I have a serious question for religious people about evolution?

Question

lets say that you believed evolution to be true. is the reason why evolution so controversial because it will prove the bible is wrong? not even about god creating the earth but because of the age of the earth itself? i dont wanna try to sound like im dissing religion but i wanna know why it is bad to be taught in the first place

if christians started believing in evolution lets say, why would this be bad?

and i really hope i didnt see an answer saying there wasnt any evidence in evolution

maj, did you know that gravity is a theory? so is physics. thats right a theory is actually stronger than a fact because a theory takes facts and puts them together to make a case.

Answer 1

Evolution is just a theory. Now scientists have come up with another theory of Intelignet being because they are unable to answer many questions with the help of Evolution alone.
Who is this inteligent being ? This is surely God.

The earth as it is today has evolved over billions of years (as claimed by the theory of evolution) itself is just like saying that
you can build a 747 Boeing aircraft by placing all the componets in a building and all the parts get entangled due to a storm and viola a plane is born.

Answer 2

The age of the earth issue itself is debated even among Darwinists. Specifically regarding the reliability of carbon dating which is the scientific method they use the date rocks and fossils. No one really knows for sure how accurate it is and there are good arguments against it's reliability. Evolution is no doubt controversal precisely because if it were ever confirmed, at least the young earth theologians would have to reinterpret the creation account of Genesis. Evolution and Christianity are not compatible, regardless of what some say. Evolution, as Darwinian scientists define it, operates without any guideance or purpose whatsoever. It is pure chance. That is the opposite of Christianity. It teaches that life was intelligently designed for a purpose.

The truth is, the fossil record is perhaps the most embarrassing area for the Darwinist because it just does not show gradual change. It shows the abrupt appearance of multitudes of life forms, fully formed, that remain the same. And the argument that similiarity of features means evolution occured does not hold water either. That's like saying because the 1992 Camaro looks similiar to the 2002 Camaro it must have evolved. Not necessarily for it could also mean there was a common designer...Chevy.

Answer 3

Because some religious folks are threatened by it. Then again, plenty of non-religious people pick and choose which sciences to believe. Regardless, not all Christians have a problem with evolution. Those that do usually cite the creation myth from Genesis as being literal and then, yes, also they use the "age of the earth" argument.

Personally,I don't have a problem with anybody's belief so long as they aren't basing irrational behavior (like sucking up all the fuel on earth and releasing it into the atmosphere) on those beliefs.

Answer 4

Evolution occurs to some extent, as you learn in a genetics class, but life in general was created by God. The anatomy and physiology of living things are MUCH too complex to have come about just through chance. Look at the wide diversity of life around you. Does a common original source seem likely to have led to it all? The study of fossils raises many questions that make evolution unlikely. Perhaps the truth is that life is created by God and that life then undergoes MINOR evolution through the process of genetics. Now-a-days, "survival of the fittest" doesn't even apply since the less fit tend to survive with help. So both processes happen and the Bible is not disproven.

Answer 5

I am not religious but I would still like to answer.

The problem is not the age of the earth or even about God.
The problem for the Christians is that if evolution was true;
1: Adam and Eve would be wrong
2: the Garden of Eden would be wrong
3: there would have been no apple eating
4: no apple eating means no original sin
5: no original sin means no blanket condemnation of entire human species
6: no condemnation means no need for universal Savior
7: No need for a universal Savior means no Jesus
8: this means no Christians to tithe, donate use as a voting block or to get to fight crusades
9: that would mean the end of a global business that is worth well over $3,000,000,000 a year.

Do you think the preachers are going to give up without a fight? I think not. I think they will fight with every trick and weapon they can muster.

Answer 6

The problem isn't so much a matter of whether the Bible is "right" or "wrong"-that's just semantics. The real challenge that evolution presents is that if Adam evolved, then he by definition he was not perfect. If Adam was never perfect, then the fall of man could not have taken place. That's not just a problem for Christianity, Judaism and Islam have the same issue.

Answer 7

Dear Red Eye Agnostic,

Chuck Misler and Henry Morris are two authors who present very good and intellectual explanations of Creationism. i saw your other question and i think it would be quite too much to come up with a list, but i find both of these authors quite excellent in their reasoning.

Evolution is not so controversial because it would prove the bible to be "not true." For me my difficulty with evolution is that it suggests that man evolved from apes, or spontaneously came together. And i think that when you look at how complex the human mind and body is it points to an intelligent Creator. It's amazing because people make fun of believers and their "faith" but i think it takes a lot more faith to believe a bunch of random molecules came together and we have life on earth, than to believe in what the Bible teaches. In some ways its simple to me. Genesis says we were made of dust and God breathed life into us. Amazingly when we die, don't we turn back to dust, but our souls go to either be with the Lord or not...

Evolution also suggests that man descended from apes and the fossil evidence is weak with many "missing links" and it doesn't soundly explain why monkeys still exist and why they have not superseded us at any points. i see many flaws in evolution.

i think the big thing is that for creation to be right- evolutionists would have to acknowledge the possibility of a Creator with intelligent design. i think the more we learn about our universe, many parts: histoy, archaeology, etc. are showing more and more evidence that the universe has an intelligent designer behind it.

Hope this helps... this is a really large topic and don't want to make this email any longer...

Kindly,

Nickster

p.s.: thanks for how respectfully your question was asked and i hope i've extended the same courtesy in my response.

Answer 8

I'm not particularly religious, but I have a fact you might be interested in: "In a book published in 1654, not long before his death, Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh, Ireland, calculated from the Bible (augmented by some astronomy and numerology) that creation began on October 23, 4004 BC." (quoted from Wikipedia.)

The Bible itself doesn't actually mention a date.

I'd also like to mention that proving that PART of the Bible is wrong does not prove the WHOLE Bible is wrong, only that PART of it is wrong. When you find an error in your textbook, are its entire contents invalidated? Well, sorta... but still. Are you aware that the Bible was compiled from many sources, many of which were left out because the compilers judged that they were false? Here we have the flaws of human judgment determining what does and doesn't get into the bible. It's not like, say, the Koran, which is dictated as directly by God as possible.

I think that people who have the truest faith know that the word of God does not lie in the technical details of the Bible.

Answer 9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

Quote:
====================================
Gosse did not assert that God deceived us, only that any act of creation of human, animal or plant would "at the instant of its creation present indubitable evidences of a previous history" in far more subtle, microscopic and unavoidable ways than the presence or absence of hair or navels. He presented it not as an hypothesis but as a law or logical necessity: any created organism must be "from the first marked with the records of a previous being". The alternative would have been a created earth where trees had no leaves or rings, birds had no feathers, animals had no skin, teeth, bones or blood.

Many Jewish answers to the age of the Universe delve slightly into the Omphalos hypothesis.
====================================



http://www.discover.com/issues/jun-02/features/featuniverse

Quote:
==================================
Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well.
===================================


http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm

Answer 10

Most religion is dynamic. Take the case of Bible. It has undergone many changes. Testament, it became old then New Testament, and later amendments etc. etc.. The Bible is (assumed to) be 2006 years old. Take a few points from the Bible see if u can implement the same. If it works go ahead, else discard it, go to the next point.

It is sheer business that the religion is taught. The only exception is money is indirectly involved.

In house the child must listen to the parents.
In School the child must listen to the teacher.
In Office the employee must listen to their boss.
In Action (Violence) each must listen/obey to the Police.
In Inaction each must listen to their religious leader.

Invariably most religious leader knows this and fool the believer. As long as he is able to fool/frighten/dominate/get work done from him he can rule else he will collapse.

As long as he does this indifference will exist,.