Is the Theory of Evolution Harmless to Religion?

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I believe that in Europe the majority of Christians don't have any problem with evolution. However, in the U.S. that's probably not the case. A CBS poll conducted in November 2004 found that 60% of Evangelical Christians and 50% of all people who attended worship services every week believed Creationism should be taught in the public schools instead of evolution. Another CBS poll conducted in October 2005 found that 77% of white Evangelicals (and 74% of churchgoers generally) believe that God created humans in their present form, and that more than half of white Evangelical Christians believe it's impossible to believe in God and evolution.

That really doesn't bode well for the U.S. or for American Christianity.

No, it certainly does not. And as we sit back and wonder at why China and India are producing engineers, doctors and scientists at a much faster rate than we are, one of these days people are going to have to start realizing that when half of your population refuses to beleive in the scientific facts as presented to them, then we are going to cut out half of our potential future scientists, etc. . . .

I think it is harmful to the future of our country to subject kids to this stuff. Telling them they need to pay attention in school, except where science is concerned is baffling to me. Or rather, pay attention to 98% of what science has to say, we are cool with heliocentrism, chemistry, physics and all that good stuff, but when it comes to evolution, whoa, slam on the brakes, suspend all logic, good sense and the scientific method, and instead buy into this story with absolutely zero scientific proof.

I was speaking with my ex-wife's grandmother one time. The TV was on the Discovery Channel, and there was some mention of evolution. She pipes up to say, Evolution doesn't exist. It is just something these scientists made up to undermine the word of the Lord. I asked her why she was so sure it didn't exist. Her reply was priceless. "Well if evolution was real, why can't we put a monkey in a cage, and he turns into a human while we watch?"

After explaining to her the vast amount of time and natural selection processes necessary for a species to evolve, and explaining that we didn't exactly evolve from a chimpanzee, but instead shared a common ancestor, of course, I was retorted by her pointing out that the world is only about 6,000 years old, yada yada yada.

Sadly, this is the level of understanding of the subject of evolution/creation that most Americans seem to have. Is it any wonder that our country is testing behind other industrialized nations when it comes to math and sciences? Mark my words, there will come a day when we as a nation slip from the top spot, and forced ignorance will be one of the factors which leads to that decline.

B.

 

[Quiddity]

No, it certainly does not. And as we sit back and wonder at why China and India are producing engineers, doctors and scientists at a much faster rate than we are, one of these days people are going to have to start realizing that when half of your population refuses to beleive in the scientific facts as presented to them, then we are going to cut out half of our potential future scientists, etc. . . .

I absolutely agree MdmSzdWhtGuy (Got anything shorter I can call you?). But keep in mind that this anti-religion, anti-west, anti-American attitude isn't helping either. I'm not saying you personally have this I'm just saying many people I confront and listen to do have this attitude. So this just launches the religious side to react and get more irritated. I can't tell you how many times people at work crack jokes of religion and if a homosexual joke is made you get sent to HR. I support neither but this is the type of work enviroments I am used to in Southern California. The more alone (vs. Europe and other countries) religious conservatives feel, the more they fight back. Both sides are to blame in my opinion. But by simply being respectful and nice in your expression when talking about religion will open many doors of dialogue. But some people cant see to do this.

~Victor

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not sure I would caractorize the argument for evolution as anti-west or anti-American. You may be able to say that many who argue for Evolution are anti-religion... certenly not all. Such as myself.

The powers that be, it seems to me, are using a nebulous "threat to Christiantiy" from the Scientific community to push certen political/power issues. It is relitively easy to whip people up into a furor over a supposed threat than it is any other way. Evolution happins to be an easy target to focus that animus against.

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not sure I would caractorize the argument for evolution as anti-west or anti-American. You may be able to say that many who argue for Evolution are anti-religion... certenly not all. Such as myself.

The powers that be, it seems to me, are using a nebulous "threat to Christiantiy" from the Scientific community to push certen political/power issues. It is relitively easy to whip people up into a furor over a supposed threat than it is any other way. Evolution happins to be an easy target to focus that animus against.

wa:do

Like I said, it goes both ways. Some people do use evolution as a weapon against religion. That personally doesn't bother me. What does bother me is even after the topic of evolution is off the table they continue their assaults. Why am I to make of this?

~Victor

 

[RagnarGalt]

I think it is harmful to the future of our country to subject kids to this stuff. Telling them they need to pay attention in school, except where science is concerned is baffling to me. Or rather, pay attention to 98% of what science has to say, we are cool with heliocentrism, chemistry, physics and all that good stuff, but when it comes to evolution, whoa, slam on the brakes, suspend all logic, good sense and the scientific method, and instead buy into this story with absolutely zero scientific proof.

Fascinating comment... Would you care to explain in detail the scientific method, and in turn, how it applies to the religious fervor with which evolution is preached in schools... The so-called evidence in every case as it concerns evolution is questionable or inaccurate, and instead of updating the hypothesis as called for in the scientific method when experiments don't pan out, 'scientists' simply come up with new 'experiments' to try to prove the same tired old theory... According to your scientific method, the 'theory' of Creation cannot be ruled out unless and until the 'theory' of evolution can be proven as fact, which they are not even remotely close to doing (since it can't be done, I feel sure it won't be any closer to being proven in the near future)... Keep in mind that the 'missing link' is still 'missing', the attempt at lighting in a jar to make primordial ooze become living tissue is an utter failure... The arhcaelogical record is still in favor of creation, carbon dating is a farce, humans don't seem to be 'evolving' any further, chimps still don't talk, fish still don't walk, the Big Bang theory is still speculative, the genetic record while still supporting creation, is being use as some kind of platform to prove evolution, which it does not in any facet... At what point do the 'scientists' revamp the evolution theory and ultimately admit what Darwin did on his deathbed -- that evolution is a god-dishonoring lie...

