Why does evolution scare fundamental theists?

Question

Considering all the theories out there that challenge a literal interpretation of the bible this is the one that is brought up again and again as an example as to how atheists/liberals are destroying the moral values of society. Considering all the applications of evolutionary theory such as the discovery of DNA, understand bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics and how to prevent it, and constructing enzymes/bacterias and other organic compounds to breakdown hazardous synthetic materials to name a few that are used in our society every day, is your denial merely to keep man's lineage separate from all other beings on the earth? What is it about the theory that seems so threatening?

Answer 1

What scares me is how evolution has become a religion of it's own. A religion that makes man and his intelligence it's god. A religion that some say must be true to deny the existence of God. Basically a religion that can encourage someone to give up their eternal life.
I believe it is a religion because it is not a scientific fact, and it is not even a very good scientific theory.

Answer 2

I don't know about fundamental theists but as someone who believes in God and who has a whole lot of common sense I consider the theory of macro-evolution to be a huge house of cards that deserves to be tossed on the scrap heap of discarded theories

Natural selection mitigates against macro-evolution. Any animal that had unformed organs or limbs or other body parts would be LESS competative than other species that lacked that extra baggage. How does having an eye or a lung that almost works for a million years or so as it supposedly mutates over and over again and "just happens" to one day finally work make a species more competative?

Mutations don't ADD any data to a DNA strand. They only alter existing information and the majority of the time the mutation is harmful or fatal. The laws of statistical probability put the odds of even ONE of the complex life forms on earth today developing by random chance mutations and natural selection so far outside of the realm of what is considered possible that it's not even close.

The whole theory doesn't stand up to the scientific method of investigation because it is largely based upon "maybe this was how it happened" scenarios that cannot be observed or tested in a laboratory. Here's a few examples to demonstrate what I'm talking about.

"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859 and 1984 editions), p. 184.

Yeah right Charles!

"So under nature with the nascent giraffe, the individuals which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearths to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved . . By this process long-continued . . combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that any ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (1859), p. 202.

Sunderland compares the tall tale with scientific information:

"It is speculated by neo-Darwinists that some ancestor of the giraffe gradually got longer and longer bones in the neck and legs over millions of years. If this were true, one might predict that there would either be fossils showing some of the intermediate forms or perhaps some living forms today with medium-sized necks. Absolutely no such intermediates have been found either among the fossils or living even-toed ungulates that would connect the giraffe with any other creature.

"Evolutionists cannot explain why the giraffe is the only four-legged creature with a really long neck and yet everything else in the world [without that long neck] survived. Many short-necked animals of course existed side-by-side in the same locale as the giraffe. Darwin even mentioned this possible criticism in The Origin, but tried to explain it away and ignore it.

"Furthermore it is not possible for evolutionists to make up a plausible scenario for the origination of either the giraffe’s long neck or its complicated blood pressure regulating system. This amazing feature generates extremely high pressure to pump the blood up to the 20-foot-high brain and then quickly reduces the pressure to prevent brain damage when the animal bends down to take a drink. After over a century of the most intensive exploration for fossils, the world’s museums cannot display a single intermediate form that would connect the giraffe with any other creature."—Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), pp. 83-84.

The Evolution Cruncher - http://godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/c22.htm

Answer 3

There are a few out there who mix their christianity with science. But their christianity is rather a convenience, or a social thing, and they really don't much think about it..... and they certainly don't believe all that spooky stuff 24/7. They likely question, but not enough to for other ideas.... The reasons the real fundamentalists believe in holy books, and sky daddies, and heaven and hell, and the rest of it is because they were inculcated with this stuff as children, and whatever mom and dad did was the truth.

As adults, supernaturalism is just safer than taking control of one's life, and admitting that they are just puny little meaningless lives joined with 6.5 billion others on a speck of sand we call earth, in a universe as big as Colorado.

Read the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, now #8 this week on the NY Times Best Seller list. Clearly there are people out there who run their lives logically, and ask for proof and have not found it in fundamental christianity. They are obviously the brighter and more educated in our popoulation.

Most real fundamentalist christians are the poor, urban and rural uneducated, and not very bright people, whites as well as blacks..... christianity is an equal opportunity "destroyer of reasoning", as is any faith based religion

"In every village there is the torch -- a teacher, and an extinguisher--- the clergy".
Victor Hugo

Answer 4

Anything that contradicts a strictly literal reading of The Bible scares many of my fellow Christians. I think the fears are if one part of the Bible is contradicted, then that must mean the entire Bible might not be true.

