# Why do Creationists hate Evolution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019 "2003-02-05T19:02:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/41 "2003-02-06T22:48:41Z")
Hardcore: When I said that evolution isn’t easily demonstrated on a day to day basis, what I meant was, you can’t _see_ animals evolving from one form into another, because of the way it actually occurs. You’re right though, that there are many areas of science that aren’t easily seen. > [@](#): > > So, I cannot simply accept that creationists reject what they can’t see. Otherwise, they would be rejecting a great deal more of our scientific knowledge One thing to consider though, is that in many other areas of science, cause and effect relationships can be demonstrated, even if the subject of study isn’t readily examined. \*“If I heat this, that turns blue.” \* Also, remember, the existence or nonexistence of atoms, for example isn’t discussed in the bible, which is where creationists look for answers first. People who can’t accept that the universe is 15 billion years old can still accept that it’s made of atoms, on the basis that “God had to make it out of something.” Perhaps what I was thinking of as a reason is more of a rationalization. The “invisible” and relatively slow nature of evolution is used (poorly) in arguments by creationists, who can’t accept that the Earth is much older than they believe. In their world there simply hasn’t been enough time for evolution to take place. Remember that creationists often argue that the entire fossil record isn’t clearly laid out. They claim that if evolution occurred we should be able to find fossils of _every_ intermediate stage in any animals development, ignoring how many different fossils have in fact been found, as well as how many things simply weren’t fossilized to begin with. This is all just speculation on my part, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/42 "2003-02-06T23:30:17Z")
Well, to them, “evolution” is an ideology that _includes_ the Big Bang and is set against How God Created The World by atheists (like thee and me ;)). There’s a Pit rant devoted to this exact concept going on now. But I agree in part – something as obvious as ancient history is subject to argument because they consider the mythical “Darius the Mede” to have conquered Chaldea on the basis of, IIRC, Daniel – the Median Empire not being understood as contemporary and coterminous with the Chaldean, but as its successor, falling between it and the Achaemenid Persians. However, disputes about this do not have the direct devastating effect on faith-in-the-Bible-as-the-literally-true-Word-of-God foundation of their worldview that the Big Bang and Evolution do. And I must submit for further consideration the very important point that **Lib** raises, albeit polemically: > [@](#): > > But I added important information to your point. The Bible is their god. After all, only God is infallible. They would be quick to deny this, of course. But in point of fact an attack on the literality of the Bible **is** usually seen as a direct attack on God Himself. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/43 "2003-02-06T23:39:31Z")
I think ultimately, it’s all about _us_. Evolution, unlike other sciences, speaks to _our_ origins, and therein directly contradicts a literal reading of Genesis. You will often note that “the big bang” and abiogenesis, both of which are independent of evolution, are likewise targeted by creationists, as those also deal with the issue of origins. The bulk of chemistry, physics, and so on do not, so they are left alone. This is also why many creationists will admit to “microevolution”, because the evidence cannot really be denied; however, they can then hide behind the old saw of “but micro-evolution can’t explain how _we_ got here!” [on preview, I see **Polycarp** mentioned much of this as well] ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/44 "2003-02-06T23:49:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*Well, to them, “evolution” is an ideology that includes the Big Bang and is set against How God Created The World by atheists (like thee and me ). \*\* One thing though: although they view evolution as including the Big Bang, Abiogenesis (although a lot of them don’t even recognize that term), geological aging techniques, etc., what makes me wonder is the extreme _focus_ on evolution. I mean, I have something like _15 evo-creation messageboards bookmarked in my “favorites”._ All of them with a loyal following of ardent supporters. How many anti-BB MB’s do I have? Zero. I’m sure they are out their, but they are no where near as popular (in my anecdotal experience) as the creation/evo boards. I suppose that both **Poly** and **Darwin’s Finch** are right, when it boils down to it-evolution is about _us_, and **Lib** is also correct in nailing the reason, an (IMO) _over-reliance on a literal history_ of the bible. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/45 "2003-02-06T23:51:06Z")
BTW, I meant to put qoutes around "is about _us_. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/46 "2003-02-06T23:55:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*Two “philosophers” in the town of Chelm (celebrated town of fools, in Jewish folklore) were debating if the sun moves or stands still. So one said “it has to move. After all, Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, which proves that normally it moves”. And the other said “to the contrary! Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and it’s been standing still ever since…” \*\* (minor hijack) Do you by any chance know of a book with a lot of good Chelm jokes? ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/47 "2003-02-07T01:55:26Z")
