GODS CREATION versus SCIENCE and EVOLUTION?

Question

why do christians reject evolution, but embrace creation.
Academics and scientists provide concrete evidence of evolution.
From police to coroners who authorize exhumation of 1 to 50 yr old plus skeletons for murder investigations,..... to scientists and paleontologists who retrieve fossils and skeletons for academic and scientific scrutiny.

Whether its real tangible evidence,.. ( dinosaur, Tyrannosaurus Rex at the Field Museum Chicago U.S.)... or primate fossils held by world museums everywhere, most (not all) still believe man arrived through creation.
Why do they reject powerful physical evidence,.... yet will believe a shadow on a blanket, or an image on a biscuit.

Staggeringly profuse evidence on one hand,..... and a blanket and a biscuit on the other.
Are christians blind,.. or what?

Answer 1

Most Christians don't fall into this trap. My inclination is to say that those who do are incapable of understanding it, but I have known several VERY intelligent Christians who rejected evolution simply because they had such faitrh in the Bible. I don't really get it, but that's what they believe. :shrug:

Answer 2

John Marshall a professor at the university of missouri school of medicine wrote that "the basic claim of ID[intelligent design] is only that there is evidence of an intelligent cause behind the source of information and design found in living things, and that we can scientifically detect the evidence."
But specifically the reason why Christians reject evolution and embrace Creation is because that is in the belief system of the Christians. While most Christians believe in Micro-evolution, many reject the microbe to man, Macro-evolution. Science is not the end all. And by that I mean it continuously changes. Eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you.

Really science has just scratched the surface of the truth. It use to be that scientists believed that it took a long long time to form oil. But now we know it can be formed in a very short period of time.
A person can judge the age of the earth based on the "accumulation of dust on the moon" - 200,000 years. Or the "influx of tungsten into ocean via rivers" - 1,000 years. I honestly could give many many more from this listing that have many a varied dates for the earth.
Natural selection reduces the amount of DNA(information) in a pool not increases. Say I have 100 people, 10 are blonde. They die, their and other's blonde progeny also later die. Eventually those with the blonde trait will be weeded out. Less information in the pool. The chances that life began from non-life, added more information (in the form of beneficial mutations), reproduction(of the good traits), and yet with such a wide variety of plants and animals... probably low to nil. Darwin said "'To suppose the eye... could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."'
Now im not a believe in a biscuit or a blanket kind of a person - having special powers. So... to answer your last question, I'm going to say, "or what."

Answer 3

Why do you reject the physical evidence that contradicts the evolutionary theory?

Ancient petroglyphs in Natural Bridges National Park (USA) and the Grand Canyon, clay sculptures in Mexico, Inca burial stones from Peru, and sculptures in Cambodia picture dinosaurs in great detail. How did these ancient men from all over the world create such accurate artistic representations of something they were supposed to have never seen?

In addition to this, there are fossil records, and other evidence that men and dinosaurs lived together. This evidence is not presented by most who wish to teach evolution. How can you make an educated conclusion when you never see all the evidence?

Most who teach evolution believe in it because that is what someone else taught them. Probably that teacher believes that way because that is just what their teacher told them also. In other words, they have not examined the evidence for themselves! They just take someone's word for it!

Have you ever considered the evidence against evolution? Have you ever even heard of it?

I invite you to examine ALL of the evidence! I think you will find there is more evidence against evolution than you have ever imagined!

Also, your list of "scientists" is not as impressive as you would think. Just last week, there was a news story that 85% of doctors, those who have studied the human body, believe in God! There are many scientists that question evolution!

