Christians, what do you know about evolution?

Question

I invite Christians to explain in their own words what science knows about evolution, how it works, and why every serious biologist on the planet accepts it as fact.

Answer 1

not every scientist accepts it as a fact.

Evolution is not incompatible with creation.

What is important about creation is that when God created man, He infused a soul into him.

Answer 2

This will probably tick off some of the Christians but...Being a Christian, I believe the New Testament but I feel there is more metaphor in the Old Testament then some believe. Especially in the chapters of Genesis. I'm totally behind evolution except for the Human parts. I can see how we could evolve from apes (especially by studying them) but the true missing link hasn't been found yet. SO that part of my faith is alittle shaky. Just being honest here.

Answer 3

Might as well ask a bunch of kindergartners to explain Quantum Theory... They just don't have the education required to understand it, so all you'll get is a bunch on conjecture (and things that they've been told from their parents). It's pretty sad. Especially when I hear some of them talk about "missing links", a concept that died with the end of the 1950's, but one that Creationists in their ignorance still tend to cling to. Too many people try to disprove Darwin's concepts, who was himself a religious man, not realizing that his writings were just the beginning of the study of how things evolve. That's like holding Sir Isaac Newton up as the only word on gravity, and totally ignoring the work of Albert Einstein in that area (who has proved some of Newton's concepts to be wrong). As more new evidence is discovered, earlier conclusions about the subject are naturally either disproved or confirmed. That what science is all about... the search for truth through a methodology for testing ideas. If you believe something to be true, then you try to disprove it. The more you try to disprove it without succeeding, the more likely your conclusion is sound, and the more you are able to predict the outcomes of further experiments. If Creationists were to try to use this methodology on their own beliefs, then there would be no more Creationists.

You'll get no rational responses from them here, not that you expect to, I'm guessing. I'll post some links to evidence of new species evolving right now from single species, as well as some good information of the evidence that supports the fact of evolution, as well as info on the Theory of Evolution, which attempts to explain the principles about how evolution happens (not that I expect any Creationists to read any of it... if they were open minded to new evidence then they would've shed their creationism like a dead skin long ago). Here also is an article on how scientists have already been able to create a cell of artificle life, and expect to create much more than one cell within the next 10 years, possible because of the research done on how life originated on earth. And for those that misuse the word "theory" - here's a definition for you as it pertains to science:

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
n. pl. the·o·ries

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Answer 4

To begin with, before I entered the ministry, I received a B.S. degree in Biology and was firmly convinced of the truth of evolution. In fact, I still recognize microevolution as a fact. The reality that a species changes over time due to genetic changes is certainly a fact with which no intelligent person can argue.

However, Darwin's theory of Macrobiology states that all life evolved along different lines from the same organism is not a proven fact. As has already been stated, Darwin himself recognized that the fossil records present in his time did not support his conclusion. Since his time no fossil discovery has supported Darwin. No transitional fossils have been found. In fact to the contrary the Cambrian fossils indicate that most modern forms of life and many now extinct forms of life appeared during the Cambrian period. The fossils show no transition and do not support Darwin's theory.

I know that the "human" discoveries of the Java man and the African woman are not in fact transitional. My study indicates that the femur bone of the Java man is believed by many scientists to not belong with the skullcap that was found. Also the skullcap would allow for sufficient brain room to indicate a modern like human.

As for the African woman my understanding is that the evidence there is also incomplete. I read that one forensic artist using the bones discovered drew a picture of a modern looking African woman.

I was very surprised to learn that Haeckle's Drawings (sp? sorry a long time since college) were recognized by many competent scientists as frauds. That he conveniently left out specimens that didn't conform to his theory and modified some of the drawings. I was also surprised to find out that they are actually later embryo stages apparently because the early stages are much different.

While I keep hearing that "all" competent scientists affirm the theory of evolution, I find that not to be the case. I find that those who support macroevolution cannot prove it. I also find that many competent scientists are beginning to reject the concept that all life emerged from one common life form.

I have also found that the "Big Bang" has been a point of interest for many scientists. For those who believe in evolution, it leaves an unanswered question - where did life come from? Even if you accept that life originated in the bang, the question is still what created that. I have read speculations of alien lifeforms and other theories that are in my mind harder to accept than a divine answer.

I have also found that many scientists agree - that they believe that the Big Bang points to Intelligent Design. I have read about the 98% common DNA. I always thought that was difficult to deal with, until I read that the "common" DNA accounts for most of the bodily differences in the species and that the 2% different DNA is actually not significant. I am now not as convinced that the DNA is significant.

It has been too many years since my years in Biology (by the way, I graduated with honors, Phi Beta Kappa in case we are going to throw in the ignorant Christians stereotype again) and I don't pretend to have all the answers.

