Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
The cornerstone of naturalism/Darwinism is the process of evolution. That is, life progresses from goo to you via microbes, monkeys. The basic fact is evolution is impossible because to go from microbes to man you need a thousand fold increase in the gene pool and subsequent gain of function. This just doesn't happen in biology, and there is just not one example of it. Also the complexity of DNA with 3 billion bases involved in coding and function just cant happen by chance, just like Encyclopedia Britannica can't. The description/findings of creation and Noah's flood ties in beautifully with my scientific knowledge. I am a PhD with 40 years plus experience in medical biochemistry research. My walk with God and belief in creation have not only increased my faith in God, but increased the quality of my scientific research. I give all the glory to Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior for all my achievements and also being with me in my down moments.
Money and prominence can be motives, with scientists accepting grants or speaking gigs for their new light insights against creationism. (Psalms 118:8-9) On the other side of the coin, creationists more often than not find themselves actively cut off from any government grant money. They can also face near riot situations, even threats of violence, if ever they try to speak at any publicly supported school or in the public square. (Psalms 92:7; Psalms 120:7) The ideological left and their fellow traveling companions within the faculty lounge do not care for debate with the great unwashed. To them, the debate is over and those who disbelieve are labeled ill-educated or flat-earthers. (Psalms 94:8) Unfortunately, this makes popular science more based in money than actual observation and testing. (Psalms 92:6) In the Lord's freedom to explore His creations..............warrior on
God's Word does not support theistic evolution. I believe that the misperception begins with the fact that the evolutionist’s argument pits the worldview of creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) against science. Science is "the study" of observable and repeatable facts. Science is not a worldview. Evolution is a world view. Creationism or Intelligent Design is a worldview. The real question is which worldview is supported by the scientific facts and observations. We all can look at the science, make observations, and evaluate facts. Then we look at those facts thru the evolutionists glasses and thru the creationists glasses and see which one makes more sense. I have tried to interpret the science through both world views and only one view fits; Intelligent Design. Paleontology, genetics, histology, cosmology, archaeology, and all the other "ologies" have only served to reinforce what I believe now more than ever to be true. Creationism fits the observable facts of science. The Heavenly Father through the hand of Jesus Christ created the universe and everything in it. There is no such thing as evolution. Species have not evolved, they have like the theory of evolution mutated. No species of animal has evolved. They have different mutations in their genetic code. A virus continues to live not through evolution, but through mutation - by dropping off part of its genetic makeup to avoid being killed by an antibody. In fact, the theory of evolution has continued to mutate over the last hundred years and its followers continue to search for an answer to why life is here. Funny thing is that the answer is available to anyone willing to see it. The short answer is..... God did it! When I put on my evolution glasses years ago, the science never made sense. As hard as I tried the science did not add up. Then I tried on creationist glasses and the observable, repeatable miracles of God's hand made sense. I wasn't a Christian at that time. I came to belief and faith in God after the fact. A literal reading of the Bible, where it can be taken literally, really tells it like it is. God doesn't fool around with billions of years. He doesn't need to. Man is the only one who seems to need all that time in order to make the lies of evolution believable.
Science does not exist independently from the people whose minds were blessed by God to use it. Creativity was and is advanced to us by God, the First and Great Creator. Any scientist who denies this simple fact is un-enlightened and continues to live in darkness.
Many scientists come into the scientific field with an already predetermined world view (evolution). Many of them are taught this as they go through school and because they respect the scientific scholars they willingly follow along without honestly doing their own investigation. Not all of them are like this, but many are. The scientists who perform a scientific study of the facts and realize evolution to be the world view that it is instead of proven fact (which it is not) are more likely to reach the conclusion that Creationism is at the very least a possibility and worthy of study and investigation. Science is supposed to be a field of study devoted to investigating that which is observable and repeatable in order to establish that models and systems of design and behavior, as well as universal laws exist. It is supposed to help the world via a practical utilization of this knowledge. However, when unscrupulous scientists and scientific communities do everything they can to try and prove a theory, rather than letting the evidence speak to the truth, these people lead us in the wrong direction and ultimately away from the Creator and Sustainer of our world. Those who would write eloquently about the reasonable coexistence of God’s account and the evolutionary theory account do so without basis in scripture.
