Why Do Creationists Find It So Unacceptable That We Evolved From Other Species?

These reasons may satisfy you, but they don't satisfy me. The word of God says that He made us in His own image. I find it difficult to believe that God looks like an ape, a fish, or a bit of slime. I don't find it hard to believe that we were created using the same basic pattern as was used for creating some animals. After all, if you are satisfied with something you have created, why not use the basic building blocks in your next project, too?

For me, it is none of these factors, but rather the shaky basis of evolution. What little evidence we have actually gathered suggests that some degree of variation and natural selection occurs within species, but there is no evidence that one species can change into another species. Take the fruit fly that scientists have been testing for more than 100 years. Fruit flies should have evolved in the labratory by now, given the number of fruit fly generations that have been intentionally mutated and bred, but we have never seen any of the mutations become anything other than a deformed fruit fly. Evolution is one theory about our origins. But it is only a theory. The real trouble is that you are not allowed to question it. Anyone seriously doubting the claims of biological evolution is mocked and shunned. That is not science, but religion. If evolution were true, the science ought not only accept but beg for challenges, that is how it is proven. Take the geological collumn as an example. Our knowledge of geological history as represented by the geological column indicates that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and has placed these nice sedement layers to prove it. We know the age of the layers because of the fossils we find in them. And how do we know the age of the fossils? We date the fossils based on the layer in which they are found. That's circular reasoning. The fossil proves the age of the layer proves the age of the fossil. Furthermore, the column itself is never once actually observed intact in nature. It's a construct to explain what should be, but in reality we see widespread discrepancies in real rocks that don't match at all what the column predicts. The theory that nonliving matter can produce life has been soundly refuted. They teach that in schools. Life only comes from pre-existing life. Its called the law of biogenesis. Except that for evolution it somehow did. Why? Why does a sound scientific law suddenly turn itself off for the critical moment in evolutionary development? Evolution seems to me to look pretty good viewed from a distance, but it breaks down pretty quickly if you try to imagine it in detail. The mutations that would make an individual more fit to survive would most likely make them unattractive for mating, which would make it unlikely they would pass such mutations on. Further, even after mating, they have only about a 1 in four chance of passing the gene on the next generation, so you have to assume that the one in four chance actually happens and that it also survives and manages to mate. To say that one thing evolved into another over millions of years is hard to dispute, but to look at the specific changes as they supposedly occurred makes the theory seem shaky at best. It doesn't make sense that a single celled organism suddenly springs to life from nothing in an incredibly hostile environment, feeds on something, reproduces, and continues to do so without being wiped out by nature. One cell arrising in the type of environment Earth supposedly had wouldn't really have a chance. The odds of it's survival are almost as staggerring as the odds of it's inception. It's just too much to believe. There are many more gaps and holes and flat out lies in evolutionary thinking, but I've stated enough to prove my point, which is that evolution is not a fact. A scientific fact is provable and reproducible in a controlled experiment. Evolution has never, and in all likelyhood can never be scientifically proven. It must be relegated to the realm of faith. That's not to say it isn't true, but it is to say it must be recognized as belief, edcated or otherwise, rather than fact. And belief must be able to be questioned, or it is not worth believing in.

You left out two factors. Part of the answer is basic ignorance. They have made no effort to understand evolution so they listen to what others tell them rather than getting the facts and deciding for them self. The second is ego. How many time have you heard,"I'm not descended from an ape." All I can tell them is that they are right, they aren't descended from an ape but they do have a common ancestor. To feel that they aren't special, and a demigod, hurts their ego.

It puts a monkey wrench on their theory on humans.

I'm a Christian, and I believe in Evolution. I find that they are not mutually exclusive ideas, and that evolution is simply a mean to an end. God created the world, and then beasts. It's in genesis. The fossil and geologic record show that the earth predates animal and vegetable life. Science and religion agree there. Second, Genesis goes into detail about the order in which God created life. I've got no bible on me to give you chapter and verse, but the fossil record also goes in this same order. Science and religion agree again. Then God created man. The fossil record shows that we exist. Evolution = creation, in my eyes.

I would like to congratulate you for the clearly expressed views in the series of posts that you have made during this discussion. Going back to your original quaestion, I would say that "fear" is one reason they find it so unacceptable: It is a lot to ask theists to imagine a universe without a God; to stand alone in the world and to realise that we alone are fully responsible for the decisions and actions we make.

Nah! I was once a non christian myself! so were we all.. Some of us appear very earnest in our desire to convert the world and our friends, maybe even sometimes in that order. But that's cuz we're taught that those we don't reach will perish.. or worse! We haven't been much taught "God is the savior of ALL men" (male and female of course) and "ALL things in heaven, and earth, will be gathered back into him.." It's not that christians are dumb and won't face scientific evidence, it's that most's faith is based on their own experiences.. (with God or Jesus) - and the ones who have cared to look into science, well, farankly, the evidence isn't there! Yes, actually I was little shocked too! No transitional life forms.. no transitional life forms in the fossil record. Only debunked ones.. Yes, it's truly fascinating.. I could go on and on.. every supposed human missing link has fallen through.. (One was a hoax.) The rest were, well, merely highly imaginative.. which is really all evolution theory as to origins is... :))Peace!

there are no facts to support either side. too me neither is more logical than the other. if you look too deeply into either side it is full of holes.

Well, I believe in God, I think you cant say that we are these things, there are plenty of people who are theat way and that is why they DO NOT believe in God. If we came from apes, why are there still apes?

