Why do Christians reject evolution when 99.9% of scientists in the life sciences accept it as fact?

Question

Do you know more than they do?

Does reading a Michael Behe, Duane Gish or a Kent Hovind book make you an expert?

Do you realize that those people have NO respect in the scientific community because they are LIARS who INGNORE FACTS and misrepresent truths?

Does reading a book by a "journalist" (Lee Strobel) give you licence to write off evolution?

Shouldn't we let scientists do science? They don't come to your job and tell you what you're doing wrong. They don't know enough about what you do to criticize.

Serious answers only.

Answer 1

99.9% is an exaggeration, but let's just say that's true. So much of it is academic peer pressure; it’s not wanting to be different. We are so indoctrinated in molecules-to-man evolution, and many people are intimidated (e.g. Ben Stein's new movie).

But secular scientists are fallible human beings with limited knowledge and limited understanding, and like every human, they hate to be criticized and are subject to bias and preconceived ideas, and they don’t want to lose their grant money.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who don’t know everything and who were not there. And history shows that the scientific establishment has been wrong time after time; that is why the science textbooks constantly have to be revised.

The majority of scientists used to believe that the world was flat; did that make it flat? The majority of doctors used to think they didn’t need to wash their hands before an operation; did that save the people they were infecting? And on and on... Those who discovered the truth and tried to teach differently were soundly rejected by their colleagues.

Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup made an interesting statement: “I suppose that 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...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”

From what I have seen, I have to agree with T. Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

It is unwise to bet your life on any scientific theory, no matter how popular it is.

As Dr. Ross Olson has said, “...often those who have consciously sought safety by staying in the middle of the herd have ended up, like lemmings, in the middle of a stampede off an intellectual cliff.”

Answer 2

I'll try and give a balanced answer as best I can. Firstly, not all Christians reject evolution. Many, especially those who understand how science works, accept it as the current scientific theory and are willing to go along with it unless and until a better theory comes along. However, there are reasons why many Christians reject it.

1. Theological reasons.

For example, the Bible says that death entered the world after Adam and Eve sinned. That means that when first created, "survival of the fittest" was impossible. Apart from that, the plain reading of the Bible does suggest that direct creation rather than evolution was how God made the world.

Science is ephemeral by nature. What is believed one day (e.g., Newton's law of gravity, Darwin's theory of evolution) is no longer held by scientists and replaced by something else (we now have Einstein's General Relativity and we now know about genetic mutations).

However, the Bible is constant, God's unchanging message about the world and its relationship to him, what cannot be discovered by science but only known by direct revelation. If there is a discrepancy between something that is a theory and something that is sure, then your best bet is to go for what is sure, don't you think?

Note that some Christians do believe in evolution will argue that the discrepancy lies with one's *interpretation* of what the Bible says, and that the Bible was not intended to be a scientific work.

2. Scientific reasons

There are problems cited against evolution on scientific grounds.

Lack of experimental evidence:

- there are few if any known mutations that fit the requirements of the theory, namely, making the species more complex and offering a sufficient advantage over other members of the species

- the fossil evidence lacks the plethora of intermediate forms that would be expected if species gradually changed over the eons

Mathematical arguments:

- I can't remember the details now but if mutations are trully random, then it can be shown mathematically that the probability of even a genuine advantage is likely to disappear over time

- given the number of mutations that are needed to advance from one species to the next, the probabilities of this actually happening have been calculated to be astronomically small (well, ok, calculated by creationists, but they have a point)

There are other arguments as well, but you get the idea. I'm not trying to give all the arguments against evolution here, but to answer your question, why do people reject it. There are rational, plausible arguments, both theological and scientific, that suggest that the theory is invalid, or at least problematic.

My personal feeling is that many people stick to evolution in spite of evidence against it only because it gives them an excuse not to have to believe in God. On the other hand, I don't agree with everything I've heard creationists say. Their geological theories I think fit worse with the evidence compared with conventional scientific views, but I guess that's another story.

Answer 3

I DON'T write off evolution. And as for the authors that you mentioned, at least Michael Behe DOES believe in evolution, and he also believes that it's entirely possible that humans and apes have a common ancestor. Why, that sounds like evolution, doesn't it?

The evolution THEY are speaking about is the kind that has absolutely NO evidence and which is a mathematical impossibility: That the entire universe and life itself is the result of a random accident.

And THAT, my friend, is the kind of evolution I'm against. But mutations within species? Sure, why not?

Answer 4

A scientific theory can never really be called a fact.

There may well be parts of it that are irrefutable and undeniable, but if it were 100% solid fact, it would not be called a Scientific theory, it would more likely be called a scientific law. Like the law of gravity for example.

The Theory of Evolution is evolving as much as the lifeforms it describes. It has not reached the point of being complete fact yet. I have no doubt that it will.

Atheist.

Answer 5

The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." ( Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with three earned doctorates.)

99.9% of scientists in the life sciences accept evolution as fact. What a statement, of course you can back it up with facts.

Here is a list of some scientists who dispute evolution:

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

Believe what you want but don't go and make these ourtrageous claims that you can't prove or back up with facts.

Peace be with you

Answer 6

Because scientists are predominantly Atheists. Scientists generally enter the field with the predisposition that God doesn't exist, or at least make it a premise for all of their hypotheses. They have removed the hypothetical possibility of God from the equation, which goes directly against Christianity. So looking for an answer that doesn't include God is not an option for us.

People who believe in God and commit their lives to study usually become professional philosophers or theologians, not scientists. They don't bicker with science... they don't rely on science to show them the truth.

Answer 7

In this world many things are possible. Even scientists can be charlatans and not only them. Don't you know that there is medicinal mafia. In this world everything is for sell and is purchased. If appears honest journalist someone kills him as is doing in Russia. All are good in such deeds.
What are you trying to prove ? That monkey became human being ? Why can not you think that monkey and people different creatures ?

Answer 8

I'm a Christian and I do not reject evolution, in fact, I think science is valid and the evidence to support evolution is overwhelming. I guess some Christians just don't want to accept the fact of evolution because they don't understand it. Good luck. 2D

Answer 9

Most Christians don't reject evolution.

Of those Christians that do reject evolution, I believe it's because they feel that the Book of Genesis story of creation is contrary to evolutionary theory and they feel that they must therefore reject evolutionary theory in order to be true to their faith.

Answer 10

I'm Christian and I don't reject evolution. Nor do most Christians that I know.

99.9% of scientists accept evolution as fact? Hmmm... I wonder what all the continuing debate is about then, if it's so cut-n-dried...?

You'll get serious answers when you post a serious question, my friend.