My question is: why are Christians so opposed to the notion of Evolution? Before I address either question, let me start with this: I have been a devout follower of Christ for nearly 35 years, and I've held a PhD in Chemistry for 13. I am a scientist and a Christian, and I see no reason why there need be conflict between these two worlds. So I'm going to put this out there: I believe God created the universe and everything in it, but I also believe He did so through Evolution. To answer the original question: the evidence for Evolution (not just biological, but also cosmological) from a scientific standpoint is simply overwhelming--geological data, the genetic code, astronomical data, and even the results of everyday lab experiments involving the genetic manipulation of single celled organisms. When Christians deny Evolution and insist on literal Creationism, they reject this huge body of facts, which is simply rather offensive to scientists. While it is impossible to go back and re-run "the experiments" of Evolution, there is a huge amount of solid data upon which this theory is built, and anybody who wishes can re-run the experiments to collect those data. This situation saddens me deeply. The [non-Christian] scientific community views Christians as being ignorant, and the Christian community views the scientists--who apparently use evolution to deny the existence of God--as evil. But scientists are not the enemy, they are lost humans hurting for the love of God, just like you and me, and the average Christian is unable to speak to a scientist to share the love of Christ. I have been a Christian much longer than a scientist. For many years, I held onto a literal interpretation of Creation and rejected Evolution. At some point as a scientist, I decided to take an open minded look at the data upon which the Theory of Evolution is built (not unlike what many Christians, who were once unbelievers, have done with Jesus). I decided the Theory of Evolution is true. But my acceptance of this in no way diminished my faith. Instead, I've come to view Creation not as God performing six distinct acts of creation in six literal days, but rather as God performing a nearly infinite number of creation acts, from the Big Bang to the birth of humans. To me, this makes God even more amazing and unfathomable, and the message of the gospel even more incredible. As I view it, He was there at the condensing of atomic particles into the stars, He was there directing the chemical reactions that created the first amino acids in the "primordial soup,” He was there 2.3 billion years ago when cyanobacteria began filling our atmosphere with the oxygen necessary for the rise of complicated lifeforms, and He was there at every single DNA mutation that led from single celled organisms to us. That, my Christian friends, is some serious long-term planning with one goal in mind: to create humans in His own image, so that we might fellowship with Him. The pressing question, I think, is “why are scientists opposed to Christ?” My honest answer is, because far too many Christians hate them. So let me propose to you what I think is “a more excellent way” in love... Let me ask this: If you could have the opportunity to share the love of Christ with even just one scientist by accepting the notion of Evolution, would you do it? Could you be, as Paul put it, “a Greek to the Greeks” for the purpose of winning the souls of scientists for Christ? If you are at all interested in this, I recommend starting with the book “The Language of God” by Francis Collins. I encourage you to approach this book with an open and prayerful heart. Ask God what He wants you to believe about Evolution, and ask Him what He would want you to do to help reach the lost souls in the scientific community. Consider where this conversation might go: Scientist: Oh, and I suppose you don't believe in Evolution? You: Well, actually, I do...
Science and the theory of Creation by God, have different perceptions on "faith and belief". The creation theory assumed that God is omnipotent, and was able to create the universe and humanity. The scientific method is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations, but deals with observable facts, scientific proofs, evidence, and common principles. This could make it challenging to accept God's creation theory by many in the science community. Despite the seeming contradiction, there are common logical arguments shared, and could suggest some similarities between science and the creation theory, which is the concept of Intelligent design. Intelligent design is the proposal that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Many in the scientific community have claimed that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses. Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science. Intelligent Design presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and its positive argument is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God. The argument from design, the teleological argument or "argument from intelligent design," has been advanced in theology for centuries. It can be summarized briefly as "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. William Paley's Natural Theology (1802), presented examples of intricate purpose in organisms. His version of the watchmaker analogy argued that, in the same way that a watch has evidently been designed by a craftsman, complexity and adaptation seen in nature must have been designed, and the perfection and diversity of these designs shows the designer to be omnipotent, the Christian God. Hebrew 4:13, And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. Christian fundamentalists dispute the theories of common descent of humans and other animals as demonstrated in modern paleontology, genetics, histology and cladistics and those other sub-disciplines which are based upon the conclusions of modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and other related fields. They argue for the Abrahamic accounts of creation, framing them as reputable science ("creation science"). Today, some religious denominations now hold that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth's history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Some scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Psalm 147:5;, Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.