One thing I’ve just realized from reading [the other thread on evolution](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=160416) is that some Creationists don’t think that a person can believe in both God and evolution. Somehow, believing that creatures evolved destroys belief in God. Since I also get the impression that a belief that only Christians can be good people (see [**vanilla’s** recent thread on good Atheists](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=159144)), people who believe evolution occurs must therefore be bad people who at best deny God and at worst would like to see everyone else do so. This is a vast oversimplification, of course, but it might account for some of the hostility. Meanwhile, I suspect there are a bunch of us Christians who do believe evolution occurs scratching our heads and going “Huh?”😕 CJ ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/48 "2003-02-07T02:24:19Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by hardcore_ > IzzyR, I hope you don’t mind if I pick on you for a bit. If I do then I won’t post. Pick away. 🙂 > [@](#): > > I am not directing this at creation scientists, primarily because I doubt we will be able to lure one into a debate in this forum. Furthermore, I consider “creation scientist” to such an oxymoronic term that I cannot take them seriously. I meant someone who could argue on purely scientific grounds as opposed to someone who merely knew a tiny bit here and there but was skeptical. There used to be a poster to these boards named Gaspode who fit the former description. > [@](#): > > And I disagree with your implication that the general public at large distrusts evolution. I consider it to be a small but vocal minority that doesn’t agree with the majority of scientists True, but I think there are a larger percentage of “it’s a theory not a law” people, who are also more skeptical of evolution, if they ultimately do accept it. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. The fact that two disciplines of science follow the same general methodology does not mean that their conclusions will be equally valid. It may be that one field lends itself to the scientific method more than the other - there may be more available evidence, it may be more testable. Scientific methodology attempts to give the best scientific answer considering the evidence available - using this same methodology may give answers that vary in certitude to different questions and in different fields. > > Do you actually wish to contend that the science behind evolutionary theory is out of step with the many other realms of science which most creationists seem willing to accept, thereby giving creationists a valid reason to object on these grounds? I want to make sure you indeed hold this position before I spend time deconstructing it. I wouldn’t say that it is “out of step” if by this is meant that there is some sort of line dividing evolutionary science from the rest of science. Only that in general different branches of science might have different levels of certitude while utilizing the same methodology. So that you cannot claim that it is inconsistent on its face to accept one while rejecting the other. Personally, I put less stock in psychology than I do in medical science. And I put less stock in medical science than I do in electrical engineering. Nothing ideological about it (particularly in the case of the latter two) – I just happen to think these have different levels of certitude. And if I happened to have some reason to doubt the opinion of the majority of experts in these fields, I would be quicker to do it in the case of psychology than in medical science and so on. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > It just happens that evolution addresses an area in which many people consider the possibility of a non-scientific answer, and for this reason there is less blind acceptance of science here than in other areas. > > This is exactly the issue I wish to probe. What is it that is so magical about evolution that causes this reaction, as opposed to say, lightning, earthquakes, tornados, magnetism, gravity, chemistry, quantum mechanics and the thousands of other topics which do not require a supernatural influence? Each of these is at least as complex as population changes in allele frequencies, but you rarely see anyone campaigning for Intelligent Design to explain butyl acrylate formation. I am not saying that it _requires_ it – only that there happens to be one. If you are asking why it is that there is one, I would guess it would depend on who you are asking. A religious person might say that the fact of God’s creating the world is an important part of theology, so God addressed the issue. An irreligious person would say that it is an important part of people’s psyche so people created religious mythology to explain it. Either way, the point is that it is out there and was out there long before evolution (IOW it was not created as a counter to evolution). But that’s besides the point, at least in terms of your question. Bottom line is that if you think there are 4 possibilities A, B, C & D and an expert considers A, B, & C and decides that A is the best, you will not reject D as readily as you would have had the expert considered all available options. Again, this is only to provide a rationale for a distinction between one branch of science and another – it does not follow from this that all evolutionary science can be rejected out of hand, obviously. **Ben** , I