Why Evolution Utterly Destroys Christianity

[Quantum_Dragon]

Polls over the past 30 years or so have demonstrated this. Between 1982 and the present Gallop polls have shown that between 40% and 47% of all Americans believe in strict Biblical Creationism. This does not take into account other non-science views like OEC and versions of ID that only conditionally accept certain aspects of the scientific view of the history of the earth and evolution.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/fo...eationism.aspx


The population of the USA is 76% Christian (2008), with ~51% of Christians Protestants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio..._United_States

do the math, it is not difficult.

I'm surprised this came from you Tig, it sounds like a post from Mags, Adrift or maybe Jorge. I have presented this in a number of previous threads. I guess it is time work it through the calculator again.

May I just say something here?
Now, this comes from personal experience and I'm not really trying to make an argument (I'm afraid I wouldn't be very good at that) but I went to an evangelical Christian school where people where either YEC or OEC (and this school is in the South!).
Now, when shunyadragon says "the majority of Christians oppose science" this puzzles me to know end.
Because you can be YEC or OEC or ID and still accept other aspects of science. I know he is talking about evolution in particular here but "the majority of Christians oppose science" thing makes it sound like Christians are opposed to knowing about cellular structure or something.
My school taught science and even evolution (although we had supplementary Creationist material). :P In fact, we were even ahead in terms of math (which I consider part of science in a way) because we were the only school in the county that had a BC Calculus class. We also had a fairly large AP Biology class.
Sorry, it just seems a bit misleading to someone who is a Theistic Evolutionist and has been in that YEC Evangelical community to say "the majority of Christians oppose science."

[shunyadragon]

May I just say something here?
Now, this comes from personal experience and I'm not really trying to make an argument (I'm afraid I wouldn't be very good at that) but I went to an evangelical Christian school where people where either YEC or OEC (and this school is in the South!).
Now, when shunyadragon says "the majority of Christians oppose science" this puzzles me to know end.
Because you can be YEC or OEC or ID and still accept other aspects of science. I know he is talking about evolution in particular here but "the majority of Christians oppose science" thing makes it sound like Christians are opposed to knowing about cellular structure or something.
My school taught science and even evolution (although we had supplementary Creationist material). :P In fact, we were even ahead in terms of math (which I consider part of science in a way) because we were the only school in the county that had a BC Calculus class. We also had a fairly large AP Biology class.
Sorry, it just seems a bit misleading to someone who is a Theistic Evolutionist and has been in that YEC Evangelical community to say "the majority of Christians oppose science."

I consider it a valid statement, since the scientific community considers the theory of evolution, and the history of the earth part and partial integrated in all the basic sciences. you cannot separate them selectively. Remember evolution is not the only thing rejected, but holding to the 6,000 to maybe 10,000 year Creation myth, challenges every aspect of science down to the basic physics of our cosmos.

Please explain how you can believe in a cosmos 6,000 - 10,000 years old and still accept ALL the basic sciences to any degree.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Perhaps it would be better to say that a majority of Christians, at least in America, have a rather large, obvious, and problematic scientific blind spot. A rather small minority of Christians actively oppose areas of scientific knowledge that contradict their religious views.

--Sam

[Quantum_Dragon]

Please explain how you can believe in a cosmos 6,000 - 10,000 years old and still accept ALL the basic sciences to any degree.

ಠ_ಠ
There was once a guy in my class....made a 5 on the AP Chemistry Exam.....there was also a girl who made a 4 on the AP Biology Exam....both YECs.
What do you think, shunyadragon? Or are you just going to claim that they cheated or something?

[pancreasman]

If we're going to throw blanket accusations around, let's see how the shoe fits on the other foot. Followers of the Baha'i faith make a big deal about science and faith never being contrary. And yet, on the issue of homosexuality they seem to be frequently out of step with the findings of modern science. Tsk!

Shoghi Effendi, the authorized interpreter of the Bahá'í writings, has more clearly defined a prohibition on all homosexual relations, stating that, "No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex, to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong."

The National Spiritual Assembly of the United Kingdom distributed a statement prepared for a London, UK, education group about the teaching about homosexuality within the school system. The Assembly stated that "the statement does not claim to be exhaustive, but it can be used with wisdom as part of a response to questions." Some excerpts from their statement are:

"...the sexual impulse is a God-given one... The appropriate circumstance for this is within marriage, the legally, socially, and spiritually sanctioned union of two adults of the opposite sex. Other expressions are neither valid nor to be encouraged."
"This is taught by the world's great religions, and is part of the basis of a stable and civilized society."
"The moral and sexual education of children cannot be taken separately, and must be based upon heterosexuality, fidelity, and the family unit."
"...the sexual practice of homosexuality is no more an acceptable activity than is heterosexual activity outside marriage."
"We also abhor the introduction of loaded words such as 'homophobia' and 'heterosexism' to try to convey the idea that rejection of homosexuality is as prejudiced and discriminatory as racism, sexism, and other biases and intolerances..."

both from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...27%C3%AD_Faith

"...the Faith does not recognize homosexuality as a 'natural' or permanent phenomenon. Rather. it sees this as an aberration subject to treatment," Universal House of Justice, 1987-MAR-22.