Actually, the scientific community does accept creationism but in a sort of a round about way. Science accepts facts only when they can be clearly shown to have an independent cause(s). But when it comes to the beginning of the universe science makes an exception. It is called the 'Big Bang'. Scientists claim that our universe came into being in a 'Big Bang' out of nothing. It is the nearest they will ever come to accepting 'creation'. However, in keeping with scientific criteria they cannot accept a creator. But please don't despair. Most scientists do believe in God in heart but just like with so many other areas in life they are prevented from announcing it in public for political correctness and pressure from atheists.
Science and religion are not, or were they ever, at odds with each other. They are not trying to answer the same question. Science takes things apart and asks "how". Religion puts things together and asks " why and by whom". A problem arises when either tries to anwer both questions. God has given man a natural thirst for knowledge. It's wisdom that man lacks to use this knowledge for His purpose. God created the universe. To me thats a fact! Maybe one day science can reveal "how" He did it.
I am glad to see good objective comments like those given by Jeremiah and Olusegun that let people know science isn’t God’s enemy. In fact, it is science that compliments the Bible by telling us how God did what He did. Particularly when its opening words, “In the beginning” have been vindicated by science despite opposition from all sides. (Genesis 1:1) Initially, this finding was strongly opposed by the Scientific Community. However, because of overwhelming evidence, most scientists now believe in the “Big Bang” theory. This leads to what l believe is the primary stumbling block between science and some forms of creationism, and that is “time.” In my opinion, you have to distinguish between Young Earth Creationists (YEC) and Old Earth Creationists (OEC). The YEC view that the sun, moon, and stars have only existed for 6,000 to 10,000 years has, to most scientists, no basis in fact. To them, it is totally a dogmatic religious assertion that is totally unrelated to science. However, for me it doesn’t really matter much how God created things because it has very little to do with my Christian walk. Nevertheless, when I discuss the subject with unbelieving scientists or Christian and nonChristian students, the YEC view, particularly with regard to the Big Bang and the like, is an insurmountable hurtle. It pleases me to be able to say that the YEC view is just a “theory” just as the OEC view is a “theory.” As the Apostle Paul said, we don’t really see things clearly now, but one day we will. (1 Corinthians 13:12) In my opinion, it doesn’t matter which creation theory you believe, what matters is that you believe in the saving grace of God through the blood of Jesus Christ our Lord and savior. (Ephesians 1:7) While I believe most Christian Old Earth Creationists would agree with me in this regard, I find that most Young Earth Creationists I know and read about are exclusivists. That, along with other “time related” issues is what causes many atheistic scientists to reject all forms of “creationism,” in my opinion.
Science in general seems evidence based, what is “seen”. Our faith is in what is “unseen”. This is separate from current scientific practices where most of the emphasis is focused on scientific evidence. There are human created guidelines for scientific evidence, observations and theory which are in conflict with creation. That’s not to say that creation doesn’t have its evidence but science would struggle to absorb faith practices from all religions in the world. Science hasn’t selected a religion for itself and tends to battle against creation as it’s core because of scientific theory on the Big Bang. However, there are some that follow faith and science. Science can’t prove or disprove God. At the same time those in faith can’t prove or convince science. It comes down to human selection of beliefs. At the end of the day everything has doubts, we doubt in faith and struggle to have enough of it, science has many doubts too. There’s much unknown undiscovered in science. In sum, because our science uses the Big Bang theory it will always come into conflict with creation and therefore can’t be in the same bucket.
