Why aren’t Christians who believe in evolution putting in more effort to educate their less enlightened pals?

Answer 1

They are trying. They couldn't convince a knowledgable person even if they try.There are numerous books with all the information one would need to understand that evolution is false.

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."

this is a lie.

really. same simple stupid questions that he copies and pastes off of the internet when it is wrong.

why aren't fishes growing legs?

because those fishes are doing just fine as fishes, and if one were to grow legs it would have to do better.

Answer 2

Intelligent Design, though a very intelligent sounding phrase, is the "assertion that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.' It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent Design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity." Some call it repackaging Creationism, others say there is no fact to intelligent design, I prefer to let others make the judgment and I'll just read both sides of the story and come to my own conclusion. Hope it helps...

Answer 3

Have you ever heard the expression "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"? If not I can maybe dig something up for an expert explanation here on the computer, but I'm sure you have heard that expression before. You can give them all of the facts but you can't make them believe in anything they don't want to believe in.

Answer 4

They are trying. They couldn't convince a knowledgable person even if they try.There are numerous books with all the information one would need to understand that evolution is false.

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."

Answer 5

No one really seems to be answering your question.

I have wondered the same for so long.

I think Francis Collins did a good job in his book.


I wonder if it has to do with knowing that they believe in their religion through faith, and they do not want to question their system of belief by questioning others who use that same system to arrive at very different conclusions.

Just a thought.

Answer 6

Because you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Because you can't reach either an Atheist or a Fundie.

I mean it's that simple. You have this spectrum with the hard core atheist on one side and the hard core Fundie on other other side and most of those inbetween already undersstand most of it.

Answer 7

"Education" is different form telling somebody what to think. Besides, if you weren't there a gazillion years ago to personally witness fish crawling out of the water and eventually becoming humans, then creationism will still remain a possibility . . . just not a very plausible one.

Answer 8

Peer pressure. It's like smoking. "hey bob. Me and Fred are going to go read some genesis after school, you want to come? Aw, don't be such a biology geek, come on."

Rebelling against science and logic begins at a young age.

Answer 9

Because it isn't my job to teach basic biology to fellow christians. Besides, the bottom line with Christians of that ilk is that their own personal interpretations of the Bible are infallible. Therefore they are not interested in such cumbersome and potentially embarrasing things as facts. So there is no point in talking to them. None so ignorant as those who choose ignorance.

Answer 10

They are. But some of us require evidence and proof to accept hypotheses and theories as factual.