English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I believe that the word evolution is misunderstood and not used in it's proper context, and I think the word Change would be more applicable, and here is why. Our universe is constanly changing (evolving),galaxies collide, stars are born and some die, on our planet changes have been taking place from the beginning of the planet viruses change (evolve) so they become resistant to medicine , insects become immune to insecticide over time (evolve) in order to survive. There is so much evidence of change (evolution) around us and throughout the universe, why is change (evolution) rejected by so many? It appears that change (evolution) is the one constant througout the universe.

2006-11-27 05:35:50 · 32 answers · asked by Ynot! 6 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

32 answers

Christians reject Evolution because god tells them it's not real. Christians can't think for themselves so they have to abide by what their leaders tell them. Their preachers call them sheep, and refer to them as their flock. This is because they have to be led lest they are lost.

2006-11-28 00:47:48 · answer #1 · answered by Gomez Addams 4 · 0 0

Rejecting (or arguing against) specific details within evolution does not mean rejecting science in its totality but rejecting scientific method does. In my experience many creationists are as ignorant of science and scientific method as they are about what evolution actually is and says. In this way they impicitely reject science by not knowing (or not wanting to know) anything about it, in much the same way that they implicitely reject all other belief systems other than christianity (note that science is not a belief system but christians often claim it is and treat it as such, perhaps because it makes it easier to deal with). Apologies and I don't mean to offend but this is actually quite well illustrated by your emphasising the word THEORY above which probably means you think the use of this word means the theory of evolution is just speculative and can be dismissed as nothing more than a set of ideas. I suggest you have a quick read of the article in the link below in which case you will realise that by emphasising this word you are not pointing out how weak the theory of evolution is, you are just broadcasting your own lack of knowledge.

2016-05-23 10:56:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Creationist seem to need a solid yes or no answer to life's uncomfortable realities. I can appreciate it, but I have to conclude that those who believe in fundamentalism are not taking certain roads to faith that others understand are available.
The black and white, yes or no, never any maybes crowd seem to need certainty so much more than other people. So be it!
But the other possibilities are so amazingly attractive and rewarding that it is a shame to miss them. It is the difference between a wagon train trip across America as compared to a 747 trip across America.
Enough said. Why do creationists reject evolution? Well, because it takes to long to learn how to read the book, and their God promises that all the work will be done for the true followers and going to heaven their way is like booking a first class cabin on the voyage to the Holy Land all food included in the tab, and little in the way of tips, required.

2006-11-27 06:19:06 · answer #3 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0 1

While I agree with you - it sounds like you have a bit of a misnomer about evolution yourself. Evolution isn't just "change", and it's important for people to realize that.

Evolution is a process in two parts - the first part, is what you're suggesting: change. More specifically, changes in the DNA coding, which can come from numerous sources - DNA replication errors, radiation, etc. This is known as "Genetic Drift" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift )

But that only accounts for the random changes in the DNA - that would never amount to life, since as that would be statistically impossible! The complimentary component is natural selection ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection ), which is the non-random component that directs the random mutations in a beneficial direction.

While the word "evolution" stirs emotions, it is important to realize that the word is there for a reason - it references a theory that explains this process of genetic drift and natural selection. This is not merely "change" - this is purposeful change. While it's true that evolution is aimless - it has no "end goal", it's not true that it's just "random change."

2006-11-27 05:44:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I don't understand why creation and evolution can't co-exist. It says in the bible god made the sun and the moon in one day but the sun and the moon are man's standard by which time is measured. So how did god measure time?
Secondly, creationist assume that if something evolves from a commen ancestor, the ancestor must have been a "mistake". But what if evolution was the plan all along? Maybe it Just takes millions of years of evolution to get to the point where things are as they were intended to be.
Just something to think about.

2006-11-27 05:53:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Not all do, first it is necessary to define your terms. If you define evolution as an eternal process by which all things are created and is not ordered or defined in any way by a higher design or intelligence, then you have defined away any possibility a creator, and every theistic religion on the planet would disagree with that, not only Christians. Almost every one, Christians and non-Christians, agree on the concept of what is called micro-evolution, the survival of the fittest, that animals adapt to their environment, that viruses adapt to their hosts' immune responses, and that humans adapt to the part of the globe they are on. Biologists themselves no longer believe that gradual evolution from one species to another over a long course of changes took place, and neo-darwinists have had to adopt theories like punctuated equilibrium (when change from one species to another took place it was so sudden the the fossil record didn't catch it) to explain away the gaps that are there in every single case. If you define evolution as a process which God used as a creative tool, in which he made active adaptations in order to create the creatures he desired, you will suddenly find about 50% of Christians agreeing with you. The word that is translated as "day" in Genesis can also be translated as "period of time" and many "creative evolutionists" hang their hat on this. Personally, I think that if you hold to Einstein's theory of relativity and realize that time is not a constant, there is no reason why God could not have packed billions of years worth of work into seven literal days, notice that the Bible came up with relativity long before Einstein - "with God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day" Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8

