Why is it that Christians always dismiss evolution by saying that it can't be proven, studied or observed?  Do they even realize that NEITHER CAN GOD?  Evolution is a theory not a fact and requires as much faith as believing in a super being.  You'd think of all people they'd understand the concept of faith.
124072
Because they have blind faith in creationism.  Nothing you say or do will ever change that.  You could show  mathmatical proof or facts to back up evolution (which I believe exist).\nThey have faith is something they cannot prove.  End of story.
612452
Well, I believe in the theory of evolution, not exactly Darwin's original model, since that's pretty old and has been revised (DNA, genetics, fossils, etc).\n\nAs to why some folks choose not to believe, there are several reasons I can think of :\n\n1) The idea that man evolved from a non-human creature is near unthinkable. Many people find it ludicrous that we are closely related to some big hairy beast that sits and scratches its butt at the zoo.\n\n2) We like to be in the "center", and evolution tells us that we aren't 'special', whereas religion makes humans THE important species. Kinda like why people didn't believe Galileo at first.\n\n3) Religion. If you grow up learning one thing, it's pretty hard to convince yourself otherwise.\n\n4) If evolution is indeed true, then the BIble can't be taken literally. Adam and Eve is one of the most significant stories in the Bible (as well as the Quran), if that's just a parable, what else is?\n\nProbably some other reasons as well, I can't think of any more right now. Good luck on your research, btw :)
156512
Micro evolution has been proven.  It is evidenced in history and observable in life.  That doesns't contradict the Bible or interfere in my beliefs in any way.\n\nMy problem with evolution is that:\n\nSomething cannot come from nothing.  It is against the laws of our universe for something to come from nothing.  Thus Someone (outside our universe) had to create it.\n\nMutations are degenerative.  That's why no one thinks it's a compliment to be called a mutant.  Diseases are mutations.  Where are all the positive mutations needed for macro evolution to be true?\n\nIn order for evolution to be true, original life would have to have been self-supporting and we have become more and more weak and dependent ever since.  If original life sustained itself on nothing, and we are growing more and more superior, why can't we sustain ourselves on nothing?  Why must we eat and have clothing and shelter?  We consume resources.  What resources did original life have?  How were they not depleted?  \n\nWhere do morality, intellect, and love come from?  Are they really suited to survival of the fittest?  \n\nIf the universe is orderly and designed by accident, why aren't all accidents orderly and designed?  How could the balance of our ecosystem just happen?  \n\nIf evolution crossed the line of species, how did that work?  If a man was born to an ape, what did he mate with?  If another ape, wouldn't their offspring have been sterile?  That would then be the end of mankind.  Why don't apes still have human babies today?  \n\nI believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days.  He created everything in an order that supported life.  Yes, things change over time, but they don't cross the line of species without negative consequences.
557084
let me ask you this, what will it change for you? what does it matter? people tend to use their creation theories - god vs. evolution, as reason to discredit the other. it's all ego. what does knowing change? just accept. we're here. something put us here. follow your heart to decide what. but don't let not knowing for sure take up any more of your time. finding out isn't possible beyond faith. both sides have evidence, not proof. it doesn't matter.
383008
Technically, and scientifically it is a theory. Theory doesn't  mean that it isn't true though, it simply means it is the most widely accepted opinion of the scientific community until someone can come along with a better theory or disprove the theory.\n\n"God created Us" is not a scientifically accepted proof against the theory of evolution. This is because without evolution DNA mutation makes no sense, even though it is a well observed phenomena.\n\nFossils also would have no explanation.\n\nAnd as a teacher, it would be best to say that it is okay to not believe every theory, because many past theorems have been proved wrong, but that he or she should maybe look into evolution a little more before casting a judgement.
429773
That's impossible to quantify at the present. We'd have to poll millions of people around the globe just to get a reasonable demographic. What's more, everyone really should believe in evolution, and anyone who does not believe in evolution is clearly ignoring the facts. Evolution is a fact, not a possibility, and not just a theory. Whether or not it conflicts with Christianity's premise is yet to be determined, and I really could not care less. Evolution isn't a religious doctrine, it's a scientific analysis.
