Why is evolution considered to be Godless?

Question

I am not a creationist as someone mentioned on another question of mine. I am trying to understand the differing belief systems and I am sincere!

Answer 1

There is no need for it to be godless.

I've said this before on YA, but I did a summer at a field station with ecologists and evolutionary biologists. Many of them were Christian and they saw no conflict. To them, they were unfolding the beauty of God's creation.

Answer 2

Mrs. C, as I have said repeatedly in response to other similar questions:

You cannot hold to evolution and biblical creation at the same time. The two just do not mix. If you accept evolution, you stand against what the bible says about creation, redemption, salvation, the fall of man, the need for a Savior, the return of Jesus Christ, and the redemption of our bodies.

If you want to throw away Genesis 1-3 you have got to throw away the teachings of Jesus and Paul and Peter.

The teaching of evolution is in direct opposition to the teaching of the bible - in many ways! so, yes, the teaching of evolution is Godless and not God-honoring.

I am not saying that there aren't Christians who believe in evolution - I am saying that those who believe so have never really thought through the ramifications of their beliefs!

god bless

Answer 3

My theory is that this is in part something that the literalists like *happy pilgrim* say because they have to take the Bible literally. (As far as denying the teachings of Christ, there was once this guy named Pope John Paul II who disagreed).

The other part is people like *davidm* and *hiscinders* are too conceptually dull to understand that scientists seek to explain things in terms of natural forces, because God is beyond the scope of science. The term chance just means that it couldn't have been predicted in advance using the laws of nature. (Whether or not it was part of God's plan is up to the theologin to speculate over)

A third reason is that people like *the reverend soleil* make the mistake that because we happen to share a common ancestor with other animals, that it's supposed to be some sort of a moral statement, that we're "no better than animals" or that it's "okay" to behave "like an animal" if you want. They try to take a moral lesson out of science inappropriately.

Finally, there are people like *benoit3535* who point out that evolution takes away one of the tools that the faithful have tried to use to convert others, which is the now-unnecesarry argument from design. Evolution has elevated our understanding of our own existence to such a degree that it has put a higher burden of proof on God.

Having said that, if the faithful are not up to the task of this higher burden of proof, if they can't believe in God without resorting to the argument from desing, or by some other apparent deficiency in science, then they are failures to their God.

Answer 4

Evolution is only considered "godless" by a small-but-loud segment of the population who are Biblical literalists. It's a rather complicated issue, but it goes something like this:
To the literalists, the only place in the world where God can be found is in the Bible. The Bible tells a creation story that does not mention the fact that life continually re-creates itself according to what survives best. At the time that the Bible was written, there had not been sufficient study of the physical sciences and most of the normal processes of life were shrouded in mystery. The Bible tried to give the best answers it could, given that people had a very limited understanding of biology.
There are a couple of factors that a sincere seeker of truth should recognize. One is that what we call "God"--if it is to be a Living God--is not entombed in any book. It is alive or not alive and if it is alive, it lives today, seeking to enlighten the hearts of sincere people everywhere just as it has always done.
The second is that--even by Biblical standards--the rule of all life (human life especially) is to grow, develop and progress. If the Bible is not about spiritual development, then it is about nothing.
"Saving ones soul" and getting into Heaven are very weak, selfish excuses for religion; selfish reasons for adamantly clinging to obsolete points-of-view; small-minded reasons for attempting to freeze the development of civilization. Religion--like the human spirits it is intended to guide--needs to be allowed to grow just as life itself must be allowed to grow. Where there is no growth, only death can come.
Sorry if I got kind of heavy with this, but I feel very strongly that God represents goodness and not the evil that is trying to suppress life, learning and truth. I feel very strongly that what was once a good idea for supporting our spiritual development has become an evil in our world. The creation vs. evolution debate is just one of the tips of this iceberg. Another is Armageddon--a prophesied final battle between good and evil that will happen if we make it happen, but won't happen if we don't.
The time for Biblical literalism is over. It suffocates the truth of God. That truth is more about love and less about greed and fear. That truth is more about growth and less about stagnation. The truth of God is more about the living of life and less about clinging to old ideas.
Good luck to you, sincere one!