Thus Baha'i beliefs concerning sexual orientation are quite similar to those of the conservative wings of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religions. They reject the findings of science on this topic, and they have no mechanism to change their position.

both from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bah.htm

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps it would be better to say that a majority of Christians, at least in America, have a rather large, obvious, and problematic scientific blind spot. A rather small minority of Christians actively oppose areas of scientific knowledge that contradict their religious views.

--Sam

I consider this an understatement since, I think the total is 26 possible more, have passed anti-evolution legislation in various forms. Older bills were stricken down as unconstitutional, but they keep passing bills trying to find the magic sweet spot to allow pro-creationist to have an equal footing in public schools. Right now most states are working on high fog index legislation that will pass muster in the US Supreme Court.

There are many avenues of attempts to promote Creationism in schools, and fortunately the Dover court decision nails one trying to cross the fence in broad daylight. Promoting the book Of Panda and Men, and private religious schools recieving Federal Funding are among the goals.

[shunyadragon]

If we're going to throw blanket accusations around, let's see how the shoe fits on the other foot. Followers of the Baha'i faith make a big deal about science and faith never being contrary. And yet, on the issue of homosexuality they seem to be frequently out of step with the findings of modern science. Tsk!





both from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...27%C3%AD_Faith



both from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bah.htm

Thread topic? Cherry picking a belief system you hardly understand with a Google search. Please respond to the topic at hand. I will respond, but , , , please back to the topic.

Selectively quoting off topic does not help your case unless you understand the history of how the Baha'i Faith views science and the evolution of knowledge. Our knowledge and views will change over time as science advances. This view is not shared by the predominant fundamentalist Christians.

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-18.html

If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.2

© source where applicable

The laws and knowledge of the Baha'i Faith has room to change over time, but that change is not subject to popular opinion, nor my view of what should be. The view of Homosexuality in the Baha'i Faith could be a subject of a thread if you chose, but not this one. Nonetheless the Baha'i Faith endorses science as a source of knowledge, and the understanding of the natural history of life and humanity, as well as our physical should allow for the interpretation of scripture to harmonize with the advancing knowledge of science.

The legitimacy, and spiritual laws governing sexual behavior, does not necessarily reflect the natural tendencies we see in humans over time and evolution. Humans are potentially naturally polygamists, that does not justify allowing polygamy to be practiced.

[phank]

And of course we have The Republican War on Science. Wikipedia says

In the book, Mooney discusses the Republican Party leadership's stance on science, and in particular that of the George W. Bush administration, with regard to issues such as global warming, the evolution/creation controversy, bioethics, alternative medicine, pollution, separation of church and state, and the government funding of education, research, and environmental protection. The book argues that the administration regularly distorted and/or suppressed scientific research to further its own political aims.

Writing in the New York Times, John Horgan reviews The Republican War on Science stating that the prose was "often clunky and clichéd", but adding that despite those flaws Mooney had a point, because he "addresses a vitally important topic and gets it basically right."[3] Stuart Derbyshire, a senior lecturer at the University of Birmingham School of Psychology, praises Mooney and notes that he explained how Republicans had manipulated the uncertainty in science "to ensure that Congress rarely hears any consensus opinion that may damage a Bush policy." Derbyshire agrees with Mooney that the Republicans' "flagrant twisting" of research findings "violates the integrity of science.

This isn't outright denial of science YEC style, but it's a broad reflection of how politically uncongenial science is seen by a large number of people. Even if we try to look past the politically partisan orientation, we need to recognize that a great deal of scientific research today is government funded, and who pays the piper calls the tune. When funding agencies start buying specified results rather than directed research, science itself is the victim.

[shunyadragon]

ಠ_ಠ
There was once a guy in my class....made a 5 on the AP Chemistry Exam.....there was also a girl who made a 4 on the AP Biology Exam....both YECs.
What do you think, shunyadragon? Or are you just going to claim that they cheated or something?

Passing exams by memorizing material by a 'few' does not pass muster in science. You failed to answer the question.

Please explain how you can believe in a cosmos 6,000 - 10,000 years old and still accept ALL the basic sciences to any degree.

Remember the evidence for evolution is intimately intertwined in the evidence of an earth and universe billions of years old.

[Quantum_Dragon]

Passing exams by memorizing material by a 'few' does not pass muster in science. You failed to answer the question.

Please explain how you can believe in a cosmos 6,000 - 10,000 years old and still accept ALL the basic sciences to any degree.

