Why do theists reject evolution?

Genesis 2:

4: This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5: before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;
6: but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

So we have creation of the Earth.

7: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Next we have creation of Man, formed out of the Earth.

8: The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden . . . .

God creates the garden and rivers. The rivers are listed.

15: Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.

God moves Man to the garden.

16: And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
17: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

God gives man some warnings.

18: And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”

God sees that the man he created is alone. God decides to change that.

19: Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

God creates cattle, again out of the Earth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Auto correct and you missing it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're just repeating your previous lack of reading comprehension, billvon. We've been over all that already. Remember? I even linked you to the start of that whole discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anyone with an ounce of sensibility understand that man invented god; God didn't invent man.

 

What?

The arguement
Life beginning by itself vs life needing some kind of push in the right direction.
Is more of an argument of I think therefore everything I think is possible vs someone made me think this way.

Than any facts are going to ever support, because something never comes from nothing.

And drawing a line that says "this is life and this isnt" could end up to be completely arbitrary.

Just like any numerical measurement ever.

 

So:

LoudApe: "Both Genesis 1 & 2 say that cattle came before man."
Genesis 2: "God formed man of the dust of the ground" then 12 verses later "God formed every beast of the field"

Your "motivated reasoning" is a wonder to behold. Are you an anti-vaxxer, too?

 

Definitely true of every contemporary view of God out there. Ever notice that God just happens to be the same race as whoever is worshiping him/her?

 

This has all already been explained to you. No accounting for your reading comprehension not being up to the task.
I'm fine with vaccines, but I can see why you feel the need to poison the well.

 

So far we have a Vociferously fanatical creationist, gun toting red neck......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Any thing else to add to those questionable qualities, hasn't quite been revealed as yet, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

You spouted a lot of BS about it, but no, you have not explained the contradiction.

Last time you said something worthy of a Monty Python skit - that God secretly planted seeds before he created mankind, so when Genesis 2 said that man came first then plants it was just sort of a trick. Will you now claim that God "planted" cattle before he created Man? Love to see you try that.

 

There no explaining what you refuse to understand. You will demand it's a "contradiction" no matter what anyone says. That's what you have to do to justify your ideology.
And your continued straw men just illustrate the depth of your lack in comprehension.

But go ahead. Keep repeating it, as if repetition breeds validity. It's like a mantra.

 

?? Right - because it is.

I know you have trouble with truth, but "before" is simply not the same as "after." Even if that fact interferes with your religious beliefs.

What ideology is that, pray tell? (this should be good)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Well, some people's kid.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

NT News newspaper 27 June 2020

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Something comes from nothing routinely, in many theories of great use and benefit, in dozens of labs all over the planet.

There will be a reason - and those with different reasons will draw different lines depending on circumstance. So?
It's a judgment call, not a determination of independent fact. Everybody except the fundies knows that.
- - - -

What time period are you talking about?
And what language is it in which you - for example - enjoy basic reading comprehension?

 

Would theist count a lump of mud being formed into a human body as abiogenesis or evolution?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I snipped out the rest of Alex's OP because each paragraph contained the words "Bible", "flood" or "old testament". I'm not interested in arguing about the Bible (mainly because I'm not particularly interested in the Bible).

The quote above looks more like a statement than a question. I agree with the statement.

Which leaves the subject line "Why do theists reject evolution?" My first response is that most theists don't reject it. Alex recognizes this.

So the questions becomes 'Why do some theists reject evolution?' That's an interesting question.

There are probably lots of reasons, some of which might be unique to each theist.

In many cases theism might not have a whole lot to do with it, these people just aren't convinced. In some cases that might be due to bad science teaching. In other cases it might be due to good science teaching and they might have reasonably well-founded reasons for their skepticism. After all, there are non-theists who are skeptical about evolution too. Sometimes intellectually prominent atheists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos

But yes, in many cases it does seem to have something to do with the theists' theism. I can see several possible reasons for that.

1. People may believe that their holy book is a divine revelation and that what it says is inconsistent with evolution.

2. People may believe that evolution is a less attractive myth. And they may very well be right about that, especially if we present evolution in an old "survival of the fittest" way that seems to drain ethics, right and wrong out of the story.

