who have never studdied biology who disagree with Darwin, the great uneducated, if anyone tried to force me to teach creationism I would have them arrested for fraudulent use of Government funding.