Why are religious people so afraid that the theory of evolution is almost certainly true?

Answer 1

because it makes a total mockery of everything they believe. One day 'god' wandered down from nowhere and made a planet and put everything on is exactly as it today.

The dinosaurs didnt happen.

Religion was just made up by powerful people ages ago as a way of controlling idiots.

Answer 2

Most religions don't actually now say they disagree with Evolution theory. But say somewhere along the line God created Man.
I'm agnostic and although err on the side of science keep an open mind to there being a Super sentient being who created life on our planet. After all we ourselves are starting to alter the genetic make up of animals and have started to discover what Chromosomes do what inside our body. It won't be too long before we start to create life ourselves. So there is every possibility that this planet was seeded with lifeforms that could create a living planet. In an infinite Universe there is infinite possibilities. We cannot entirely rule out the possibility of a Super Sentient species or life form that could be what religious people deem to be our God. Any theory can still deem to be true unless it can be disproved by experimental means.

Answer 3

Many "religious" people understand the THEORY of evolution better than most of the people here. That is why they do not fear it, but disagree with it. We do not have the blind faith in science that you must have to accept that a design happens by accident. We dare to question the scientifical dogma that God has gone away.
There is no way that something as speculative as the evolutionary theory, which changes from year to year, and from professor to professor, can be "almost certainly true". Amongst the many holes in this theory that "scientifical" people cannot answer are the lack of transitional fossils, the fact that many of the more "primitive" creatures are actually quite sophisticated, and the "living fossils" like the Coelacanth or the horseshoe crabs which are essentially unchanged from their supposedly millions of year old ancestors?
Perhaps you claim to be an eye witness to the truth of evolution, that you were there when the dinosaurs were stomping around?
Dont blindly accept a theory just because the secularist saints are spewing it. Think about it! TRUE science is about the pursuit of the truth no matter where it leads, even if it challenges the latest popular dogma and points to a Creator.

Answer 4

I am a catholic, and I for one am not against the theory evolution. If it ever is proven to be true I would be among the first to embrace it. Even now, I strongly advice accepting it. The theory, despite what you may think, does not really conflict with the Catholic faith. The church teaches that if it ever is proven, it will be accepted on three conditions. 1) The soul was created immediately by God and did not evolve. 2) The human body, if it took place, was a result of Divine power. 3) There is a unity to the human race, and all humans are descendants of common parents.

So we are not afraid, as you say!

Answer 5

I think your question should be re-worded slightly - It is only *some* religious people who use propaganda to argue with science. I am told the Catholic Church has stated its support of the theory of evolution.

The others are religious fundamentalists who cannot accept science. They believe in the literal meaning of their religious texts and anything that even slightly disagrees with those must be incorrect. The obvious example of this is the Catholic Church's view of the Earth's place in the universe. Until 1992 they stated categorically that the Earth was at the centre with everything revolving around us. It seems they have learned the lesson and now have more respect for science.

By looking at some of the answers on here you can see the nonsense that is used to justify the fundamentalists' position.

The idea that 'almost certainly true' means that ID should be taught as being an equal theory when one has complete scientific support and the other mis-uses scientific arguments, claims to have scientific support but refuses to actually publish in any scientific journals.

If we refuse to accept any of the 'almost certainly true' science then we would be back to living in the stone age. There are very few scientific principles and theories that can be called 100% certain facts. However you don't reject something for being 0.00001% unsure of. You reject it when you show it is wrong or that there is a better scientific theory. In evolution's case neither of these has happened.

The mis-use of science is quite scary to watch, which I firmly believe justifies those of us who speak out in support of evolution. But it should always be remembered that this is not an anti-religion argument. This is pro-science and it just happens that the only people (stupid enough) to argue against it are religious nuts.

Edit: CMW gave a few quotes, some of which I know enough about to comment on:

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Collin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London.

Dr Colin Patterson (one L) is a bad example. Firstly, Patterson is not saying evolution is nonsense. He is saying stories about why one form led to another are clearly wrong. He is not arguing with the science of evolution, but with those who mis-use science.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission.

Who cares what someone from the AEC says about evolution? It’s a completely different scientific field. He has as much weight as I do when talking about Norway’s chances of winning an ice skating competition.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups." Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research

French authorities revealed that Bounoure never worked at the CNRS. He was a biology professor at the University of Strasbourg. He was a Christian but did not believe that genesis was to be taken literally. More importantly this is a made-up quote. What he did say was: “none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements.”