We probably need an excursion here into what I take the word 'myth' to mean. As I see it, myths are stories (typically in narrative form) told to make sense of things. In prehistoric times I can imagine people sitting around their campfires wondering about the universe and why it is as it seems to be. (Much as scientists and philosophers do today.) So their bard, their griot, their shaman, their rishi would tell the traditional stories of how things came to be. After writing was invented, the traditional stories were consigned to holy books and the idea of scripture emerged. I expect that Biblical tradition had this kind of origin which expresses something that is probably very ancient in the human race.

Today that hasn't stopped. Not for an instant. We still listen to stories told to make sense of things, though they aren't typically in narrative form any longer. We've just adopted a new set of story-tellers alongside the older ones. Our newer story tellers are very often our scientists and more typically, our high-school science teachers and our college professors. They doubtless believe that their stories are far better justified than the ancient myths, and it's almost certainly true.

But by the time it trickles down to the street, most of the details and justifications have drained away and once again.... it's just stories told to make sense of things.

And some people prefer the older stories over the new evolutionary "survival of the fittest" story. The older stories attributed meaning to events. Things happened for comprehensible reasons. Even unpleasant things could be said to happen to fulfill an ultimately-good divine plan. Evolution on the other hand seems to drain ethics, goals and teleology out of events. Instead of the unfolding of some grand plan, events just become one-damn-thing-after-another, with no meaning, purpose or goal to anything. So many people, especially people more used to the old-style stories, perceive the new story as nihilistic.

3. Many of our fundies, whether atheist fundies or religious fundies, try to portray evolution as incompatible with and opposed to religion. Richard Dawkins does it, Jerry Coyne does it, Sciforums does it. Some of the fire-breathing baptists do it from the other side. Religion and evolution becomes an either-or choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Versus_Fact

So given that choice, many people are inevitably going to choose religion. Especially given the role that religion plays in their lives and in their sense of community. If it's made too difficult for them to embrace both, they will reject evolution.

 

Replying to my own post because to late to edit

That should read

Would theist count a lump of mud being formed into a human body as biogenesis of a human or evolution of mud?

Sorry about that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

At least we finally have some signs of attempted even handiness. Thank you.

OK, now my take on religion, ID and evolution.
Led by the Catholic church, some eventually saw the light in the mountains and mountains of evidence for evolution, and to maintain some air of respectibility, decided that they better not fly in the face of reality, and encompass evolution as well as the BB...knowing of course that neither gave us the knowledge of the how and why of the exact beginnings of either. They could then put those beginnings down to their creator of choice. Still, it certainly makes the bible a book of nonsensical fairy tales.

If we, as proponents of the scientific method [well most of us] look at both the BB and abiogenisis in comparison to the faith in ID and magic sky daddies, we have the following facts to think about. While the BB is overwhelmingly supported due to aligning with the four main pillars of cosmology, it does get less certain the closer we go backwards, until at a tiny t+10-45 seconds, we reach a point where GR fails us...still we need to consider that according to evidence from WMAP and other probes, the universe is very close to flat and as a result probably infinite. The other aspect supporting the infinite universe is that the BB is only applicable to the observable universe.

On the subject of evolution of life, the evidence is so convincing that it is now a fact, while still saying nothing about how life originally started. But if we examine the facts that supernatural concepts are unscientific, and couple that with the facts that the elements that we observe created in the belly of stars, are the same elements that go to make us up, and the fact that chemistry has had 13 billion years to work its magic, plus the results of some Lab work, I see it far more likely and far more logical to accept evolution rather then some unscientific concept that first arose, before science raised its head.

The third point I will raise is why people accept the unscientific concept of some form of ID. Years and years of brainwashing...years and years of having the fear of fire and brimstone torturing us for eternity....fear of the finality of death..maintaining a nice warm comforting inner glow that death is not final and we can rest in the arms of this creator.
Ever been under anesthetic? I see that as similar to what the experience of death will be....nothing, zilch, no thoughts, no recollections, no dreaming, no pain, no joy, no sadness, no nothing. It's simply a page out of one's life.

 

A wonderful post because you mentioned my name more than once.
I underestimate the power of community and therefore religion in general...I forget the days when me and my mates would go to church to meet girls.
I watch the church goers in town which has a school and it is clear to me that the community thing is probably bigger than any belief in God or evolution...
And having a god must simplify things..like I was watching a video on this wasp that lays eggs in an ants nest and the ants feed the little ones...how the heck did that evolve? Against the designer must have been on a roll that day.
All good...I need some labourers around here..maybe I should go to church.
Great post..very nice..very sensible and well thought out and pitched at the level you think I occupy...that is indeed nice.
Alex