Besides evolution, what other science do theists reject on the basis that it conflicts with religious dogma?

Answer 1

Take your pick. If religious dogma rejected everything that indicates the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution occured, all they'd have left is basket weaving and fire. Here is but a partial list of examples, there are many more:

* Astronomy shows the age of the universe by light shift. This shows that stars and galaxies are moving away from a single location, that of the Big Bang.

* Archeology has shown time and again that the claimed events of the bible and other religious books don't jibe with the evidence (locations, dates, existence, etc.).

* Biology is more than evolution, there's also DNA and genetics. By proving similarities in different species is debunks many religious claims. (Did you know that bats evolved from mice? In early development they have the same bone structure. So much for the bible's claim that "bats are birds"....)

* Chemistry and physics proved the decay of Carbon 14. Unless you believe nonsense about the rate of decay "changing by the hand of god", then Carbon 14 is a great indicator of something's age.

* Finally, geology. The first inkling that the Earth was more than 6000 years old was by scientists observing strata around mountains: vulcanism, sedimentary rocks (eg. ocean fossils on mountain tops), earthquakes and the Earth's crust, etc.

Conversely, all sciences "by chance" fit together. The "holes" in each science's structure can be rationally explained and filled in by other sciences. Religion conflicts and contradicts, science doesn't.

Answer 2

It is not just a conflict with religious dogma, my friend it is scientifically explained by real scientists who have the same credentials as Evolutionist Scientists have. If you are a Creationist Scientist or a Evolutionist Scientist, you are dealing with the same evidence, and both parties recognise this, only they have a different way of viewing it and for the most part, evolutionists cannot explain themselves effectively. For one example out of the thousands available, they have the geological column all over the place - it is supposed to be layered as such to represent the different eras and yet there are many areas, like the Grand Canyon that shows older layers on top of younger ones. But instead of rethinking the theory, they move mountains literally and physically to come at the desired result even though they themselves are at a loss as to how. For this example and many like it, creation science look at the same evidence and explain it more soundly and logically and what's more it fits in with biblical history. In this case it was the world wide flood that evolutionists oppose by the way. Why do we have whole tree trunks traversing right through these layers without the effects of 100,000 and 10,000's of years at one end. That one hasn't been effectively explained by evolutionists either. There is enough fossil evidence now, in fact more than enough, to know that there were and are no evolving species. Our genes lose information, not gain them (evolve) and no evolutionist can scientifically oppose this. Creation and evolution, by the way, cover a lot of fields of science - paleontology, biology, physics, mathematics, linguistics,genetics. Practically every science known will have opposing results due to these two views. We were taught at highschool the Theory of Evolution only. A lot of this stuff has been successfully refuted or removed now by the same breed of scientists who came up with it, only most people do not know this - there's been no 'recall' of what was taught then and people although with their great interest in 'where we came from' don't even bother to check it out. And speaking of refuting, there is the misconception that religion is not scientific - well no - but there are religious scientists who show with scientific intellect the huge doubts that hang over the Big Bang Theory, that bats have always been bats and mice have always been mice, that the dating systems in place can be enormously erronous and all this is scientifically explained in favour of the One who made all these things so. There is not just an inkling of evidence that we were created, there's a whole great lot and so if we were, then we do have someone to answer to - ie. God.

Answer 3

I reject evolution not on what part is proven,that living things adapt,but that they use this small part to try and justify bad science.Humans have been breeding animals and plants for thousands of years,we already knew things adapt.Yet science proves what everyone already knows.
Where is the proof that anything can change family,where is the proof that life can come from non-life.
We all know the theory of evolution is taught as the origin of all life on the planet,all came from one single cell that math prove could not have come into being.The fossil record prove that animal do not change family.It is bad science to persist in an assumption when you have no proof and the proof available contradicts your assumption.
http://www.bearfabrique.org/evolution_main.html

Answer 4

I have heard of a German fundamentalist (I thought it was mostly an American phenomenon) who has published books 'disproving' Galileo and showing the universe to be truly geocentric...

A scripural relativist would have to discount almost all of modern science, but most of the time theists find a way to 'bend' their holy book to accept modern realities. I think the concentration on evolution seems to be based on the fact that if you try to 'bend' the Bible far enough to accommodate evolution, it will snap in two.

There are millions and millions of believers in God who accept evolution. Growing up in Canada, I never heard a single voice of dissent against evolution. I was shocked to hear that in America there were. Yet 75% of Canadians still profess to believe in God in one form or another.

Another important answer to your question, however, would be modern psychological and genetic research into the nature of homosexuality. Plus research into the health benefits of stem-cell research. These are even more important than their beliefs on evolution, because people aren't being denied basic human rights or legitimate illness treatments because some people don't believe in evolution...

Answer 5

None. And as far as rejecting evolution because of religious dogma, no, I don't reject evolution just because of that. I reject it as I have looked at the facts, and found that many could be easily interpreted as creation. It all depends on your presuppositions.

Check out this website that has PHD type scientists that expose many of the flaws of the evolution concept from most scientific perspectives.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

Answer 6

EVOLUTION

The introduction to Genesis and to the whole Bible ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking. There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation. One must be true the other false. All of God’s works are good, great, wondrous, and perfect.

Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is only seen in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade to the plowshare to machines. But the birds build their nests today as at the beginning. There is growth and development within man, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another.

For this theory or fallacy of evolution to be true there would be evident stages of evolution today. You would be able to find species in many stages of evolution in nature right now. For this theory or fallacy of evolution to be true there would be no God. And that’s exactly what evolutionists believe and are trying prove. The evolutionist bases his or her conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documentary evidence of the manuscripts.

Answer 7

Some, of course, reject the fact that the earth isn't the center of the universe. Others reject the fact that there are such things as germs. I'm sure the list goes on, but I can't recall them.

As for the site offered above, go here and see how it's all wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Answer 8

One that hasn't been mentioned yet is some Christians object to medical research involving stem cells to try and cure spinal cord injuries (and potentially many other injuries and diseases) because it is 'Playing God' and it could lead to the use of aborted fetuses to harvest stem cells for use and further research... What I don't get about this is. you can get stem cells from umbilical cords, why can't they do research on these cells? Genetic research is also unsavory to some fundies for the same "Man Playing God" reason. They had all better pray really hard that I never get put in charge.

Answer 9

Jehovah's witnesses dont believe in blood transfusions and christian science dont believe in any kind of science/medical attention
Baptist dont have sex standing up because they're afraid if caught, people would think they where dancing.
amish are against anything that doesnt come out a butter churn or a horses butt
there is lots of fun things to learn about religious cultures

Answer 10

i do not reject evolution... i believe it is very possible and have no conflict with my belief in creationism... what dogma do you reject because of your so called science?