The fact is, there are many of us Christians (perhaps the silent majority) that see no problem with believing in the discoveries in modern science while also committing to the God Jesus illuminates for us. This is because we see The Bible not as a divine product but as a man-made one.

Because of our belief that The Bible is not literally from God, but rather written by devoted men over many years, we can continue to use it as an important guide (perhaps the MOST important) while continuing to acknowledge all that science discovers.

Answer 5

Because no-one likes others PROVING them to be wrong.

Evolutionists are scientific...they are often wrong, in fact being wrong is what drives them to further discoveries, they believe in "fallacy theory" and try to prove each other wrong. When they can't prove something wrong, it is most likely to be true.

Creationists, on the other hand, have no "theories" to be proved wrong. They fall back on to "Because God" outbursts, which is little more than saying "because I don't know, therefore it must have been God"

On every field of human endeavour - transport, communication, engineering, genetics, you-name-it, where we have allowed scientific thought to prevail, we have advanced in great leaps-and-bounds. Once, "around the world in 80 days" was a dream to aspire to.....now we can do it in less than1 day. There are many more examples.

There is but one field which hasn't moved for over 2000 years, and is unlikely to move until we just wipe out their train of thought completely. Guess which one? Religion and Creationism! Everytime scientists make a new discovery, creationists just "modify" their dogma to incorporate the new discovery by circirtuous means. They KNOW they are losing, and that is why they get scared.

It's frightening to believe something for your entire life, and then be told that you've believed a fabrication for all these years....Wouldn't YOU be scared in these circumstances?

Answer 6

It doesn't "scare" them, it's simply that, in their world view, it cannot be possible. Remember that Fundies believe the whole history of the Universe is contained in no more than a mere 10,000 years or so. Therefor all scientific evidence to the contrary, from evolutionary theory to dinosaur bones, is false.

Answer 7

If one is a Biblical literalists then the Bible must be either 'True' or 'False' ... any 'untruth' calls all the rest into question. Therefore, since the Bible says that God created (vs. evolved) ... a literalist cannot entertain any other idea without the whole structure of belief being undermined. That is what is scary ... if creation was less then true, what else might be less than true?

Answer 8

you do no longer thoroughly comprehend the impact of language on society and upon persons. Your occasion has extremely no connection in besides with theists. by using uttering an oath against yet another person which incorporates "God" in it, you implicitly properly known the existence of God and the magnitude of impact such an oath might have upon the different person. Why might somebody place God right into a condemnatory word different than to rigidity domicile the part of being damned without wish of get away? human beings do no longer use devil's call in such profanity, nor do they use the different god's call the two. that's continually God's call that's used, and that's an exceedingly telling element. Evolution is all smoke and mirrors. exchange isn't evolution. that's merely exchange. while uncertain of viability, hotel to creating your concept as extensive as attainable in order that it could exchange into authentic. in accordance to this defintion of evolution, my outdoor evolves a minimum of four situations each and every 12 months. in actuality, my bald head has developed from while i grew to become into eighteen! no longer. The exchange in defining marriage is merely through a team of human beings who heavily might desire to have it replaced with the intention to legitimize their sexual habit. provided that society ordinarily has exchange into particularly liberal there's no "will" to assist those human beings exchange into entire by using scientific care/counseling. that's lots extra handy to easily crumple and alter definitions to placate a piece of society. same component is going for abortion. Spend money to abort pregnancies quite than show human beings to suitable cope with their habit. a long far extra handy to throw money on the topic quite than face it and sparkling up it suitable. same component is going for public coaching. Throw adequate money on the topic and it will might desire to get solved. will never ensue because of the fact the topic is the way teenagers are being taught, no longer how inspired the academics are.

Answer 9

It is not threatening to me, since it has no evidence to support it. As a matter of fact, the more we learn about DNA, the more macroevolution is shown to be impossible. Can you honestly profess to believe that information the equal of 1000 sets of encyclopedias organized its self from chaos? Order does not come out of chaos. DNA along with the rest of the universe screams "designer!" Everything is set up too perfectly to have come about by chance. It's just too much to ask to believe otherwise. As far as morals, where do you get yours? It just came about? What is Mans motivation for morality if he thinks that all he is is an ape with a supercharged brain?

Answer 10

This is the one that many people consider fact although it's clearly a theory, hence the name theory of evolution.

Anyways, we never said we were scared of it. We're just saying it's not accurate, at least that's what I say.