Why do so many religious people deny Evolution?

[inev]

Recently I have begun researching Evolution.

I have found that although scientific proof has been found that supports evolution, has been peer reviewed and is supported by the scientific community, i.e scientists.

That so many religious people seem to dismiss it as lies, and seem to suggest that only genesis can be an acceptable explanation.

As well as this these people seem to also dismiss the big bang, as they seem to understand it as an explosion.

Yes, i know that these religious people are in the minority, and the majority of religious people accept the big band and evolution as how the universe and life developed. Before that science is yet to find out the answer and religion seems to hold its ground.

[ervin]

	Quote:			Originally Posted by inev
	Recently I have begun researching Evolution. I have found that although scientific proof has been found that supports evolution, has been peer reviewed and is supported by the scientific community, i.e scientists. That so many religious people seem to dismiss it as lies, and seem to suggest that only genesis can be an acceptable explanation. As well as this these people seem to also dismiss the big bang, as they seem to understand it as an explosion. Yes, i know that these religious people are in the minority, and the majority of religious people accept the big band and evolution as how the universe and life developed. Before that science is yet to find out the answer and religion seems to hold its ground.

The denial of evolution is more a protestantic doctrine. Protestantism accepts the "infalibity" of the scriptures in generelly even scientifically. Thats their doctrine. They belive in the scipture by means of words. p.e. if the texts are saying that GOD created the man and the "kinds" of the animals, they believe that "kinds" of the animals were standart since the beggining of live.

More over protestants have many wrong interpretations of the scriptures and that causes them to make more errors.

So ,it is not only their mistake that they believe Bible is scientifically correct in every matter/aspect but their big mistake is that they believe interpretations they make about bible are correct too!

p.e. their hole doctrine about genesis is faulse. In Genesis one can see the evolution doctrine p.e. in Genesis 1, 20 you see God commanding water to "give out" animals and plants. Thats is more an evolutionary doctrine than a direct command as "let there be plants and animals" out of "instant". Protestants also confuse words. Those "kind" of animals in Genesis doesnt have to be the same word as "kinds" of biology today.



In orthodoxy which is the very first dogma in Christianism evolution is not a problem eventhough some think evolution is taught in an atheistic way [and that is merely attribuited to protestants and their efforts against evolution].

In Orthodoxy the basic thing is that man was "baptised" by God in Genesis 2,7 with His blow, and that without God there wouldnt be any kind of life.


You see evolution is just and idea of how life evolved. But there isn't a single proove how it started. Even today on earth there are so many enviroments that support life but life doen's come out of nothing [abiogenesis]....pauster proove that correctly


So, it is not religious people against evolution, heresy SURE is against evolution and causes lots of troubles to Orthodox too; cause in West europe all christians are considered by atheits to have the same interpretations of the scriptures like protestants... but this is not the case.

More ever the most false dogma of heresies like Catholicism and protestanticism is to rapresent GOD as a punisher and a judje.... that is why in US you can see christians outside houses carrying "You will burn in Hell" logos..... they think god will punish severely everysingle sin....

[ehdawg]

Many religious people who believe these types of thing are simply blind to the nature of science. They understand evolution as a "theory" in the everyday use of the word and not in the scientific use of the word. When someone says in everyday conversation that they "have a theory", it really means they have a hypothesis, an idea, that may or may not hold up to scrutiny. A theory in science, of course means that it was once a hypothesis that has been so thoroughly supported that it is essentially truth. There have been countless studies that don't contradict it as truth and not a single one that does. This is just a "simple" and intentional misconception spread by religious denominations to keep people god fearing and in church on Sundays. Once in the hands of the irrational masses, it just got worse.

There is also a little saying that I like to bring up to anyone who argues that evolution isn't true because it hasn't explained some things; that is "God of the Gaps". Just because science hasn't explained it thus far, doesn't instantly mean God is the only answer. People like this used to frustrate me, now I just ignore them because it isn't worth wasting my breath.

[market]

A lot of crude Christians have moved increasingly toward literal interpretations of the Bible and to reject non-Biblical texts, and take no interest more subtle approaches to their religion. There was the revilalist period before the second world war, then in the 60s they started to become more scholastic producing books arguing the creationist view, even though 40 years earlier many US Christians were fine with Darwinism.