I've always believed people believed in Creationism because it was easier for them to understand. It answers all their questions, and for those not willing to look for an alternative, it's the only possible way because it describes how everything came into existence (with the exception of God, so they just tack on the belief that God has existed forever). That's all well and good for them, in my opinion. If they want to believe that and completely discredit a theory that has more evidence supporting it than theirs, they can go ahead and keep believing it. I for one, won't settle for 'Everything is God's creation' just because we currently have no idea how evertything started. When a fire breaks out and theres no visible evidence as to how it started, only speculations can be made. That is what both evolution and creationism are - speculations. However, to an objective person, evolution is the more believable of the two simply because evolution has been proven on a small scale through mutations and adaptations. You can't prove that a God created the world on any scale, because there is no visible evidence.

www.answersingenesis.org I use to never refer to answers in genesis because I had made the false assumption like I'm sure many do that they all references would be made to the Bible and scriptures from the Bible. However, I later learned that the site has tons of scientific articles regarding origin. In fact some of the articles are so scientifically technical that I don't refer people to them for fear they may not be able to follow. So don't let the title fool you and certainly don't be misled be evolutionists who want to discredit and dismiss the entire site because of a title. If you're looking for Biblical answers you'll find it there. If you're looking for scientific answers you'll find it there as well.

Its a beautiful question you ask. For something to exist logically speaking there has to be other important ingredients involved. Even if we talk about the big bang theory the ingredients have to be present for the reaction. So my question is from where did the ingredients come from. It wont appear out of the blues so there has to be a hand in creation. That hand we call God. And it is not wrong for scientist to think otherwise it is their quest for answers which they would like to explain in a complex way but to me the simple answer is more fulfilling that God created you and me.

To me I see it as an inability to let go of taking the bible or other beliefs as literal fact. While it is basically more of mythology a story loosely based on events. If you go to www.answersingenesis.org you will find they argue that everything is still to be taken as a literal meaning and the reason you dont find fossils of man that old was because man was still in the garden of eden and there was no old age or dying. I am not saying this is what I believe I am just pointing out their side of the story. I myself find it difficult to follow such blind thinking when you look at the evidence of the jurasic period and there is only small mammals the size of rats. Do I think there is proof of evolution, well there is alot of things missing in that story too. But there definately seems to be proof that neanderthal man was bred into modern man. There will probly never be conclusive proof to one path or another and even if you had it people would probly argue over evolution vs creative design.

I don't know that I can agree with your reasons Dravenwriter. I do agree that those reasons may pertain to a certain percentage of Creationists, I just don't agree that they pertain to Creationists in general. In my experience, not ALL Creationists find it unacceptable that we may have evolved from other species. And, not all Creationists are so closed-minded that they won't listen to and weigh both arguments fairly. I have known many that are willing to accept that human beings MAY have evolved from other species, they just aren't willing to accept the possiblity that the universe, earth, and the earth's inhabitants came from nothingness or accidental happenings. These Creationists would speculate that God used evolution to the advantage of his many creations. But, these aren't Young Earth Creationists (YEC's), and they don't necessarily take everything in the Bible to be entirely literal. I have had the priviledge to find many of these exceedingly open-minded and respectable people in my short life time. But, I have a feeling that you're specifically reffering to YEC's. I think that many YEC's refuse to accept the possibilty because it goes against their established paradigm. They've spent a good majority of their lifetime believing that the Bible is entirely literal and that the only plausible explanation for the origin of man stems from the literal translation of Genesis. I think that many are afraid to admit that there may be a possible alternative to their belief, because they're afraid that to admit that would mean that they doubt the word of God. I think that many can't accept even the possibility, because they are so set in their ways that to do so would demean their life's passion. I don't agree that admitting the posibility would do any of this, but I truly think that's the way they feel. For YEC's, the Bible is the authority on everything, and the literal translation of it is the only way they can see or understand what they perceive is the word of God. They can't understand how it might be metaphorical, or how many of the stories may be parable, rather than a literal historical account of past events.

I don't think so

I believe that you got the right to believe whatever you want to believe and promote it in any way as long as it is non-violent. Those people you are talking about, they also have the same right to believe and promote the same thing that you do. Believe and let believe. Live and let live. This is to make this world a better and peaceful place to live in. Expounding details and convincing you to accept my point of views (which are contrary to yours anyway) won't ever help anyone. You already have your own fixed beliefs on this matter. I also have mine. So we better be friends. Please invite me to be your friend.

First of all I have to say this is a remarkable discussion and everyone has given answers with great thoughts. I don't think I am quite in the same league but I will give it a shot. The Origin of the Species was a theory that drew a great deal of attention to the point of being banned in many places. Why was it banned and who took exception.....the clergy. The theory of evolution was not a concept allowed because it offended religion. They just could not accept any theory that did not involve divine intervention. So as early as that religion had a say in the relevance of scientific theory. I contend that religion has interferred with scientific thinking to a point that it clouds the way we see and evaluate evidence even today. I believe in the "happy accident" theory mentioned earlier. Since there really is no resolution to the chicken or the egg first issue.

I agree that "vanity" is part of the reason, pride, ego of men.I know I would never accept the theory that we came from apes for if we really did evolve from them then why are they still abundant.Damn monkeys.I am not sure if there is god or whatever superior being they call it, but I think I could accept it much easier that we do than that we came from those freaking monkeys.

The same reason Evolutionist find it so unacceptable that we were created by God? We believe in God and you do not. You believe in Evolution. And evolution is your religion.

First of all: I do prefer the evolution theory over creationism. It seems that the actual rebuttel for not accepting the evolution theory seems to be mainly that it is not solid, well same goes for religion! Indeed, as you already sais dravenwriter, you can only support creationism if you accept the word of god as being true. Whether you accept the theory of evolution or not, you have to admit that it is hands down more supported by evidence then creationism! As for the why. I believe that creationism is a very easy concept to grasp and it gives an easy answer to hard questions, this should make it appealing to a lot of people n'est pas?