I am currently enrolled in both a Physical Anthropology Course and it's accompaning Lab at my local community college. As I observe the Instructors (a female in her mid 30's and an 80 year old male,) their attitudes and behaviors are always on my mind and I'm seeking answers to that very question. They have a spot reserved for some Jesus statues and memorabilia that one of the Instructors often refers to with what seem like wise cracks. I find this very amusing and when he talks about how our ancestors are primates I am looking around the classroom to observe the students expressions and am getting the idea that this line of study is probably not as popular as it once was and is losing members because of the students attitudes I am picking up on. That probably makes them nostalgic, realizing it's dying, making it more of a heart issue for everyone they know in the field. The instructors know I'm a Christian from my viewing my Facebook profile and postings. One of them responds in fear of me. I'm thinking she probably thinks I'm going to start a theological argument with her. I am not enrolled to look for fights so I ignore her and treat her with the utmost respect. She has warmed to me considerably. The other instructor, a married gentleman of about 80 has a soft spot for me as well. I feel like I am a major distraction to their thoughts when I'm sitting in their class because I'm a Christian and my presence is have a positive impact on them. The whole discipline of Anthropology looks to be based on loose associations to me, but it does have a few science based facts that make sense. I don't find those facts as concrete as they do so I have to hide that I don't think they are very bright. Some of the disciplines are very useful for society. They are good hearted people with a child like quality of wonder and exploration more than a science hard driving ideology against God. It's more like a culture of like minded individuals, a club of sort to socialize and explore nature with. Spending indepth time with anyone of them and they could easily be persuaded to become Christians within a Christian Church Community of people because of the intense social ties they have built out of developing Anthropology. I believe the Science of Anthropology is more of an identity than anything else and their fear of losing their identity is why they are so opposed to Creationism. The only argument they have briefly stated is that Creationism is a cultural myth, a story people have passed down from generation to generation and not based on "observable" evidence. They don't believe in the Holy Spirit basically. Creationism is not concrete. That's their main argument. Concrete vs imaginary.....that's it!
Jeremiah Duncan states that “I believe God created the universe and everything in it, but I also believe He did so through Evolution.” I am not sure to what extent Jeremiah Duncan believes God created and how much he believes was done through evolution. Did God create the universe and initial life and then God allowed evolution to take over, eventually an ape eventually evolving into a human? Did God create particles of matter and allowed natural causes to develop into stars and eventually into what we now know as our universe? I also do not know to what extent Jeremiah Duncan believes God contributed to the origin of life. Did God create the first single called bacteria from the elements that developed previously when the universe formed and then allowed this bacteria to evolve into more complex life forms? Then, somehow this early life (possibly some type of bacteria) somehow, perhaps through mutations or gene manipulation, caused changes to occur whereby causing the bacteria to eventually evolve into multiple celled creatures. There is no scientific evidence that this ever happened or that it could happen. Evolutionists believe that mutations cause changes in species and that natural selection directs the positive changes to continue to exist. Natural selection would most likely cause negative changes to not continue in a species, as a negative change would be detrimental to a species. Gene shuffling, gene duplication, exon shuffling, etc... would not cause a species to eventually become a different species. No new genes could arise from these functions. That is why Evolutionists believe that mutations are the only way that new changes could develop in a species, although there is no proof that mutations could ever eventually cause a species to become a different species. Some changes do occur in species, but only within a species. These changes occur as a result of a gene being either turned on or off. I have done a great deal of research to determine whether creation or evolution is true. I came to the conclusion that particles of matter or matter could not have originated from absolutely nothing (no matter, no energy, no magnetic field, etc.). If you would like to read my research, I summarized it and wrote a book entitled “Evolution or Creation? A Comparison of the Arguments” (now in its third edition). The Bible states that God is the Creator and that this Creator created the universe, life (including bacteria, viruses, trees, plants, insects and many types of animals and humans being created separately), and everything that exists (Genesis 1 & 2). That does not mean that God created every type and variety of dogs. I believe that God created a dog (or wolf) with all the genes necessary to cause multiple different types of dogs. I also do not believe that God created every type of horse. Through genes being either turned on or off, various breeds would develop. This does not mean that a horse could evolve into any animal other than another breed of horse. Humans did not evolve from lower life forms, such as some type of ape. There is no scientific proof of this. Please refer to chapters 15 & 16 of my book. I do not have enough space to discuss it here. For me, if the Bible is true, then there is a Creator. If neo-Darwinian evolution is true, then the Bible (according to my interpretation) is not true and cannot be trusted. But I believe that the Bible is true and that God the Creator created the universe and life, based on my research. For me, if neo-Darwinian evolution is true, then the Bible is not accurate and therefore cannot be trusted as being the Word of God. I believe that the Bible and creation are true.
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.