But your question is also fundamentally flawed. You presume that all serious biologists accepts it as fact. That is ridiculous. To not allow for disagreements or to dismiss those who disagree as not serious is fundamentally flawed.

What I have found, is that many scientists have become so invested in Darwin's Theory that when the evidence doesn't support it, they simply say that we "haven't found all the answers yet". Perhaps it is time for some scientists to seriously look at their prejudice and how it might be effecting the decisions and conclusions they draw.

Pastor John

Answer 5

prize for the first one who says "it's just a theory"

UPDATE: and the prize goes to Rev A. Einstein for his total ignorance.

A scientific theory must fit all known facts, as evolution has for 150 years.

The argument that there should be "transitional forms" in the records and that they are not present is totally false. For example, the evolution of the horse from something the size of a small dog to it's present size, losing toes along the way to leave just one hoof is well documented in the fossil records.

Fossilisation is also a very rare ocurrence and "transitional forms" are unlikely to even be identified as such. It has been calculated that if an animal the size of mouse and with a reproductive lifespan of 5 years were to grow slightly larger in each generation but at such a slow rate that no human would notice any change in an entire lifetime, that animal would still reach the size of an elephant in 60,000 years.

60,000 years is the merest blink of an eye in evolutionary and geological terms and the chances of any fossilisation taking place between the starting and end points in order to generate a "transitional form" is almost zero. All the fossil record would show (if anything at all) is the sudden disappearance of a mouse-sized animal and the sudden appearance of an elephant-sized animal.

It's YOU, the inappropriately-named Einstein, that needs an education.

Answer 6

At the risk of stating the obvious, Y!A has a Biology category. If Christian fundamentalists or literalists are so absolutely certain that evolution is a silly theory or "bad" science, why not go to that section and challenge the experts on their own turf? You certainly won't find many experts in here on the subject.

Answer 7

This isn't an entirely fair question. I believe in evolution, am a skeptic who has spent time studying it and even *I* can't fully explain it. A better way might be to ask them to substantiate their arguments against evolution.

Answer 8

You really expect some one to condense volumes of scientific information into a YA answer!
R. Damadian, co-inventor of MRI, is a Christian and a believer in "young-earth" creationism. He's a serious biologist who does not accept evolution as a fact.

Answer 9

if you need to ask trust me it's real . you can find much more informative explainations outside of yahoo answers here they'll sell you the deity did it, science lies and a bottle of snake oil all in the same breath .

Answer 10

I invite you to explain in your own words what percentage of Christians believe in evolution and what percentage do not.

Answer 11

aCTUALLY AS TECHNOLOGY GETS BETTER THINGS HAVE CHANGED. SCIENTIAST HAS REALIZED THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS TESTED PERFECTLY ACTUALLY SHOWS THAT THERE WAS A CREATOR AND NOT EVOLUTION. iS EVOLUTION A GOD, DID EVOLUTION CREATE YOU, THEN GET YOUR KNEES AND WORSHIP EVOLUTION. JUST PRAY AFTER ME: MY MY FOREMONKEYS, I WORSHIP YOU, YOU MONKEYS CREATED ME IN YOUR IMAGE. I KNOW I CAME FROM YOU GORILLAS SO I AM SORRY I HAVE TO KEEP YOU IN CAGES AND THROW YOU BANANAS, PLUS YOU MONKEYS MUST HAVE A VIRUS BECAUSE YOU ALL JUST SUDDENLY STOP TURNING INTO HUMANS. UH UH HA HA HA I WORSHIP YOU, UH UH HAH HA HAA I ADORE YOU MONKEYS. AMEN. IF YOU THINK BIOLOGIST SIRIOUSLY ACCEPTS THIS THEN YOU A STRAIGHTFOOL. TRUST ME THE ONLY THING THAT CAUSES THINGS TO LOOK DIFFERENT OR CHANGE IS SIN. IF YOU THINK EVOLUTION IS TRUTH THEN YOU BETTER PRAY THEM MONKEYS DON'T START TURNING INTO DIANOSAURS. I BET YOUR CAR TRANSFORMS TOO WHEN EVERBODY IS SLEEPING AHH. THEM SO CALLED SERIOUS BIOLOGIST MUST HAVE HIRED SOME CAVE MAN TO DO THEIR LAB TEST. THEM SERIOUS BIOLOGIST SERIOUSLY NEED A SERIOUS THERAPIST AND A PSYCHOLOGIST. THERIES LIKE THIS COME ABOUT WHEN YOU SPEND 75% OF YOUR LIFE IN LABS BREATHING IN TOXIC CHEMICALS AND HAVING DAY DREAMS WHILE LOOKING THROUGH MICROSCOPES.