Evolution

I believe that it is not the Bible's word that is incorrect, but merely one's interpretation of the Bible that is incorrect. Nor am I claiming that my belief in evolution is necessarily the correct one. All that I know for sure is that God was the one who created the universe whether it was through the Big Bang or not.

Evolution doesn't need to contradict a Christian worldview. Unfortunately, there is a large proportion of Christians who can't see the forest for the trees.

There is a reason it is referred to as 'a theory'.... <><

Yeah, just like the theory of gravity. Lol. Much of the worlds population of Christians accept evolution, myself included.

In my opinion, Genesis was an allegory designed to convey eternal truths in a way that was comprehensible to people of the era in which it was written, not an attempt to fix the state of scientific knowledge for all time.

While it is good to note that the acceptance of Evolutionary Theory is not universal, it is also important to note the proportions involved. 98% more than of scientists within the relevant fields (Physics, Geology, Biology, Chemistry, etc) believe that the Theory of Evolution is well substantiated, and view it as a unifying theory for the natural sciences. That number rises to over 99.9% once you move out of the US.

An excellent question GodlessGirl, and one people have been trying to answer for decades. I've done some pretty extensive research on the topic and found that the reason for rejecting a belief actually rarely has anything to do with the evidence for a belief at all.

I have found that the reason that people resist a particular worldview change (Young Earth Creationism and Earth Science/Evolutionary Biology certainly have very different world views) is because of the philosophical implications of that change.

Here are a few of the philosophical rejections for Evolutionary Theory that I have stumbled across:

1. Humankind is inherently exceptional and separate from nature.
If all life stems from the same organism, then I am just an animal. I am no longer special.

2. An intelligent agent created all things to play a specific role and have a defined purpose.
If I am not created, then I have no purpose.

3. The existence of an explanation for the diversity of life rejects the existence of an intelligent agent.
If there is a mechanism, there is no room left for God.

4. The religious text of choice is inerrant (without error).
If the creation story is not accurate, then the entire text is inaccurate.

5. It contradicts their own observations of reality.
I haven't seen this happen. This is not how I have seen the world to work.

Research shows that it is nearly impossible to shift a worldview that is established within an individual. Although science traditionally does not concern itself with the philosophical or moral implications of its findings, the majority of the public finds those philosophical and moral implications to be of far more importance than uninterpreted data. Thus, the split between scientific and religious discourse. (Discourse being how ideas are explored, not who is right or wrong.)

I believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution. We do see small changes in species and this is due to variation with in DNA. We have never seen nor is it provable in a lab that one species can turn into a new or different species. We have never seen spontaneous life arise from from any sort of primordial materials. Nor has a single scientist ever been able to replicate living matter came from non living matter in a lab, under ideal conditions.

The big fat lie that makes no sense at all, is the story of how everything came from nothing. They think there was once a time when nothing existed, not matter, energy, space, time, laws of physics and chemistry, etc. Then magically there was a big bang and from there random chance and accident formed the blocks of life and eventually, DNA.

Of course DNA is made from special proteins and with out DNA< you can't have protein, so which came first, the chicken (DNA) or the egg (protein)? How about lets see if a scientist can recreate DNA from just the four basic nucleotides! Lets see if they can even get them to bond in a random pastern. Let's see if they can replicate there own pipe dream of a empty universe creating everything with out intelligence, with out design and all by random chance and accident.

I guess, I will just have to chose "no" on the poll.

who cares if evolution is true or not? biggest waste of church resources EVAR

That's the theory of Abiogenesis, which is separate from the theory of Evolution. Evolution is concerned with how life changes, and only covers once life exists.

Abiogenesis covers how life came into existence.

So by your comment, you're actually fine with the theory of Evolution, you just have problems with the theory of abiogenesis.

Yes to micro, such as a baby growing into and adult... Or a wolf becoming domesticated and becoming a husky...

But as far as macro... Not a chance in the world... I used to believe in that amazing lie... But not any more