Isn't it unwise for religious folks to deny evolution?

Question

The debate about our evolutionary origins was effectively settled well over 100 years ago. Many intelligent people of those days, including clergymen, recognised that all living organisms are related by common descent, including humans, but they didn't have a clear idea about the mechanism involved. Darwin settled that debate by describing the mechanism - natural selection - in detail, and supporting it with a wealth of evidence.

Today, the only effect of denying evolution is to tacitly admit that reality is fatal to your own religious beliefs. Hence if theists are sensible, they will do what believers always do when faced with uncomfortable scientific facts which contradict their beliefs - They will change their beliefs. This is how the game has been played for hundreds of years.

To maintain a position against our evolutionary origins today is to admit that your religious beliefs are contradicted by reality. It's hard to see why anyone would want to do this.

Answer 1

You give a very intelligent arguement. I agree and cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to do this. I love your wording "tacitly admit that reality is fatal to your own religious beliefs". It is right to the point.

Answer 2

No it's not. Denying evolution is about the most intelligent thing that one can do.

Firstly, the debate was NEVER settled 100 years ago. Even if MANY clergymen sided with Darwinism, MANY others did not.

Secondly, natural selection was not the answer that settled the debate. Natural selection may answer how certain varieties of the same kind come to be, but it does not address the issue of origins. You can only select from pre-existing kinds, and Natural Selection does not have creative ability, it only has sifting abilities.

Thirdly, denying evolution is crucial to being in line with reality. Reality is that we don't see animals turning from one KIND to another! Neither do we see life coming from nonlife, as evolution so requires. Sensible theists make sensible choices and go with the evidence that says evolution did not happen.

Fourthly, to maintain a stance against evolution is to admit that that there are some things which are false, even if popularised by so-called science. Evolutionary beliefs are contradicted by reality in every step, yet their adherents are so threatened by it that they resort to name calling or ridicule or mocking to maintain their religious beliefs.

Answer 3

I am sorry, but you are misinformed. The issue was not settled 100 years ago, and is not today. Simply because some clergymen compromised their faith, does not validate the evolution hoax. You make a lot of assumptions and cloak them as facts. There is no evidence supporting common descent. What we know is, man comes from man, dog from dog kind, bear from bear kind, etc.. There is no evidence to support one kind coming from a different kind or all coming from one common kind. Darwin simply put forth a mechanism for a philosophy that had been around for a long time. He has no evidence to support it, but was hoping some would be found, none has been. No transitional fossils have been found, which he hinged his entire argument on. We have no problem with scientific facts, but evolution is not one of them. It has never been tested or repeated, and therefore cannot be considered scientific fact. The reality is, more and more evidence is being found that supports creation. Evolution is a sinking ship, and only a few diehards refuse to get off before it goes under completely.

Answer 4

My beliefs are unchanged sinse the coming of Christ, and they are not truly changed, but fulfilled.
Those who deviate from it are those who do not understand it well, and when a person who has deviated finds error, THAT is when they make stuff up or change.

And evolution is missing FAR too many facts to be anywhere near past a theory. how does an eyeball form? why is there a stalagmite in a cave, with a bucket INSIDE it permanently if they form after millions or even just thousands of years? how were a few red blood cells found in a T-Rex bone!? what is scripture wrong about in ANY way?
If the big bang was real somehow, how did matter come into existance at all?? if it was always here, why do all atoms have orbiting electrons which work SO DANG WELL!?

I can only say that Darwin was dumber than a Roman Catholic.

Answer 5

Unwise or not, some will continue not to believe in the face of facts. Or, as the man said, "Don't confuse me with the facts."

But, how many farmers will refuse chickens (bred from the pheasant by the Chinese, if I understand it correctly).

Or the pigs -- bred from wart hogs.

And how many farmers will turn their backs on a prize bull for breeding purposes? Or would they (and do they) pay a premium price for that bull so they can get the product of a mixture of genes from parents with desirable attributes?

Would a farmer rather get the bull that can't even get to first base with any self-respecting cow? No! He would go for the prize bull. Why? Because of genetics -- the root of evolution.