 

[mr.guy]

And what about the religiousity of arithmetic? They teach it like it's gospel!

 

[Smoke]

At what point do the 'scientists' revamp the evolution theory and ultimately admit what Darwin did on his deathbed -- that evolution is a god-dishonoring lie...

Evolution is not a lie. What is a lie, however, is the story that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. That lie, like so many others, was started by a Christian evangelist -- in this case, Lady Hope (née Elizabeth Cotton). Lady Hope was not present at Darwin's deathbed, and his family unanimously denied that there was any truth at all to her claims. All but the most reckless and dissembling Creationists recognize the falsity of the story. Please reconsider your trust in the sources of your information.

 

[Sunstone]

...chimps still don't talk, fish still don't walk...

Is this really your understanding of evolution? That it implies chimps will talk and fish will walk?:biglaugh: If you can't even get the theory of evolution straight, what legitimacy do your criticisms of it have?

But you're not alone. Most critics of evolution are hard pressed to accurately describe evolutionary theory.

 

[Bangbang]

The answer to the original poster is yes as far as my current understanding of evolution. One thing that comes to mind right now is that we are going backwards as far as natural selection and the survival of the most fit.......in regards to the eye because we are fitted with eyeglasses,contact lenses,and laser treatments so we can see. Same goes for hearing aids and the care for the lest fit in our world that makes them all part of the gene pool.

 

[painted wolf]

fish don't walk?
someone please tell the walking catfish... the mudskipper,the lungfish and a few other species that will cross land in search of new waters.
I think they missed the memo.

wa:do

 

[mr.guy]

I think they missed the memo.

Hey there fishy. Get off my land! *cocks gun*

 

[RagnarGalt]

No that is not my current understanding of evolution... My understanding is that people are willing to believe anything as long as it doesn't involve a creator... Some evolutionist believe that fish climbed out of the ocean with newly developed legs and ultimately evolved into different types of land mammals... Others have different takes on where we come from... The point was that of all the variations I have read about or heard, I do not see any evidence today of a single intermediate stage of any of the processes,... And many of the theories associated with evolution are as hard to believe as any creation theory... As such, evolutionists will have to provide real evidence instead of speculation before it should even be considered a 'theory' much less a fact... As for Darwin, I had not heard the Lady Hope story specifically and that is not what I was referring to... That story seems to detail a full recantation of the evolution theory he was famous for and an overnight conversion to Christianity, which I am willing to admit is a stretch... However, even in the story I read of her, Darwin's biographer still alludes to doubt Darwin expressed over his youthful speculations... Nonetheless, Darwin is dead, and his theory of evolution couldn't save him...

 

[painted wolf]

hmm... I believe in a Creator and in Evolution.

Mammals that lay eggs, fish that have lungs and move over the land, feathered dinosaurs... The idea that animals adapt and change over time has no ill effect on my faith in Creator. Having to ignore Evolution in the face of the evidence for it however, would.

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

No that is not my current understanding of evolution... My understanding is that people are willing to believe anything as long as it doesn't involve a creator... Some evolutionist believe that fish climbed out of the ocean with newly developed legs and ultimately evolved into different types of land mammals... Others have different takes on where we come from... The point was that of all the variations I have read about or heard, I do not see any evidence today of a single intermediate stage of any of the processes,... And many of the theories associated with evolution are as hard to believe as any creation theory... As such, evolutionists will have to provide real evidence instead of speculation before it should even be considered a 'theory' much less a fact... As for Darwin, I had not heard the Lady Hope story specifically and that is not what I was referring to... That story seems to detail a full recantation of the evolution theory he was famous for and an overnight conversion to Christianity, which I am willing to admit is a stretch... However, even in the story I read of her, Darwin's biographer still alludes to doubt Darwin expressed over his youthful speculations... Nonetheless, Darwin is dead, and his theory of evolution couldn't save him...

Evolution is an established fact, whether that suits you or not. More to the point, the topic of this thread is not whether evolution is an established fact, as you seem to believe, but whether evolution is harmful to religion. Please stick to the thread topic. There are plenty of other threads that you can post your views about evolution being an established fact in. This isn't one of those threads.

 

[Angama]

I wouldn't know. To answer that question I would have to understand the religion.

 

[niceguy]

Evulotion are harmful only for those religions that let themself be harmed by it. It is time to learn that evolution has the right of way, stop stepping out into rush hour streets without looking.

 

[Sunstone]

If evolution is true, then isn't the story of Adam and Eve literally false. And if the story of Adam and Eve is literally false, then what happens to the notion of original sin?

 

[michel]

If evolution is true, then isn't the story of Adam and Eve literally false. And if the story of Adam and Eve is literally false, then what happens to the notion of original sin?

Good question; I have always viewed the 'Adam & Eve' and the apple as a parable.

I belive that the parable was given to us as a simplistic explanation for the fact that man was born with the freewill to sin (or, of course to be 'good'). Being humankind, God had no doubt whatsoever that some would choose to sin............

The sacrifice that Christ made, in order to atone for our imperfection was just that: dying on the Cross

 

[Yerda]

Evolution is an established fact, whether that suits you or not.

More fool the facts then, huh?

 

[Beck63Don]

Evolution doesn't harm my religion. In fact, it has nothing to do with my religion. So I'm not worried about it.