The OP’s point, and one I somewhat agree with, is that if you have enough faith in Biblical accounts, justifying such faith through science is unnecessary. In other words, you can easily say, “Look, all I know is that the Bible is true. If science suggests otherwise, it doesn’t matter; the Bible says it’s true, so that’s that.” Now admittedly, the evidence for evolution is just too strong to ignore, and the scientific method is so rigorous that even the most faithful fundamentalists will try to emulate it.
Evolution also unfortunately contradicts a literal reading of an account that plays a rather important role in conservative theology. Take away the factual accounts of Genesis, you take away the Fall of Man. Take away the Fall of Man, you take away the need for Christ’s atoning sacrifice. More liberal Christians, such as myself, often see much more allegory in the Bible than fundamentalists or even relatively moderate Christians will allow, so we usually have very little problem with evolution, even seeing it as a way to understand God.
I’m not religious, but I don’t understand how evolution does away with the Fall of Man. Presumably, there were first human beings (even if we dpn’t know where to draw the line, presumably G-d knows where it was), who were the first with souls (if you believe in souls), who were the first to have a moral consciousness, and hence were the first to sin. If Genesis I is allegorical rather than literal, where’s the conflict? The only odd thing is that Adam and Eve each had parents who were non-human apes.
Actually there is an interesting history, that puts creationists in a more sympathetic light. IIRC it’s something like this:
Around the time Darwin became popular, a crackpot social theorist toured the US proclaiming the inevitability of what he termed “Social Darwinism.” This was rightly seen by many churchpeople as a cover for all sorts of predatory and invidious behaviour. Consequently there was a strong move, rallying against “Social Darwinism” stemming in a large part from religious communities in the US. And that means the Midwest.
In their zeal to do a good thing, the distinction between social darwinism and the scientific work of Charles Darwin was lost. Hence a popular hostility to the man and his works took hold. This was a rising tide that lifted all similar causes. Amongst those you find bibilical literalism, the mainspring of creationism.
Other people may have a better and more detailed recollection of the history than I.
Another one is "evolution is just a ‘theory’ ". Fundies have a unique definition of the word theory: to them, a theory is just one explanation for a phenomenon that is no better than any other explanation. The lack of scientific grounding in the fundie community is shocking. I blame home schooling.
Having been raised by creationist fundies I can tell you that the answer to your question is an emphatic yes. If the Bible isn’t literally true then it can’t have any meaning and therefore the fear is that everything is meaningless.
This is also a huge part of the problem for fundies. No way are they comfortable with the idea that humans are just another type of animal, much less an ape. We are special, we are more valuable than all other life.
Frankly, I see this as a colossally arrogant attitude. And in my experience most fundies tend to be very smug and arrogant although they would be horrified if you said that to them.
It is because evolution disagrees with the story of how God created man in the bible. Fundamentalists doggedly believe that what is written in the bible is absolute truth, despite the fact that the old testament in particular ties itself in knots of contradiction.
Not all Christians are like this. I am a Christian and I accept that evolution is probably correct.
Christianity (in its more conservative forms) is based on the doctrine that we are all born damned because of “original sin,” and we need Jesus to cleanse us of sin – there’s no other way into Heaven. Original sin is attributed to the fall of Adam and Eve in Eden; they committed the first sin against God and all the human race has inherited it. If you accept evolutionary theory you have to throw out that story – and then what need is there for Jesus as a sin-redeemer?
But Adam and Eve in the Bible were living in a state of perfection, while the first children who could be considered human would not be. Not that there would be a child that would be a very different “human” child of clearly nonhuman apes - that is not the way that speciation works. Also, while there is a male and female ancestor of us all, they lived at very different times. We are not all the children of some Adam and Eve who were born at some point.
This seems to me to be dubious at best. I know of nothing in the theory of evolution that leads to the idea that different species coexist in the same family. In fact if the situation of the past is consonant with that of today, offspring who differ markedly from the norm in a tribe, herd, flock or whatever don’t survive very long.
Well, even if you don’t believe that people are born with Original Sin, it’s still impossible for a person to live their entire life without committing a single sin, so they still need forgiveness. I’ve heard that there are denominations of Christianity that reject Original Sin, but I don’t know which ones.
The problem is that a line must be drawn somewhere. On one side is the first member of Homo sapiens; on the other are the parents, in Homo something-else. However, they might have looked very similar, and not have thougt of themselves as belonging to different species.
