Why do Christians remain insistent about beliefs that have been disproven by history or science?

Question

For example, the world has been shown to be much more than 10,000 years old, there is plenty of evidence that evolution exists, and many Old Testament stories bear strong resemblance to stories in other religions. Yet many Christians claim that fossil records are inaccurate without providing any scientific evidence to support their claims. They use no proof other than spoken word and wonder why creationism is not taught in most schools. Relying only on spoken word and scripture to discredit science makes those Christians look like they have their heads in the sand. I understand why Christians don't want to let go of their beliefs when challenged by science, but why do so many Christians stubbornly refuse to allow their beliefs to evolve alongside knowledge (like the great Saint Thomas Aquinas suggested)?

Answer 1

To them it's a test of faith.
The devil is everywhere and they have the perfect word of God in the form of the Bible and the bible is infallible.

Not all Christians are like this... just the most inappropriate ones.
As time goes by even these will learn the truth. I wish the rapture would really come so I could see their face when Jesus looks into their eyes with love and says.. The garden of Eden was a morality story to help you understand me. I gave man knowledge so you could learn in school and not seem ignorant.


Blessed Be!

Answer 2

The apparent age of the Earth is no reason to disbelieve the Bible. It only shows that the traditional thought may be off. I have written lengthy posts on that subject alone.

As far a the rest of history goes, the favor is towards the Bible. Archaeologists still use it to find lost places to this day. So try to reason with that a little better, won't you?

"why do so many Christians stubbornly refuse to allow their beliefs to evolve alongside knowledge (like the great Saint Thomas Aquinas suggested)?"
Maybe because so many Christians do not read Saint Thomas Aquinas. Really, this has nothing to do with the reason for a Christian's faith. Or the basis thereof at least. In the center of our religion we have Jesus, who is who we look to for salvation. Genesis 1 and it's apparent reality is not the basis for Christian belief.

Answer 3

Actually, toobroot, you're wrong about Aquinas. Catholic leaders study Aquinas more than anyone else when in seminary, as he was perhaps the greatest philosopher and priest in the history of the Catholic Church.

I think the asker was referring to why religious leaders refuse to evolve the Christian belief system alongside knowledge. It's true that the leaders don't do this, despite what Aquinas said. Besides, it's not like most Christians have a mind of their own about their religion. They just do as the religious leaders say.

Answer 4

If i were you, I wouldn't be so quick to believe everything that a scientist tells you. Throughout my college education, I had many discussions with science professors about their teachings. And every time, if you talk to them long enough, they are forced to admit that their beliefs are just theorys and they really don't know. For example, a scientist can argue all day about the origins of the planet, but at some point they WILL admit that they don't really know what happened. And your "accurate" fossil records are widely disputed within the scientific community.
Don't believe what some dude tells you just cuz they have a doctorate.

Answer 5

Probably because over and over again when scientists at one time believed something to be true that contradicted what the Bible said, it was latter shown that the scientists were wrong and the Bible was right as new scientific discoveries came along.

Science purports to follow the evidence, relying on empirical verification for its conjectures. And it is increasingly evident that the evidence is mercilessly denying randomness as an explanation for the elegant designs embodied in the machinery of the universe. The writings of Denton, Behe, Johnson, Dempski, and Meyer have turned the thinking world upside down. The rebuttals have come from virtually every field of science: paleontology, physics and, quite conclusively, microbiology. Interestingly, perhaps the most compelling refutations come from one of the newest of the sciences: the information sciences, the field which has given us advanced communications and computers.

Darwinists love to postulate the "simple cell." With the advent of modern microbiology, we now know "there ain't any such thing." Even the simplest cell is complex beyond our imagining.

As Michael Denton has pointed out, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of 100,000,000,000 atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world."4

The "simple cell" turns out to be a miniaturized city of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design, including automated assembly plants and processing units featuring robot machines (protein molecules with as many as 3,000 atoms each in three-dimensional configurations) manufacturing hundreds of thousands of specific types of products. The system design exploits artificial languages and decoding systems, memory banks for information storage, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error correction techniques and proofreading devices for quality control.

All by chance? All without a Designer? (How do you define "absurd?")

Answer 6

The Bible does not reference any time line relevant to what we understand today.
Fossil records are inaccurate because of the dating methods used. They acknowledge the inaccuracies. The positive link between fossils cannot be established, It is probables.
Mathematically we would still need 700 million years of evolution to get to where we are today, considering every change was good and did not end the life form.

Answer 7

Ah, yet another question of doubt.
We humans doubt alot. No wonder God calls us sheep.

If you like to read, here is a great book for you, When Critics Ask. You wont want to put it down.
When I put that book out on one weekend at a bible retreat, it was reading faster than Harry Potter, and more truth.

As for your question, science and archeology in fact prove the bible every time they dig something up.

We should not be wasting our time squabbling bout this and that, and time lines, but the mere fact of this...like King David a true King, once wrote and pondered...'what is mere man, that you are mindful of him' he was asking God this.
He started out as a shepard, and ended up a king, and the apple of Gods eye.
Not a mythical character, not from a mythical place, Isreal is on the map.

Go read the book, soon, you will find, how in sync everything is.

Answer 8

If a person finds an expensive watch lying by the roadside , they would know that it was engineered by an intelligent designer, and that such an object could easily be distinguished from objects lacking human design, a pebble for example. The analogy is also extremely relevant for the Earth itself, which is actually a far more intricately designed precision machine than a finely crafted watch.

Answer 9

I view the earth as old, and that the fossil record and science do in fact represent what the Bible says.

Answer 10

scientist try to disprove the bible with theories which i'll take with a grain of salt