why do creationists think that evolution is a lie or at least errant?

Question

The scientific community overwhelmingly endorses evolution, which is backed by an incredible amount of evidence, and no counter examples. ID is not science because it fails to meet observations and fails to meet basic scientific criteria for a theory. Does the religious community simply think that science is unreliable?
I don't understand the skepticism, when science consistently delivers facts and religion just creates divisions and myths.

Is education that poor that people are prepared to believe myths rather than scientific facts or is it a right-side/left-side brain diference?

Science is interested in understanding nature and has a respectable process for acheiving this called the scientific method. It involves observation, theorizing, testing and peer review. How can faith be considered more reliable than this? How much faith do you put in used car salesmen? You require evidence that you aren't going to be ripped off right?

Fantastic illustrations of my point shown below. A whole raft of unscientific remarks, references and religious propaganda websites! Like religious bodies know more about science than scienctific institutions do!!!

Answer 1

It's because, as I mentioned in another answer, religious people fail to accept that any real science may contradict what lies between the covers of a particular book.

They believe this book to be the inerrant and ultimately reliable source of truth. It is beyond their comprehension that any external evidence, whatever the source might contradict the book and remain true.

Therefore, when anything comes along which does contradict this book, they will not examine the evidence as it is considered false or heretical, regardless of its source or provenance. Proved, disproved, or otherwise, anything contrary to the book must be false.

And that's the difference between Science and religious fundamentalism.

Answer 2

Ah, the First Church of the Scientific Community et al.

My information says that the inferences that your "scientific community" (and there is more than one) draws from the raw data, they have collected from their previous assumptions, has yet to be proved; to the extent of discounting an intelligence behind what we observe. I am not saying DL is science.

Some recent study is showing that all human decission making is done on an emotional basis. This may put your conclusions, despite the data and peer review, on a non-logical shelf with the religious bunch. But let us test it out: If what you say is true; why can't you just declare a victory, pick up your marbels and go home? Can you do it? I doubt it.

"Science" is not delivering facts consistent with my experience; nor data complete enough to obtain comprehension meeting my standards. I have enjoyed and been employed in and around fields of science for at least one-third of my life. I find no problem with scientific method; have always believed in an evolutionary process and my beliefs have changed over the years. Which is more than I can say for some in both camps.

I do not see that any human being is obligated to confine his or her life to scientific method. I was not created to consistantly deliver facts to some museum, government agency or my like minded friends, however dumb or intelligent they may be.

As to your last paragraph. You define faith as trust which is more than most people do. My God, however, is not a used car salesman and my faith not only trust; but the ability to call things hoped for into existence. Heb. 11:1.

Is evolution as you accept it proven? I think not. There is no universal criteria for truth to this day and if every scientist signed off, it would still not make it true. There is still no 'true concept' of the nature of time or of dimensions in the universe nor any disproof of spiritual realms; which some who cling to science find so distasteful.

My experience says there is a spiritual realm and that is where the real problem rests between us. Did somebody throw this party or did it just happen. Is it a response of one protein with another? Am I talking to myself? Is the voice I hear real? Are the insights I receive valid? Checks out for me thus far.

When science gets it all sorted out, purists may find themselves looking at concepts which were answered by poets and mystics long ago. Won't that be a bummer.

Answer 3

Creatinism is a "science" that accepts any research that agrees with the bible, then it ignores any future research which contradicts this.

Any research that goes against the bible is ignored or derided as untrue.

Science is open to any valid theory which then has to stand up to scrutiny, some are proven wrong and ditched, others are shown to be correct. Creationists will jump on any theory that goes with what they want and thats it true even when subsequently proven wrong or innaccurate.

Creationism is basically a way to try to prove the bible correct, this shows a lack of faith in the bible.

You must realise the bible is not literal but does have truth in it.

First the sun was formed, the earth formed, life started in the ocean then went to the land and eventually led to humans. In the bible god brought light (sun) made the fish then the animals then us. These do correspond but it is wrong to take everything literally.

Answer 4

Creationists are scared of evolution, it undermines their already weak faith. Creationism is an attempt to bring pseudo religious logic to a rational framework. They do not say who made the world, they just say it must have a creator as it is so structured and integral. This is a religious argument, not a scientific one. They go on to say that evolution is just a theory. This is not true. It has been observed in action very many times, from viruses evolving to the stimuli of antibiotics and the discovery of brand new species of plants in very closely observed first world environments. If evolution is a theory, do not confuse it with cockamamie theory. It is an axiomatic reality, Creationism is a theory.

Answer 5

Evolution is a lie. That's why. The last poll I saw on this (about 1998?) had about 55% of scientist endorsing Darwinian evolution. The remaining 45% did "not" believe in Creation, but there were some. So, overwhelming support?? well, just barely. Evidence-an incredible amount??? No, no- incredible evidence I would say. ID is not science??? Well then where did the idea come from??? Would you believe Albert Einstein??-that's a fact Jack.
Do we think science is unreliable??-absolutely not. There are thousands of born again Christian scientist. Many are experts in their fields-they just don't buy evolution. Science is reliable-we trust it. Evolution is not science-it is a belief system. Science is great-but when you talk about evolution, you have left science and entered the world of make believe. Evolution is the "science" of the religion of secular humanism. The problem with evolutionist is that they hate God so much that they are willing to falsify their work to prove God a myth. How much fraud and fakery has there been in the evolution camp? You should check that one issue out-you may be surprised.
Yes there are plenty of flaky faith healers and money grubbers or charlatans in our religious circles. Robert Tilton, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Paul Crouch, and many others. And yes, many dumb people follow then and give them all their money-it is sad. But a true Christian's faith is in Jesus Christ and not some phony religion. The Creation story was recorded about 3500 years ago, and to this day has not changed. Evolution is not 300 years old, yet it changes constantly. I guess it is still evolving.