Remember the evidence for evolution is intimately intertwined in the evidence of an earth and universe billions of years old.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or making an Olympic sport out of missing the point.
Either way, you seem to be trying to frame this as some kind of argument when I was trying to talk about my personal experience with YECs. I even said so in my original statement.
And frankly, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get out of me here. I said:

Because you can be YEC or OEC or ID and still accept other aspects of science.

I don't get why you think I think YEC/OEC/ID means that you can accept all aspects of science.
My post tried to imply that YEC/OEC/ID means that you don't accept some aspects of science.
I don't think its rational to accept some aspects of science and reject other parts but I was just trying to say that some do that.
That's not exactly what I'd call "anti-science" or whatever because, frankly, the people who accept some parts and reject other parts aren't the type to think very deeply about it.
It's exactly what Sam said. They have a problematic blind spot.
And when I talked about them accepting some parts of science and rejecting others, I'm trying to talk about how the YECs I knew would accept medical science, the structure of the cell, theories about atoms, and physics. They knew this and they accepted it but they were YEC.
Gosh, now I'm trying to explain to someone that sometimes human beings aren't rational or consistent all the time. *sigh*
I'm going to bed.

[MaxVel]

Shunya, you appear to be conflating 'belief in evolution' with 'belief in science'.


They are not the same thing, so it is quite possible to disbelieve in evolution and still accept science.


Secondly, scientists themselves 'reject science' in the sense that they are willing (or should be willing) to challenge the currently accepted scientific beliefs with alternative theories that (they feel) better explain the evidence. So there's nothing 'scientifically' wrong per se with rejecting current scientific theories.


Thirdly, as has been pointed out, 'American Christians' do not equal 'all Christians'. As you should be aware of, there are Christians who do accept evolution, and see no conflict with that and their Christian beliefs. pointing to a number of other Christians who have a different view does nothing to show that either position is wrong. You would need to make an actual argument for that. We may as well point out that 'most Americans' are not Baha'i, (with the implication that that means that Shunya is wrong). That's the equivalent of what you're doing here.


Fourthly, your terminology is so loose as to rob your point of meaning. What precisely do you mean by 'evolution'? Macro-evolution? Micro-evolution? The whole ToE? Evolution of life, but not evolutionary concepts as applied by some to things like the development of morality, culture and religion, and the formation of beliefs? It is possible to accept some of the above and reject others without, IMHO, being inconsistent or irrational.


Lastly, you're simply begging the question by assuming that 'evolution' (whatever you mean by that) has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. What if the evolution non-believers are one day shown right? What happens when the scientific paradigm moves on (as one day it quite likely will) and 'evolution' is discarded as a theory, or radically modified to the point where it is not what we think of today? Maybe all those people you think are foolish will be shown right - even if for 'unscientific' reasons.

[MaxVel]

Not a problem, first since my references are for the USA, I guess I need to make that clearer, but . . .

The USA leads the missionary drive in the third world. The most successful missionaries and heavy funding in the third world are Evangelical Fundamentalists from the USA. More data to follow. I would agree the largest country in the world, population wise, China, predominantly believed in evolution, but only a fraction are Christians. Western Europe, the most apathetic and secular of the Christian world predominately still considers evolution true.

I feel like its Groundhog Day this has been gone over before, but nonetheless here we go again.

In 12 years living and working with Christians in a 'Third world' country (Thailand), to the best of my recollection, I have never heard evolution mentioned once, either favorably or negatively. It's just not an issue, and I very much doubt that missionaries spend time teaching new converts about it. There's far more important things to do.

[KingsGambit]

In 12 years living and working with Christians in a 'Third world' country (Thailand), to the best of my recollection, I have never heard evolution mentioned once, either favorably or negatively. It's just not an issue, and I very much doubt that missionaries spend time teaching new converts about it. There's far more important things to do.

I have heard it said that it is mostly only a concern in the US, Australia, and NZ. While I'm happy to discuss the issue with anybody for whom it's an intellectual barrier to the faith, I can't think of any issue further from the heart of the gospel.

[magellan004]

Remember the evidence for evolution is intimately intertwined in the evidence of an earth and universe billions of years old.

Not really. Evolutionists are happy to accept huge shifts in dates for various events. Dates are constantly revised.

Magellan

[magellan004]

If we're going to throw blanket accusations around, let's see how the shoe fits on the other foot. Followers of the Baha'i faith make a big deal about science and faith never being contrary. And yet, on the issue of homosexuality they seem to be frequently out of step with the findings of modern science. Tsk!

Can you give an example of a Baha'a belief, tenet , tradition, teaching etc that is , as you say , out of step with the findings of modern science?
(That would involve explaining a recent scientific finding or two.)

I must confess I think you are trying to pull a swifty here.

Magellan