And those who don't believe in evolution also don't believe in the domesticated dog. It's okay. They don't exist, right? No Golden Labrador retrievers; no pitbulls; no chihuahuas; no Dachshunds. No! They are all still wolves. Dogs don't exist.

Well, I say that evolution is real and alive and well regardless of disbelievers. For those who also believe in a god or gods, they can believe in an unseen hand playing a part in all that. But, I cannot see how anybody can deny genetics and evolution. Even Doubting Thomas would be hard-pressed to ignore the proofs.

Answer 6

There never is a contradiction between believing that God created the Universe (therefore, all that's in it )and evolution. Nowhere does the Bible teach scientific facts to the authors of the scriptures, primarily Genesis. Evolution on the other hand, is an explanation of how things could've progressed/evolved based on available data and methods known to science regardless of wether there was a creator or not. In other words, the subject of a Creator is outside the scope of evolution. Evolution deals with HOW things came to be, which means process. So in evolution, there is so much room for those who believe God created the universe and all that's in it. Who created the universe? God--its in the holy books. How did God create the universe? Evolution--the closest answer the human mind can think for now.

I like to think of nature as one long, supremely complicated set of formula or laws written and breathed into existence by a supreme creator--God--slowly generating everything that was and everything that will be in the universe.

Answer 7

I agree, and I think Jesus would agree as well:

Luke 5:37,38 No one puts new wine into old wineskins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved. No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’"

I see the "new wine" to be synonomous with new knowledge, and the wine skins to be religion. New wine is incompatible with old wine skins, so the solution is to use fresh wineskins. In other words, as our understanding of the universe increases, religion should change to fit that knowledge. If not, both religion and science lose. The problem is, it's hard for people to change the beliefs they've held so close for so long, for he says, "The old is better."

Jesus was no dummy. He knew very well that humanity would get smarter and find some of what is "known" to actually be false, and that it does not serve us well to be rigid in our beliefs. Sometimes, you just have to adapt, even though the good ol' days seemed so much better.

Answer 8

You should do your homework. Darwin had theories, not proven fact. There is NO plausible evidence for evolution which is why there have been fraudulent attempts to show evolutionary links. You should read Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", showing the impossibility of the transition required for Darwin to be correct, and Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" showing how the building blocks of tiny life cells are too complex to have evolved without outside help.
Besides, your question makes no sense, it's like saying" I believe there is a God, because there is no God". ???????

Answer 9

And we see the common mistake evolutionists make time and again...taking natural selection, adaptation, and calling it "proof" of evolution.

So what you're saying, really, is snakes become snakes, cows become cows, fish become fish....etc, etc, etc.

Yes, there is a wealth of evidence for natural selection and adaptation...even a Young Earth Creationist would agree with you hands down. What they don't agree with is taking that evidence and saying it is proof that we transformed from apes.

And there is ZERO evidence for such a thing. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

So, the truly unwise are those who chose to BELIEVE a philosophy for which the evidence simply does not line up.

You see, there is no science that can tell us how things began, how this universe began. Try recreating the universe in a lab; you can't do it. All the evidence can do is be understood in the context of what we believe about the past, and since no scientific evidence can confirm molecules to man evolution, why do people insist on believing it?

Because, to not believe it, you really only have one alternative. And the alternative is to believe in creation. And if we're created beings, we have to pay homage to our Creator. And we intrinsically don't want to do that.

By the way, if the debate was effectively settled over 100 years ago, how come approximately half of all Americans believes the universe (and man) was created?

Thank you for so elegantly illustrating the quantum leap in logic evolutionists make in desperate hope to believe in something that is mathematically impossible.

Answer 10

Balderdash! Darwin himself admitted that he couldn't rationally explain the how the eye had "evolved" and since his time the theory of evolution has been shot through with more holes than a shotgun target at a shooting range.

Micro-evolution is a demonstrable fact. Claiming that inanimate matter suddenly "became alive" is totally ridiculous. Even in the Frankenstein movie the mad scientist had to have a totally assembled body to surge a lightning bolt through in order to restore life.

Now that we have the human genome project, electron microscopes, and a far better understanding of the intricate internal "machinery" that make up even a tiny bacterium it has become more and more obvious that matter does not self organize into complex units that combine together just waiting for an electric charge to come along and somehow bestow the property of life to that which has always been dead.