When you look at religious people you don't see true Christianity. You don't see the thousands of changed lives (for the good), of the literally millions that are fed daily, or all the water wells, and medical clinics built in remote poor regions of the world. No, what you see are the fools and idiots on TV that rip money off poor stupid people, and the fakes that blow people down with their breath-like Benny Hinn and others.
There is a real side to Christianity just like there is a real side to science. Like I said, science is good-but there is a bad side. Unfortunately you are one of those in science who are blinded by the big lie of evolution. Like those in religion who fall for Benny Hinn, you fall for those like R Leaky, Dubois, Haeckhel, and others who defraud for fame and fortune. The more sad part is that "science" does not defame these frauds when they are discovered, leaving their lies in the records as truth. That is wrong. Looks like there is a need for clean up on both sides of this street. I know who the fakes are on my side of the street-do you know yours?


EDIT: Very good logic Jim W. That is a great answer.

Answer 6

I really liked jim w's answer. Some genuinely sound logic there. So much so that I'd like to give him the respect of a refutation, of sorts, although his final conclusion (IMO) is correct.

"FOr a Christian (just as an example) to believe in Creation, he only has to believe 1 thing: The man who converted him would not willfully lie to him, and was intelligent enough not to believe someone who would wilfully lie to him."

Very nice. But that is a HUGE leap of faith in other human beings. History is full of counterexamples of insincere evangelists (converters). From modern preachers who turn out to be self-serving profiteers, to a long, long history of a church that used coercion, terror, torture, war, lies, broken promises, and far more subtle tactics to achieve conversions. I hesitate to call those people "Christians" ... but my point is that it is not a good idea to hitch your wagon to the notion of an unbroken chain of honest and pure witness leading back to Christ himself.

Second, your point is correct about the difference between Christian evidence and scientific evidence. Christian evidence relies on faith in the honesty of the human source of the information you are getting. Science relies on no such faith ... in fact the scientific method is relentlessly skeptical of "honesty of the source" as something reliable. Yes, there are a lot more steps involved in the scientific thread that leads to our knowledge of deep time ... but *every single step* is independently verifiable. I can, if I want, see the fossils, recreate the radiometric dating experiments, recreate the genetic tests. The papers all describe in excrutiating detail, the methods used to produce a certain piece of the puzzle. Other scientists verify these experiments and observations, and critique each others' methods mercilessly. At no point, ever, is someone simply "taken at their word", which is a requirement (as you say) of the Christian chain of evidence.

Third, you say, without foundation, "Jesus obviously was a creation believer." That is NOT obvious at all. The position of the modern Catholic church, for example, is that Jesus' teachings were concerned with the birth and life of the soul, not with reconfirming a literalist view of Genesis. Where Jesus made reference to the Old Testament, this was a natural consequence that he himself was a Jew, as were his followers, and thus had the old scriptures as a background. But we would no more expect Jesus to be teaching evolution to an audience of people who would be unable to fathom it, than we would expect God to explaining evolution to Moses ... except that with Jesus, the issues of evolution vs. creation were even *more* irrelevant.

In other words, it is a mistake to assume that because modern *American* fundamentalist Christians have revived a literalist view of creationism, that this is an opinion that can be traced directly back to Christ himself. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim theologians have had a long tradition of allegorical interpretations of Genesis. (See source.)

Answer 7

As hard as it is for me to understand there really are people ranging from the know-nothings to sometimes quite intelligent (though very heavily weighted towards the former) who just have to believe in something sooooo badly that they just close their eyes to evidence proof and rationality.

Of course belief in God is the prime example of this but this can sort of be tidied away by allowing God to be a first mover and nothing more which is what most of the 21st Century Christians outside the USA and the third world actually do believe, however it becomes hard to continue when faced with evolution which is about as established a fact as you will ever have.

It is something psychological and it is not amenable to reason, it is also quite sad.

Answer 8

Religion was founded to create a power class to control the people even to the exclusion of governments.
Any threat to this power must be met by ridicule and as in the past and today violence. The threat to the religious leaders is that evolution hits hard at the very beginning of their myths(the first stories) on how man came to be.........if that story is proved to be false, then what follows is that the people will start to see the falsehoods in the rest of the writings and many will give up the superstition. This of course would not be good for the religious leaders............so they fight it.

Answer 9

For creationists who are not science inclined or close minded, they may not want to have their faith challenged. Certainly, they do not want their faith be denied.
There are those who are science inclined and open minded, though not necessarily creationist, there is at least one person who answered, the creator could have created evolution.
It appears that, the difference is whether people choose to be open minded about matters that can neither be proved nor disproved.

Answer 10

Biblical literalists keep the masses in line by telling them that the Bible is true and "interpret" the confusing passages for them. The account of Creation in the Bible is reduced to allegory if evolution is true. If page 1 is question, thought could become possible.