don’t know if I can help you. I have one book, but it is long out of print, and in Hebrew besides. I seem to recall having seen a bunch of Chelm stuff in a book of folklore that my grandparents had. Possibly [this](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517502933/qid=1044583394/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-3814380-8807262?v=glance&s=books) one, but I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/49 "2003-02-07T02:31:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\* > **Ben** , I don’t know if I can help you. I have one book, but it is long out of print, and in Hebrew besides. I seem to recall having seen a bunch of Chelm stuff in a book of folklore that my grandparents had. Possibly [this](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517502933/qid=1044583394/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-3814380-8807262?v=glance&s=books) one, but I’m not sure. \*\* Thanks! What’s the title of the hebrew book, BTW? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/50 "2003-02-07T03:14:23Z")
_Sefer HaBedicha VeHaChidud_ (The Book of Humor and Wit). I have the fifth edition, published about 45 years ago. I am missing the third (of three) volume, and wouldn’t mind getting hold of it, but I don’t think it is available. (The one I have is from some family friend who found it in an old used book store). Chelm stuff is in vol. 2 ---
**Author:** ![YiBaiYuan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/f475e1/32.png) [@YiBaiYuan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YiBaiYuan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/51 "2003-02-07T05:50:27Z")
Hello hardcore, I’d like to respond to your thread, if I may. FTR, I believe in Creationism. However, I may not be of the variety you’re wanting: i.e. I’m not an inerrant, fundamentalist. Nevertheless, I’ll try to answer some of your questions from my perspective, if you wish. To begin, I don’t think there is a single answer to your question about why Creationists believe as they do. Creationists can’t be closely defined into a narrow category that encompasses the views of them all. Therefore, I believe you’ll find a variety of reasons depending on whom you ask. A few possible answers to your question, in my opinion, are as follows: Many Creationists impose a lot of semantic baggage on the term Evolution. This word conveys much more than just “adaptation of species”. So you have confusion of terms and definitions, for starters. tdn and a few others have already identified what I believe is another valid answer: Evolution is perceived as directly attacking the concept of Creation. Of course there are some Creationists who recognize that adaptation and mutation do not automatically preclude the possibility of a Creator God; rather, these are just additional means He uses. Another aspect is that some Creationists lump all scientific ideas with which they disagree into the convenient, catch-all term “Evolution”. This ties in to what I said above about baggage and imprecisely defined terms. As has been pointed out, much of what science presents does not conflict with Biblical beliefs. But those which do get put into the category of Evolution. (Similar to your #6.) As you (#4) and others have stated, many Creationist hold that in a difference of views between what science says and what the Bible says, preference must be given to the Bible. The argument that Evolution is “only a theory” stems from an inaccurate understanding of the scientific process and the meaning of the term. Plus it’s a regurgitation of an argument heard repeatedly from leaders and teachers who are supposed to know what they’re talking about. As to why Evolution is singled out from all the other sciences, I believe it’s because it’s the central point of Darwin’s theory, which has caused so much damage to long-held dogma during the past century. Finally, I feel a lot of stiff adherence to certain dogma is due to reading into the Scriptures more than it actually says. I will check back again tomorrow evening. To see if there is anything more you’d like. YiBaiYuan ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/52 "2003-02-07T23:51:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hardcore \* > > Talking about creationists having a problem with what they don’t see: > \*\* > I have several problems with this view: > [ul] > [li]Anyone can see evolution displayed quite easily, if they open their eyes. The fossil evidence alone is overwhelming, and with the advent of the Internet, you don’t even have to leave your home to see it. The nested hierarchy of various species, their geographic distribution, vestigial structures, DNA and body type similarities are all examples of evidence that supports evolution and is very accessible. Other, more specific examples such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics and nylon digestion can be viewed by anyone with some interest.[/li][li]There are many other branches of science which are not easily “seen”. I doubt any creationist has seen an atom, yet there are no outcries for warning labels about “Atomic theory”. Quantum mechanics is another area which fits this description. They cannot see oxygen or hydrogen, but are not worried that water electrolysis is invalid science.[/li][li]Even if this were true, why do they not hold “Creation vs. Astronomy” or “Creation vs. Cosmology” debates, and petition lawmakers for astronomy textbook warnings?[/li][/ul] > So, I cannot simply accept that creationists reject what they can’t see. Otherwise, they would be rejecting a great deal more of our scientific knowledge. \*\* Actually, I think this is a big problem with creationists. The “how come we don’t see cats turn into dogs” argument seems to imply that creationists believe this should happen overnight. The argument that evolution can’t be true because we don’t see every step in the process is often said, as is the desire to see new features develop over human timeframes. Microevolution you can see, which is why it is accepted. Atoms aren’t mentioned in the Bible. As for the Big Bang, remember that the old Kansas school board removed that from the list of items to be tested for also. But people have a more visceral reaction to being descended from apes than about what was supposed to happen 13 billion years ago. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/53 "2003-02-07T23:56:41Z")
So, umm, err- where is the “debate” here? What is seems like, is that some one is holding up a straw man, and most of everyone else is taking turns putting words in it’s mouth, then whacking it like a pinata. In order to get a debate, you’d have to have a creationist who DOES “hate evolution” to be the “con” side. At least one. But what we have is a bunch of dudes saying “well, maybe they hate evolution becuse of THIS silly argument”, “maybe, but it seems like it is because of THIS stupid viewpoint”, “no, no, they have THIS completely wrong idea”. :rolleyes: Sure, it seems that Izzy, being a orthodox Jew is a “creationist” of sorts. But he isn’t being drawn into the “hate evolution” part of it, in fact it seems like he doesn’t have any problem with evolution as a SCIENTIFIC study. His Faith doesn’t seem to insist on there being a contradiction. (Pardon me if I am wrong here, IZZY, and feel free to tell me how wrong I am). And, YiBaiYaun above also claimes to be some sort of “creationist”, but hardly seems to be one of those fundamentalist bible thumpers you’d like to have come in to argue. In fact, every week or so, somebody starts some thread like this, which seems better suited for the PIT than GD. It is a “bash the silly creationist” thread. Now, dudes- there _are_ some slopebrows out there who think that Genesis means that life does not evolve. BUT THEY DON’T SEEM TO BE JOINING IN ON YOUR “DEBATE”. Look- I agree- any one who seriously thinks that evolution isn’t a fact of life- is either crazy, stupid or deluded. (Those who believe in “guided evolution”, etc are just “believers”. Let them have their faith.) Sometimes I wish I had some faith, too, it could be comforting.) And I know that it drives you guys crazy that there are a few misguided dudes out there that beleive the fundamentalist creationist bullstuff. BUT they are not reading this thread, or likely even posting to this MB- and if just maybe one is- he isn’t going to post, and even so- you’re not going to change his mind. Really. You’re preaching to the choir. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/54 "2003-02-08T00:03:12Z")
I read an interesting monograph on the growth of unbelief in America during the 19th century. On of the points mades was that in the first half of the 19th century, when science was gaining increasing popularity and respect, many religious leaders were hitching their wagons to science, in the strong expectation that further scientific discoveries would have the effect of “proving” god. Thus, Darwin’s refutation of the special creation of Man had a much bigger impact than it would have had the century before. People weren’t really literalists back then (the discovery that the Earth was a lot older than 6,000 years had no big impact at all) but evolution went to the very heart of scientific religion, and discredited those religious leaders putting their faith in science. I think the echoes of this shock have come down to the present. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/55 "2003-02-08T07:34:11Z")
We should distinguish Creationists (including ID’ers) into two groups: passive receivers and active broadcasters. Passive receivers are those who accept this whole Creationism mumblejumble from another source. Due to the uncriticial nature of Christians, they frequently accept it as the truth because it came from An Authority. Active broadcasters are people like Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and Ken Hovind, who actually make things up and push them on others. It seems proper to view the passive receivers as victims of misinformation. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/56 "2003-02-08T07:49:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > **So, umm, err- where is the “debate” here? What is seems like, is that some one is holding up a straw man, and most of everyone else is taking turns putting words in it’s mouth, then whacking it like a pinata.** If you feel I am constructing straw men, then maybe you can point out the obvious flaws, or even offer more constructive insight into a reasonable alternative not made of straw. > [@](#): > > \*\* In order to get a debate, you’d have to have a creationist who DOES “hate evolution” to be the “con” side. At least one. But what we have is a bunch of dudes saying “well, maybe they hate evolution becuse of THIS silly argument”, “maybe, but it seems like it is because of THIS stupid viewpoint”, “no, no, they have THIS completely wrong idea”. :rolleyes:\*\* I wouldn’t characterize all of the options I listed as silly or stupid. #4 is a strictly religious objection, which I certainly can understand, even if I happen to disagree with it. Just don’t pretend it is a scientific reason. #5 is simplistic and naive, but I’m sure you’ve been fortunate never to experience anything similar. #6 is more about a misunderstanding of terms along the lines of partial ignorance, instead of stupidity or silliness. Ultimately, I must think all their objections are incorrect, otherwise I would hold their view. In addition, you put the phrase “hate evolution” in quotes as if there is any doubt these people exist. > [@](#): > > \*\*In fact, every week or so, somebody starts some thread like this, which seems better suited for the PIT than GD. It is a “bash the silly creationist” thread. \*\* Perhaps you would be so kind as to help me identify which part of my post(s) you considered “bashing the silly creationist”, and more deserving of the Pit. Hade I felt it belonged there, I would have opened it accordingly. Should I check with you first on my next attempt? > [@](#): > > \*\*Now, dudes- there _are_ some slopebrows out there who think that Genesis means that life does not evolve. \*\* Now _that_ does seem a little more Pit-like. > [@](#): > > **BUT THEY DON’T SEEM TO BE JOINING IN ON YOUR “DEBATE”.** And frankly, I’m a little confused as to why you did. Something sure sparked you to make the effort. > [@](#): > > \*\*And I know that it drives you guys crazy that there are a few misguided dudes out there that believe the fundamentalist creationist bullstuff. BUT they are not reading this thread, or likely even posting to this MB- and if just maybe one is- he isn’t going to post, and even so- you’re not going to change his mind. \*\* It does bother me when people believe in psychics, or spiritualists claiming to speak to the dead, or any of a myriad other topics without evidence. One of the reasons I joined the SDMB was the struggle against ignorance. Perhaps you did so for other, more noble reasons. I started this thread in the hopes of fighting some of my own ignorance about the creationist obsession with evolution. If your sole significant contribution is your opinion about the ultimate futility of this thread, then so be it. I happen to think a few, more avid creationists do post here, but I was unaware our time limit had expired for a “real creationist” to respond and meet your debate criteria, so I’ll be sure to try harder in the future. Then again, I might not. I’m kinda lazy. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/57 "2003-02-08T08:43:13Z")
**YiBaiYuan** , I think you are absolutely correct about creationists not being easily categorized. May I ask if your particular brand of Creationism precludes a role for evolution? If so, why? Or is it more of a God started it all 15 billion years ago and let it go forth, with maybe a slight nudge here or there to help things out a bit? > [@](#): > > \*\*As to why Evolution is singled out from all the other sciences, I believe it’s because it’s the central point of Darwin’s theory, which has caused so much damage to long-held dogma during the past century. \*\* While it is no doubt true that evolution contradicted certain religious dogma, other scientific advances did likewise, including astronomy, geology (as in age of earth arguments), heliocentrism, etc. and no longer seem to hold sway as much. Why does evolution have such staying power? This issue was essentially decided over a century ago, and I would like to believe we live in a more enlightened age, though I often find it difficult to do so. I think **Darwin’s Finch** has the answer most closely aligned with my own. Ultimately, it has to do with man’s desire for the universe to be about us, to placate our own self-esteem and reduce our feelings of insignificance. This fact alone should give one pause when formulating their worldview, for we are more likely to see what we wish to be true. As various advances in astronomy, geology, and so forth, have reduced the likelihood of a universe recently designed just for man, each has been met with resistance. Evolution happens to be the latest in a long line of these, and perhaps it hits the closest to our fragile ego. ---
**Author:** ![YiBaiYuan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/f475e1/32.png) [@YiBaiYuan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YiBaiYuan)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/58 "2003-02-08T20:30:30Z")
Hardcore, I’ll try to answer your questions in a general sense; but I would prefer not to get into arguing the specifics of my beliefs, if you don’t mind, because I don’t think that was the intent of your thread. As I understand it, the purpose of this thread was not to critically examine the various beliefs of the Creationists; rather, it was to examine possible reasons why Creationists tend to single out Evolution from the other sciences for special criticism. Darwin’s theory and the body of work which grew out of it and built on it caused a substantial amount of damage to long-held dogma and greatly undermined the credibility the Church had previously held in explaining scientific matters. So Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is an object of scorn which many would love to discredit, if only they could. Further, I think that for at least some Creationists the fundamental objection to the theory of evolution is more than just that it contradicted dogma; it’s that it caused a shift in the balance of authority between science and religion. Prior to Darwin, when the general public wanted explanations of nature and such, they asked the Church what the official views were and accepted those. Sure, there were a few scientists who spoke of unusual things, like the Earth revolving around the Sun, and such; but the public trusted the Church to give them the straight dope. But with the coming of Darwin, the furor which surrounded his theory generated so much interest and study, and the arguments put forth seemed so compelling, that the general public began to put a bit more trust in the scientists and a little less in the Church. In other words, they would consult the scientists first, rather than the Church; even to the point of dismissing Church teaching if it disagreed with science, rather than the other way around. And it’s this shift on the part of the public, from putting more trust in science than in the Church, that has generated the undying enmity of the hard-core fundamentalists. I, too, agree that Darwin’s Finch has indeed identified another aspect of the problem. It rankles many to suggest that their great-grandfather was an ape. 🙂 It is preferable to think we’re the descendants of God, not monkeys. However, as I said before, among the Creationists the word Evolution has come to be catch-all term for any scientific tenet with which they disagree. Thus, among those whom you are trying to comprehend, the word does not hold the same meaning as it seems to hold for you. As for my personal beliefs, about which you enquired: No, I don’t preclude any role for evolution. I accept it in the sense of mutations leading to variety within species. But in the sense of crossover between families I am unconvinced, despite the seeming abundance of evidence; because I am not convinced that the world is as old as is postulated. Science says that given billions and billions of years evolution can account for new families; and this may indeed be possible. But I don’t accept that the world, as we know it, has existed for those billions of years. (And the qualifier, “as we know it”, is important to my understanding. But that’s another issue.) For myself, I think the thing which is science’s weakness is the belief among many of its adherents that the laws of science and nature are supreme and inviolable; everything MUST be explainable through definable, scientific means. Whereas I believe that while God created the laws of science and nature, He is Himself not limited and bound by those laws. He is outside His own laws and can, if He chooses, do things which seem contrary to those laws. For example, when He created animals with the capacity to change over time and adapt to their environments, that didn’t mean He had to make just one amoeba and wait millions of years for the rest of the animal kingdom to show up; He could make some of each family all at once, and give the process a head start, so to speak. The laws of nature could then be left to continue from that point. For me, belief in God doesn’t preclude belief in science. In fact, I believe God created science. But I don’t feel that that which is created can contain that which created it. It’s the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/59 "2003-02-09T15:55:59Z")
Another element here: a heliocentric planetary system may conflict with the narrative of Scripture, but it makes little if no difference to the _moral_ authority of religion. OTOH, what, to some creationists, seemed to happen when science tells you that Man evolved from a lower animal, and Darwin and Wallace propose Natural Selection as the mechanism? Soon you had Herbert Spencer talking about “survival of the fittest”(_) in social contexts – which contradicts the Christian teaching that “blessed are” the poor and meek. [sub](_ It was Spencer, not Darwin, who first used the term. Darwin included it in later editions of OoS after-the-fact)[/sub] Add to that the Naturalist Fallacy – that if it happens in “nature” it must be OK for humans to do it. To too many people on both sides, this further corrupted the meaning of evolution into “if man is just an animal, he might as well behave like one.” The idea that morality is not an endowment from a Higher Intelligence, but may be an emergent characteristic of intelligence, a “mere” social construct, is staggering to many people. A more critical part about Evolution under Darwinian theory is that you have motion without direction. Under this theory there need be no _purpose_ in evolution, and the rise of Man can be an incidental contingency, not predestined by any intelligence. Finally, there is a fundamental misunderstanding about “science” . Natural Science HAS to be (duh) naturalistic. Everything that can be explainable w/o an appeal to the metaphysical HAS to be explained w/o an appeal to the metaphysical, or it stops being Natural Science. “And then a miracle happened” is not a valid scientific explanation EVEN IF IT’S WHAT HAPPENED. The correct scientific explanation in that situation is “a phenomenon unknown to us, which we could only speculate about, happened then”. This is not the same thing as saying “everything must be explainable through scientific means” . ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019/60 "2003-02-09T22:48:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cormac262 \* > **If evolution is correct, then it essentially says that all life on the planet evolved from a single, common starting point. And this shakes the fundamental “belief” that only humans have souls (and therefore can go to heaven, or be damned). That is, the “religeous worldview” that humans are separate from the rest of the animals goes out the window.** Yep, that’s the way I figured it, too. It’s the same reason why the Church so vehemently attacked anyone who believed in a sun-centered (rather than Earth-centered) universe in the 16th century: If the theory is true, then it means that human beings aren’t as **special** as we previously believed. Nobody wants to hear that they’re not special. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-creationists-hate-evolution/153019.md?page=4)