The US is unique amongst developed countries in seeing religion grow with the economy, usually as people get richer they drift away from chruch. Although there is research that suggests that church attendance generates economic growth, as it brings people together.

[Flynnster]

yeah it comes down to if you regard the bible as something to be taken literally, or rather something to be interpreted

[Adje01]

Fact of the matter is that none of us know how it all really went. We are all just guessing for the most part. Science has had to adjust some of their theories through the years, saying that their findings aren't always definitive. And many of the religious believes are also old fashioned and need adjustments as well.

As long as there isn't hard conclusive proof about one or the other we are just being arrogant by saying "I am right". And both sides do this way too often...

[SkyAzurith]

Depending on which religion your speaking of.
I won't speak for any other religion other then Christianity on which I was raised on. We were created in God's image and therefore given our 'human' form. To say we originated from beasts of the earth is treading very insulting lines of faith. As there is already a topic of almost the same concept, go find science or religion and read some of the comments there.

[zoloft]

no idea they can be reconciled very well our understanding of both science and religion are undeveloped

[bingo]

Science. Even scientists admit that they don´t know crap. When they can actually decipher 5% of the ocean´s depths or the universe, then they can state a definite opinion. And just an opinion. A dog, for instance, looked like a dog 10.000 years ago and it will not grow wings in a million more. To believe that some scientist can say that we evolved from fish, given the fact that no more than 100 years ago we were so backwards that most world cities were still being lit by gas lamps, is too much for me. But we all have our own opinions so......

[topaimz]

First of all, "Evolution" is over exaggerated by the religious and scientific community.
Evolution in simple terms is "any process of formation or growth" or in Biological terms,
"change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."
It's a gradual "PROCESS". And I can't over emphasize the "PROCESS" part enough.
Religious people and Scientist forget the fact it is a "process",
which have been somewhat proven by Darwin himself with the finches. However, what cannot be proven, yet, is the fact of common ancestry. As many of you know, evidence of "the missing links" have not been found yet.


Secondly, people have to realize that the Bible does not out right deny the existence evolution, once again, THE PROCESS.
The Bible shouldn't be taken by it's every word, as there are a lot of metaphors and hidden meanings in it, hence the study of Theology.

Usually, people are not educated enough about the Bible itself, and are just following the political view of their leaders. (Blind faith)
This is the biggest reason why people just outright deny evolution, with out anything to back it up with. (Not even THE BIBLE will back up their claim)

So here is how I back up my claim that even the Bible hints to the fact that Adam and Eve were not literally the First, created Human beings.

1. How did they procreate?
If you keep reading the story of Adam's lineage, you know that Adam had 2 children, both Sons, Cain and Abel. Abel is killed of by Cain, so how did he procreate to make more human beings? Additionally, if you look at Genesis 4:17, "Cain lay with his wife...", HIS WIFE. Where did she come from if there were no other humans?

2. Why would Cain be afraid after killing his brother?
Gen 4:14, "...I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me..." if you look at the original text, "finds me" is expressed more like "meets me". WHO will meet him if there is no other humans except Cain and his parents?

3. How the heck did Cain build a CITY
Gen 4:17, "... Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch." How would he even attempt to build a city. If Cain, his parents, and lets say his wife (who appeared out of no where for the sake of the argument) were to build a CITY, why and how? Why would you need a CITY for inhabitance of 4~5 people, and if you did build a CITY where would they get the man power?




There are probably more, but these are just a few things within the first couple chapters of the Bible which illustrate the fact that Adam and Eve was not the only, first, created humans.

One should consider the fact that, through out the Bible, people of faith are considered "people" or "human". People of other faiths or unbelievers are not considered in terms of "people" or "human". Thus, one could conclude that in the Christian God's eyes, Adam and Eve were the FIRST HUMANs/PEOPLE because they were the first to truly know and believe in the religion/faith that God intended.


Oh, btw, I'm a devote Christian who believes in THE PROCESS of Evolution.
My Personal view is that everything was created at first by God, then from then on, processes like Evolution took over.
God is said to be the "alpha and omega", start and end, a being/presence that has and will exist forever/infinitely.
By Occam's razor, which states "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one: the most logical explanation is the existence of God if you even want to contemplate the validity of the Big Bang theory.