Answer 5

I believe that it was Charles Darwin himself who considered evolution to be "Godless". According to Darwin, he was deliberately trying to come up with an explanation for the origins of life that did not require the intervention of a god of some sort. Shortly after Darwin's book, "The Origin of Species" came out, some pastors tried to explain how the new theory was still compatible with the creation story in Genesis (a.k.a,: theistic evolution). I've been told that Darwin himself, and his supporters, opposed this synthesis as it would undermine his basic idea that it was possible to explain the origins of life without reference to the supernatural. Atheists today still use Darwin's theory of evolution as a way of attacking religion in general, and Christianity in particular. You must not have spent much time on Y!A if you haven't noticed that.

---------------------------
...The religious controversy was fueled in part by one of Darwin's most vigorous defenders, Thomas Henry Huxley, who opined that Christianity is "a compound of some of the best and some of the worst elements of Paganism and Judaism, moulded in practice by the innate character of certain people of the Western World." Perhaps the most uncompromising of the evolutionist philosophers was the German Ernst Heinrick Haeckel, a professor of biology, who dogmatically affirmed that nothing spiritual exists, and instead asserted that all life descended from protoplasm that spontaneously combined from essential protoplasmic elements in antiquity. In "What is Darwinism?" the theologian Charles Hodge argued that Darwin's theories were tantamount to atheism. This is an argument that had been made by many almost immediately after Darwin's first publication. As Hodge pointed out, evolution does not seem to originate from a divine source, and some viewed God as a less powerful force in the universe. During an 1860 debate between Bishop Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley, the bishop of Oxford is reputed to have asked Huxley, "Is it on your grandfather's or your grandmother's side that you claim descent from a monkey?".....

...While arguments against Darwin's theories were often vigourously presented in defense of religion, the ramifications of these arguments had scientific and philosophical applications. The American botanist and Darwin promoter Asa Gray tried to reconcile design doctrine with evolution by arguing that evolution is the secondary effect, or modus operandi, of the first cause, design...

Answer 6

Evolution is said to be Godless because the Bible and Evolution completely contradict one and other. I know that some people have reconciled (some how) the contradictions within their own minds. I doubt that these reconciliations would pass muster with church elders.

Answer 7

Mrs. C, as I certainly have suggested usually in accordance with distinctive comparable questions: you are able to not save to evolution and biblical shape whilst. the two merely do not combine. in case you get carry of evolution, you stand in the direction of what the bible says approximately shape, redemption, salvation, the fall of guy, the want for a Savior, the bypass back of Jesus Christ, and the redemption of our our bodies. in case you want to throw away Genesis a million-3 you have won to throw away the training of Jesus and Paul and Peter. The teaching of evolution is in direct opposition to the teaching of the bible - in a great number of techniques! so, useful, the teaching of evolution is Godless and not God-honoring. i'm not saying that there do not look Christians who think of in evolution - i'm saying that folk who think of so have below no circumstances extremely suggestion by employing employing the ramifications of their ideals! god bless

Answer 8

Because it isn't being driven by any guiding agent, let alone a divine one.

Organisms produce offspring, who will be more or less successful at reproducing. The traits of the successful ones will be passed down the generations, while those of the unsuccessful ones will die out. This is a self-evident truth - no need for guiding hand to put this to work.

Answer 9

Evolution is not creation. Evolution is an accident without reason.
Creation had purpose in its design.
Evolution makes it possible for us not to need salvation. Without the need of salvation there is no need for Christ or God the father.
Without creation there is no sin, no sin no need for Grace.
But, knowing that we are here on purpose. God wants us and loves us. Knowing that we are sinful by nature requires us to need salvation if we are to ever be the creation God intended us to be.

Answer 10

Evolution is life happening by chance no God involved. With a God creator life was created by a creator opposite of chance.

God Loves You and God Bless