2006-11-27 06:06:15 · answer #6 · answered by AHA 2 · 1 1

Creationist in the literal sense are few not many. They believe in the literal interpitation of the bible. Most who are labeled by the left as creationist are not at all. Most believe in intellegent design. The objection is to the Godlessness of Darwins evolution. It lead to the survival of the fitest, euthanisia, and the excuse to eliminate millions of people as inferior between 1880 and 1945. Example; 6 million jews, thousands of gays, Catholic nuns Priests and orphans, and the elderly by the Nazi`s. Communist twisted it further to allow the elimination of 150 million.
Darwinism only explains subtle changes within a species. example; a cow is a cow and always has been a cow. Its color has changed and size etc., but still a cow. A donkey and a horse can mate but produce a mule that can`t reproduce itself. What the fossil record shows is sudden bursts of all manner of animals, modest change and sudden and total extinction for many.
After 150 years of looking, all the proofs that have been found to support Darwinian evolution have turned out to be frauds or bad science. Piltdown man, Archaeopteryx, Haeckels drawings, the Miller-Urey experiment, the Moths, remember them?
All but the Piltdownman are still taught in Public School Biology books to this day as fact. So I would understand the confusion.
The Cambrian period is the most nettlesome for evolutionists as it is the period of less than10 million years, 500 million years ago, where there is a sudden explosion of nearly all the plant and animal phyla existing today. " It`s as if they were just planted there without evolutionary history", Leading Darwin Cultist Richard Dawkins. Even Darwin himself had trouble with this one with the absence of,".vast piles of strata rich in fossils before Cambrian.
Check it out, in 1984 Chinese paleontologist made what was considered by scientist around the world and the NYTimes "the most spectacular discovery in this century." From nothing to eyes. This is not taught in Biology books because it might be something other than evolution. It appears that in Communist China they have more freedom to discuss scientific facts bearing on evolution than in the US. The Left in America hung their hat on Evolution and anyone who doesn`t believe is a creationist, stupid, and someone you can call names. However, Chen Jun Yuan of the Nanjing institute of Geology and Paleontology says their discoveries show that contrary to Darwin's tree of life which predicts a few primitive organisms gradually branching into others the fossil record shows just the opposite. "The base is wide and gradually narrows. Darwin is only a part of the story".
That is what intelligent design says also.
We don`t know where monkeys came from but they didn`t evolve from worms or into worms. The record shows an intelligent design beyond our knowledge. We will have to get back to you later on that one because we just don`t know. The head of the Genenome project, a former athist, even came out a few years ago and said, "this is way beyond evolution and has to present an intellegent design at work".

2006-11-27 06:27:55 · answer #7 · answered by Gone Rogue 7 · 0 0

I can't speak for everyone, but for me it is a matter of origin, not what happened after our planet came into existence. I accept change, because I believe that is part of the design of the world. I believe adaptation is necessary for survival. Look at how different people in different parts of the world have adapted to the climates in which they live. People native to the northern parts of the world have longer, thinner noses so that the air they breathe has time to warm. People who are native to places closer to the equator tend to have darker pigmentation so they sunburn less easily.
However, I believe we came into existence by design, not by accident. I tend to believe that while species adapt and change, each was a unique design as opposed to everything coming from the same sludge.
Personal belief is a complicated thing. It is impossible to summarize the diverse beliefs of so many different people in on over arching explanation. I think every single person who answers this question for you will have a different answer.

2006-11-27 06:04:48 · answer #8 · answered by cellar_door_films 2 · 1 0

Using change as a synonym for evolution is a trick used by evolutionists for quite a while.
Change is the context that we see evidence for is a loss of information. Also, called micro-evolution, but it really is just a loss of information or a degradation of complexity.
True increase in information change is not documented, therefore the term evolution in regard to macro-evolution is not proved. To claim it is, is ridiculous.
You may as well claim that spontaneous generation is a proved fact.

2006-11-27 06:19:37 · answer #9 · answered by Jay Z 6 · 1 0

I am a creationist, but I do not reject evolution in that things do evolve in physical characteristics as time wears on.

I believe God created man and woman -- Adam and Eve. What did they look like? No one knows. But, since the fall of man, and man had to go out and fend for themselves, I'm sure that God equipted them with bodies to withstand the grueling existence they endured. More muscular, quick on their feet, etc.

Animals changed, too, especially when man got involved with cross breeding.

Man began in one area, which is in the middle east, but some went north, and some went south. I believe God helped these people adapt to their environment, by slowing changing the color of their skin. The further north, or south, the lighter their skin, and the more sensitive to the sun, so we could absorb it's rays easier. The closer to the equator, the darker the skin, to protect it from the sun's rays.

The same with hair. The further north and south you go, the straighter the hair got, laying flat on the head to protect it from the cold, the closer to the equator, the hair was curly, standing out from the head, creating an insulation so the breeze could pass through and cool the scalp.

Yes, through time, things evolve, but bottom line is -- God is in control of it all. It all came from him, it was all created by Him, man, woman, tree, shrub, animal.

And the evolution through time is God's plan to help us adapt and survive in this world.

2006-11-27 05:48:35 · answer #10 · answered by Dianne C 3 · 1 0

I am an atheist and it will be the easiest thing to attack my lack of faith for my beliefs, however it is simply the same in reverse for me...
I see that 'faith' (or at least the need to believe) in something with a higher purpose is the crux of this argument, some people need to believe others do not.
Those that tend to not have 'faith' in some higher power will be drawn to the logical choice, while those with a need for faith will tend to believe in something having a hand in our 'design'!!!

And of course the ‘creationism’ theory is a move that is close enough to evolution to allow for the god squad to allow a little creative thinking to lead them down another blind ally..

Course, I don’t know why people who believe in a higher power feel that humans are special, we have proven time and again that we are less than dirt, given that we have had this planet for only a small portion of this planets life, yet we have managed to ravage it of resources and abuse each other at almost every turn..

And of course my argument remains true, if this was all included in this ‘grand design’, I would have rejected it in the planning stages

Enjoy

2006-11-27 05:45:48 · answer #11 · answered by Jaws P 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers