-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Can Evolution Destroy Faith In God?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Because they've placed their faith in a book rather than God.
I would say because it shatters their comfort zone. People not of like mind, make certain people feel uncomfortable, IMO.
Buttercup
Veteran Member
It's people who believe the earth is only 6-8,000 years old who have the toughest time believing in evolution and god at the same time. It becomes more apparent every day the earth is much older and that fact goes against literal belief in bible chronology for them.
Also, the evolutionary theory that life began in the sea doesn't sit too well either, for obvious reasons.
Why? Dislike of sushi?Also, the evolutionary theory that life began in the sea doesn't sit too well either, for obvious reasons.
I'm not sure how this would be a problem for anyone other than a Young-Earth Creationist.
Super Universe
Defender of God
Ancient religious leaders developed the feud between science and religion, it's all about who is going to have control over the people.
Who are you going to listen and give your money to, the religious leaders or the scientists?
Who are you going to listen and give your money to, the religious leaders or the scientists?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Because Christian apologetics before (and after) Darwin argued that the ordered quality of nature is proof that God both exists and is benevolent. Darwin argued that the disorder of nature is proof that God doesn't exist -- it wasn't just a refutation that Christian apologetics were wrong on one point, but the argument was simply reversed.
Christianity has not been able to recover from this - obviously.
I've never heard this before. When and where did Darwin argue this?
Papersock
Lucid Dreamer
Because evolution goes against their literal interpretation of the Bible.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You have to remember that for many Christians (at least here in the U.S.), the Bible is "The Word of God". So when Genesis 1 says quite clearly that God created everything in 6 24-hour days (thus the phrasing "the evening and the morning, the nth day"), it's very difficult for those of this mindset to not read it as it is written. And elsewhere in the Bible God Himself is directly quoted as saying "I created everything in 6 days", such as when He gives the 10 Commandments. The creation account is also quite clear that man is a seperate creation from everything else.
So unless one is inclined to read these things in a rather extreme liberal manner, it's quite difficult to mesh this "Word of God" with evolution and common descent.
Of course in other areas there isn't the adherence to strict dogma like we have in the U.S. Things like the virgin birth and even the resurrection aren't necessarily thought of as literal accounts of actual history. In this context, reading the creation accounts as mere Hebrew folklore becomes rather easy and evolution and common descent are no more threatening than erosion and ionic bonding.
So unless one is inclined to read these things in a rather extreme liberal manner, it's quite difficult to mesh this "Word of God" with evolution and common descent.
Of course in other areas there isn't the adherence to strict dogma like we have in the U.S. Things like the virgin birth and even the resurrection aren't necessarily thought of as literal accounts of actual history. In this context, reading the creation accounts as mere Hebrew folklore becomes rather easy and evolution and common descent are no more threatening than erosion and ionic bonding.
It's because the scriptures say we were created from dust, not chemical soup.
"From dust by way of chemical soup" works, though.
I still don't see the distinction. It's like saying that bread came from dough, not from flour... but bread did come from flour, it just went through an intermediate "dough" step.
Buttercup
Veteran Member
It's problem for literal Creationists because they believe God made man as is...he didn't evolve from anything.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
I don't know and I see it from theists and atheists alike. I have no issues with evolution and absolutely believe in God.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
They are not willing to accept that knowledge is malleable.
That is laughably absurd and anachronistic.
Smoke
Done here.
Did Darwin actually argue that? Or was that just the obvious response to the Christian apologetic?