Answer 6

I am not afraid of the theory of evolution. I think it is the biggest joke I have ever seen. I aced biology in high school. I have watched several documentaries on the discovery channel. I under stand the Theory of Evolution and I see so many things that tell me scientists are going off of more “faith” when it comes to their under standing of the “Theory” of Evolution. The biggest problem with the Theory of Evolution is not the theory it’s self but the biased scientists who disregard all proper scientific methods and just assume that the theory they like is right.
Take for example the Big Bang theory I saw a documentary on that as well and I was appalled at the complete lack of scientific neutrality that was shown. When they first thought of the Big Bang theory they conceived of a way that they could test it, and their test returned no positive evidence, and after several different tests they decided to try and devise a new test. At that time a proper Scientist should have taken a look at their hypothesis (which is what the Big Bang theory was at that time) and asked them selves is this wrong all together, but no they never did that they only kept making up new ways to “test” their hypothesis until they could get enough tainted research to elevate their hypothesis to a theory, and the Theory of Evolution has the same problem it is being tested and supported by a bunch of fanatics who are so desperate to come up with a way to disprove God. If you ask me, based on what I have seen of the “scientific community” they are more blind and fanatical than most of the religious community, and they are certainly not deserving of the title of Scientist. A scientist will research new ideas with an unbiased perspective to find out all they can about what ever they are studying, today’s scientists (from what I have seen) study and research to prove their idea correct. That is not science.

Answer 7

Most Christian organisations now accept that evolution has happened because of course the evidence for it is overwhelming. However there are some religious groups who stick to the biblical account of creation despite the obvious fact that it is just a story made up by someone who did not have our knowledge (Some say it was Moses) in order to maintain power over his followers. This is mostly in Middle America and there leaders probably stick to this story for the same reason as Moses made it up and that is to retain authority over their followers. They will use silly arguments and even tell lies to maintain their position. Madmynx for instance says there is no scientific evidence for the process of evolution but like any scientific theory is it based on actual scientific evidence which is growing every day. So this is a typical lie. Of course like any other sound scientific theory it is open to being altered or even disproved and theories as to how certain animals evolved are quite often altered or amended as new evidence comes to light. This can never happen with creationism as there is no evidence for it and it falls down at the first hurdle when you apply sound scientific evidence to it

Answer 8

huh? The only thing that I fear aboult evolution instruction is that students are not taught that there are holes in the arguement, and that the theory meets correlational requirements, but no empriical requirements.

Teaching the holes in evolution is good because it shows the scientific method to be critical of any theory. Re-examining all theories leads to greater science, and we should criticize evolution for that end.

For example, Newtonian physics breakdown on the sub-atomic level, as observed, and allow us to create a new field called quantum physics. Newtonian physics must be true, yet they are false when applied to sub-atomic inertia and gravities. So how do we resolve this dichotomy?

The fact is people should be crtical of evolution for the good of science. If evolutionists cannont defend their theory to critical applications of the empiical method, then they do not deserve to have their theory manifested into law.

Answer 9

I think you've got a slightly inflated opinion of both the evolution theory and religious people's 'fear' of evolution.

We now know that Darwin was pretty far from the mark in terms of his theory. His model only serve to prove 'Micro evolution' (adaptoion of a speicies to its environment but not becomming a new species) not Macro evolution (the complete transormation to a new species).

There is yet no solid proof of macro evolution that is why it is still classed as a theory. You may or may not know that there are 'missing links' between every single species not just that of apes and man.

You may want to google the words 'irreducable complexity' this will give you a flavour of what I (and many scientists) are talking about.

Answer 10

Many religions believe that God made the first man and woman, especially in the Christian religions.

Belief: Adam and Eve were the first two people and they did not descend from apes.

If the theory of evolution were true, then a part of the Bible would be false, which Christians say cannot happen.

Answer 11

I'm religious and I'm not afraid of the theory. As for almost certainly true .... let some scientists speak and watch the thumbs down grow.

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Collin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups." Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research

"After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. Anthropology

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants." Professor Whitten, Professor of Genetics

Anyone can find these quotes and tons of others like them. They're in libraries and scientific journals.