Answer 4

Thank you for defining your terms. By "christians" I assume you are not referring to 2 billion Catholics,Episcopalians or Lutherans,but rather the several million fundamentalists of media renown (they are good copy); by "creation" I assume you are referring to Creationism,which apparently holds that the earth is only a few thousand years old,which is not indicated by geology. So far as I know only fundamentalists endorse this weird belief. May I ask why the entire matter preoccupies,nay,obsesses the good atheist? Maybe you should turn off the tv once in a while and,say,given your intense interest in Christianity - ever think of,you know,boning up on the subject a bit? You know - those things at the library. They're called books. Read a book on Christianity. I mean,there might be a chapter on fundamentalism,gosh maybe even a reference to Mr. Falwell. But there would be a lot else besides. No wait - just stick with the telly. I don't want to see you agitated even more.

Answer 5

Your idea of evidence is skewed.
Both creationists and evolutionists have the SAME evidence to examine.
If the evidence has history ("From police to coroners who authorize exhumation of 1 to 50 yr old plus skeletons for murder investigations,..... ") it is obviously easier to establish real and repeatable sciencific experiments regarding it.
If the evidence does not have history ("to scientists and paleontologists who retrieve fossils and skeletons for academic and scientific scrutiny.") the investigation bogs down because there isn't any established historical basis or repeatable processes for experimentation. Conclusions are then based on presuppositions (ie scientist "X" believes in millions of years and bases his conclusions on this belief - scientist "Y" believes in the bible and bases his conclusions on this belief).

Irregardless of what you believe, there is no strong evidence for evolution at this time.... there is only presupposition based on a theory.
They are both faith based systems.

Answer 6

The primordial Christian belief is that man is created by God in his own image and likeness. Man is a special creation which is in contrast with the view that man has evolved from a lower form of an animal, as what some scientist would claim. Though some evolutionary ideas are accepted by some christians, the thing about man evolving from lower forms of animals is a topic that they would not accept. The typical evolutionary view would that be of a picture of a primate to hairy humanoids then to the straight walking homo sapiens. Scientist present fossils and relics as evidence but the view that man evolved from this humanoids is still a big debate and is not conclusively determined as fact. Christians reject the evolutionary view mainly because it contradicts their faith, the bible and its verses. Christians are not close minded as you think. They just made the choice on what to believe in. Do you think they would compromise their cherished belief and just accept the debatable fact that men came from lower forms of animals just like that? What if they would say that incomplete dirty old bones reconstructed imperfectly could not be equated as powerful physical evidence? This topic has long been a tedious debate among christians and the scientific world. I believe on the Christian creation theory because, hey I think we have powerful discerning minds to even contemplate on these matters as compared to an amoeba.

Answer 7

I have been studying this subject for about 12 years now.
First of all there is no evidence for evolution-none- nada, zip! Just because there is a dinosaur bone out in the dessert does not mean that it evolved-it just means that it died. Primate fossils are just primate fossils -nothing else. Every evolutionary exhibit in every museum in the world is a "staged presentation".
Go find an exhibit with Lucy in it-check it out. She will have human hands and feet in the exhibit-but in fact she was a chimp. The hands and feet are designed to "make you think" Lucy was a transitional primate. This should be considered criminal-but somehow museum curators deliberately falsify the known record to help support the failing notion of evolution. Don't just get mad- go check out what I say. Lucy was a chimpanzee-but in museum displays she has human hands and feet-WHY???

Answer 8

Well said. It's as though they're compelled to believe in nonsense. It's classic carrot and stick conditioning. The stick is the fear of hell and a vengeful god and the carrot is the promise of heaven. This creates a powerful state of denial that not even solid, tangible proof can overcome. This is what Atheists face in their battle to reduce the influence of religion.

Answer 9

Yes, blind as necessary... it's a requirement, by definition of any faith.

Faith....firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Science... knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Answer 10

It's no contest, god loses everytime. The battle is over, the Christian troops are just refusing to surrender. Christians remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. He was just defeated in a fight, has no arms and no legs, but insists it's "just a flesh wound" and yells "come back here and I'll bite your ankles off".

It's over Christians, you've had your arms and legs cut off, and we're all moving on....