Another thing is that, while it may be true that generally offspring that are unlike their parents don’t survive, this is hardly a 100% rule. My uneerstanding is that it widely believed that new species often arise among small, genetically isolated groups. If you are in a small group of hunting-and-gathering hominid apes, and you have a child with a larger than usual brain, who grows up to be especially inventive at developing new tools to cope with a harsh environment, would you throw that child out of the group, or allow it to reach adulthood and produce more offspring like itself?
I think this is as close as it comes to why creationist dislike evolution.
I can’t talk for anyone but myself. I am a creationist, but not a religionist.
When I went to school many years ago, neither creation, nor evolution was taught. We had classes in English that taught morality through literature, not Biblical, and character building exercises. We were expected to maintain a certain discipline. If we didn’t, spanking was allowed, some were sent home to come back with their parents, etc. School was serious business both in gaining knowledge and learning to control our actions. Bullies were not tolerated, teachers intervened immediately and in some cases police were called.
School shootings were unheard of, and I can only remember one sucide, parental abuse, in all my school days. Everyone believed in God, or as least claimed they did, and had a fear of God. “I am a God fearing person,” was frequently heard.
The teaching of evolution as fact rather than theroy is the norm today in schools. Since I don’t go to school now, I can say exactly what is taught, but I do see the results of that teaching in the news and posted on this board. There has been a shift to atheistism, with feelings that anyone still believing in God is old fashioned, superstitious, and ignortant. Very little self discipline or respect for anyone holding beliefs that differ from the group. Bullies everywhere.
But the frightening thing is the rise in suicides, depression, anxiety attacks, school shootings, and general violence. Not all of this can be layed at the feet of school teaching. Some must be shared by TV, and video games.
In the past the spiritual community was able to comfort and help those with these problems. Now, with science attacking spiritual beliefs there is no where to turn. No purpose in life, no hope for the future, no reason to “tough it out” anymore. Instant gratification is the ticket in this society. Where it will end is anybody’s guess.
Yes, science started attacking spiritual things with the teachings of “brain produces personality”, there is no such thing as a soul or spirit. Unfortunately young minds believed the false teachings of science. Teachings they can’t back up with evidence. There still remains today no solid evidence that the brain produces you. When you think about it seriously it becomes ludicrous. Better take another look at that brain. You will find no memory cells. Some think that consciousness is a kind of electo-magnetic field running around the brain because probes or magnets can produce some actions. Consciousness is spirit and spirit is energy.
If you probe a telephone line and hear voices do you believe the line created the voices. Well, no need to show proof, science has become its own religion replacing former religions. We must wait now for it to run its course. Disillusionment will set in when people realize once again the brain does not create us humans.
There’s a school of thought that says people are automatically saved if they die before the “age of accountability.” Basically, you can’t commit a sin if your mind isn’t advanced enough to comprehend what sin is because you can’t have mens rea.
But that line is arbitrary at best. The advantage the supporters of evolution have is that we are viewing the big picture over vast spans of time but have only snapshots on which to build our case. We can say that two creatures are of different species but since their lives were separated by many generations that decision is easy. Were we to have the fossil record of one person’s entire lineage back two million years whole careers would be built on deciding where to draw each line and we could never agree that the line should be drawn between Ug Sr and Ug Jr. It’s really quite beautiful if you like shades of gray.
There’s no one beef. There are a multitude on various levels.
I’m an Old-Earth Creationist- perhaps even Theistic Evolutionist, and I resent both the insistence some Creationists have on a 6000-10000 year-old Earth created in six 24-hr days, AND the insistence that some Evolutionists have that natural processes explain everything and that any consideration of a Creator infringes upon their sacred domain.
I might concede that to some degree Evolution might explain the How, I will not budge from holding that Creationism explains the Who & the Why. I have a more personal commitment to the Who & Why than to the How.
Incidentally, if tomorrow, absolute evidence of human evolution from lower life-forms were found, I have my interpretation of Genesis all ready, complete with explanations of original sin, death before Adam and the need for salvation through Jesus.
Sure. There’s an excape clause for everything. Is the age of accountability mentioned in the Bible or is it whatever age the members of the school of thought regard as proper?
And I suppose there are various ages proposed and schisms over it.
Actually from a scientific POV, the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of evolution are the same question.
There is certainly strong evidence against any sort of Intelligent Design, which might otherwise introduce a distinct ‘why.’
I also think it shows courage to post a religious POV on this message board. In these arguments the personal investment of the parties is asymmetrical.