The **OFFICIAL**Thread to end all the nonsense about Christians not believing in Evolution.

[glen]

All I am trying to say is that Creationism, is NOT DOCTRINE for most Christians.
And, if I could have found it, Pope John Paul unequivically said Evolution does not conflict with Church teachings.

There are approximately 2 billion Christians in the world.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Christianity

About half of them are Roman Catholic
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/13/1044927735949.html

About 250 million are "Orthodox."
http://www.worldalmanacforkids.com/explore/religion/orthodoxchurch.html

About 100 million Anglicans.
http://anglicansonline.org

About 65 million Lutherans.
http://www.religioscope.com/notes/2002/069_lutherans.htm

70.75% of all Christians right there.

For the purposes of Christianity and Evolution, these groups hold basically the exact same views.
So, use the Catholic Encyclopedia as a barometer of the majority Christian viewpoint on this subject.

Evolution (History and Scientific Foundation)


Catholics and Evolution

 

[AreaCode707]

I'm Anglican and creationist.

 

[fredtam]

So Christians don't believe in evolution?

 

[spunkz]

Good thread. here's some concluding info from the link for those who dont make it to the end.


The most important general conclusions to be noted are as follows:?

1. The origin of life is unknown to science.
2. The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
3. There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
4. There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
5. Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
6. There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new" characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's "natural selection" is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by "mutation". In our opinion the principle of "Mendelian segregation", together with Darwin's natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories.

 

[DaWhim]

should be sticky! mod!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: spunkz
Good thread. here's some concluding info from the link for those who dont make it to the end.


The most important general conclusions to be noted are as follows:?

1. The origin of life is unknown to science.
2. The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
3. There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
4. There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
5. Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
6. There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new" characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's "natural selection" is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by "mutation". In our opinion the principle of "Mendelian segregation", together with Darwin's natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories.

What a pile of crap! But that's just my opinion.

 

[glen]

All I am trying to say is that Creationism, is NOT DOCTRINE for most Christians.
And, if I could have found it, the Pope John Paul unequivically said Evolution does not conflict with Church teachings.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: glen
All I am trying to say is that Creationism, is NOT DOCTRINE for most Christians.

Christians don't believe God "created" the heavens/earth and man?

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: glen
All I am trying to say is that Creationism, is NOT DOCTRINE for most Christians.

Christians don't believe God "created" the heavens/earth and man?

Oh they believe that, they just don't take the creation story literally.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: glen
All I am trying to say is that Creationism, is NOT DOCTRINE for most Christians.

Christians don't believe God "created" the heavens/earth and man?

Oh they believe that, they just don't take the creation story literally.

Why not?

 

[TheBDB]

That is great news. Now be a good christian and spread the gospel to the retards that DO believe in creationism.

 

[Feldenak]

I'm Anglican and I tend to believe in a mixture of Creationism/Evolution. I forget the exact term but my belief is that events such as evolution were set in motion and then left to run in whatever way nature took them.

 

[DaWhim]

Originally posted by: glen
All I am trying to say is that Creationism, is NOT DOCTRINE for most Christians.
And, if I could have found it, the Pope John Paul unequivically said Evolution does not conflict with Church teachings.

My prof said that in the lecture once, I just remember. sadly, forgot the detail.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I don't understand why ANYONE would actually believe that mankind was just "created" out of thin air by a magical and powerfull being who was bored and wanted company. There may not be a 100% solid proof that is absolutely 100% explaining every step of evolution .... however ... I'll take that over the myth of creation.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I'm Anglican and I tend to believe in a mixture of Creationism/Evolution. I forget the exact term but my belief is that events such as evolution were set in motion and then left to run in whatever way nature took them.

That would be a form of Deism... i.e., there is a god, but it set things in motion and left it alone.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I don't understand why ANYONE would actually believe that mankind was just "created" out of thin air by a magical and powerfull being who was bored and wanted company. There may not be a 100% solid proof that is absolutely 100% explaining every step of evolution .... however ... I'll take that over the myth of creation.

Creationism is just a form of stacking turtles. If everything must have a creator, who created the creator?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: spunkz
Good thread. here's some concluding info from the link for those who dont make it to the end.


The most important general conclusions to be noted are as follows:?

1. The origin of life is unknown to science.
2. The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
3. There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
4. There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
5. Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
6. There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new" characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's "natural selection" is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by "mutation". In our opinion the principle of "Mendelian segregation", together with Darwin's natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories.

What a pile of crap! But that's just my opinion.

My opinion, too.

 

[Shuxclams]

The **OFFICIAL**Thread to end all the nonsense about Christians not believing in Evolution.

Why don't you believe in evolution?












SHUX

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: spunkz
Good thread. here's some concluding info from the link for those who dont make it to the end.


The most important general conclusions to be noted are as follows:?

1. The origin of life is unknown to science.
2. The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
3. There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
4. There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
5. Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
6. There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new" characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's "natural selection" is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by "mutation". In our opinion the principle of "Mendelian segregation", together with Darwin's natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories.

What a pile of crap! But that's just my opinion.

My opinion, too.

Funny that Glen would post this as evidence of Christian acceptance of evolution. It's anything but... This is the same old and tired "micro evolution is possible, but macro evolution is not." It's just a new wrinkle on creationism that is not so blind as to deny changes that can be observed in one lifetime.

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: spunkz
Good thread. here's some concluding info from the link for those who dont make it to the end.


The most important general conclusions to be noted are as follows:?

1. The origin of life is unknown to science.
2. The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
3. There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
4. There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
5. Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
6. There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new" characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's "natural selection" is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by "mutation". In our opinion the principle of "Mendelian segregation", together with Darwin's natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories.

read up on miller's experiment
what evidence exactly are you looking for here? we have many evidence of gradual and diverse changes... for all taxa including that inwhich Man belongs. systematics is a form of classification.. what exactly are systematic species? yeah some evolve gradually while others display a saltatory fashion.. whats the point? i dont see why you seem to have a problem with adaptive radiation... dont 'believe' it?

 

[luv2chill]

I think you can only claim that *most* Christians believe in evolution because you're including Catholics. Of all of the protestants I know, the vast majority (including my own parents and siblings) take the OT literally--and these aren't super-conservative sects either. To be quite honest with you I don't think it occurs to many of them that the OT could be metaphorical and still be completely valid. Sad.

l2c

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: glen
All I am trying to say is that Creationism, is NOT DOCTRINE for most Christians.

Christians don't believe God "created" the heavens/earth and man?

Oh they believe that, they just don't take the creation story literally.

Why not?

Because it's not written literally. If you analyse the text of the first part of genesis it's written in a very different style to all the historical parts of the old testament. It's effectively written as a kiddies story - it gives a rough overview of what went on in an easily digestible manner. It's not (and isn't intended to be) a scientific textbook. Looking for contradictions/ommissions is like saying 'But how did alice get through the looking glass? It isn't scientifically possible..'

 

[sandorski]

I understand your frustration, but that won't make any difference. Creationists are very outspoken about their belief, that's why "Christians" as a whole catch flak, for what is a minority opinion.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
That is great news. Now be a good christian and spread the gospel to the retards that DO believe in creationism.

You do realize that by making that statement YOU are the retard.

 

[Arkitech]

Why is it such a big deal that people choose to believe in a creator? If thats a persons belief just accept it and move on. Same goes for evolution, just accept the fact that some people choose to believe in it. Until either side can produce unquestionable evidence there's no point in getting worked up about it.