348172
Evolution is a science in which the principles are continuously questioned, tested, and revised as new information is acquired.  The fact that some religions such as Hinduism are more compatible with evolutionary theory does not make it a product of the religion.    Secular Humanism, if you even qualify it as a religion, has adopted it, but did not create it.  If a pastor felt that Newtonian physics should be taught alongside the Ten Commandments, it would not make it religious doctrine.  Evolution can be studied without any attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God.\n\nIn summary, enough of your meaningless rhetoric.  Evolution belongs in schools, the Bible belongs in religious classes and parochial schools, and "Scientific" Creationism (but not Creationism) belongs in the trash.
884
no one can disprove evolution, only ignorant christians think that evolution didn't occur
203312
My dads a christian minister, and he believes in evolution - he says that the creation story in the bible is like a parable, but in acutal fact it took much much longer than 7 days to create everything, and evolution is part of god's plan - it's how he created everything.  He says that evolution cannot be agrued with, as there are no holes in the 'theory' - it is a fact, not a theory,  so the only sensible way to look at the creation story is as a parable.
551150
I believe that both creation and evolution rely on religious belief and are supported by scientific observation.  The fundamental beliefs vary as well as the interpretation of the scientific facts.\n\nAs for your points:\n\n1.  I would agree that Creationism does not fit the description of a testable, repeatable, scientific theory... but neither does evolution.  However, there are theories as to how observable scientific facts fit together to support both creation and evolution.\n\n2.  Some "believers" WILL accept evidence against their religion and some NON-believers WILL NOT accept any evidence supporting religion.  But this is irrelevant and does not lend scientific credibility to either side.\n\n3.  There are theories supporting both creation and evolution that allow for error and are peer reviewed.  In fact, many theories for both sides are continually modified, updated, or rejected based on new evidence.  In this way both ideas are very similar to all other pure scientific fields.\n\n4.  When talking about the origin of the universe and life, ANY theory must have its origin in belief of something that was not observed, cannot be repeated, and will not happen again, as well as the assumption that something existed in the first place to start it all.  Creationists believe in God and creation while Evolutionists believe in the Big Bang and a monstrously long list of extremely statistically improbable occurrences that take place in an amazingly perfect order.  Almost sounds like it needs "divine intervention"...
194294
Evolution has not been disproven, and probably never will be.\n\nI've noticed that many people don't understand the theory of evolution, and essentially use that as a basis to attack it. For example, many people will point out that evolution does not explain the origin of the first cells or where matter came from. No duh it doesn't. It's not supposed to. Evolution explains the origin of the diversity of species, not the origin of life. There are other theories that address that issue, and I don't think any of those are accepted as fact. I do, however, think it's a fair bet that life does in fact exist, so it's perfectly valid to construct a theory that presupposes that life exists.\n\nPeople also misunderstand the concept of a scientific theory. What they fail to realize is that most of science is made up of theories, and while many of these theories have been effectively proven true, they're still called theories. Unlike the common English use of theory, in science a theory is an explanation of facts, which is subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Evolution is called a theory not so much because we're not sure if the basic concepts are accurate, but because we are not confident that every single little detail is perfectly accurate. There may be complexities and details that are not yet fully understood, but the basic idea that species evolve and that the process of evolution has resulted in the diversity of life we see today is basically an established fact.\n\nAnother problem that may be partly to blame for the confusion regarding evolution is the presentation of "scientific evidence" by creationists that the claim contradicts the theory of evolution. I often see misleading and incorrect use of scientific data to "disprove" evolution. For example, on prominent creationist website cites a study John A. Eddy and Aram A. Boomazian which they claim says that the sun has been contracting for 400 years when, in fact, the study examined evidence from under 100 years and extrapolated the rest from a single report of the appearance of a solar eclipse in the 1500s. Furthermore, the study was conducted about 50 years ago, and dozens of studies since then have found that the data was based on flawed methodology and the sun is actually not contracting.\nHere's that site: http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/418/\nAnd some background on the study they cited: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html\n\nThe problem is that people read that and believe that evolution has been disprove. I saw someone quote that particular website here on Answers as scientific proof that the theory of evolution was false. The people who wrote the creationist article probably did their research and latched on to the one study that supported their theory, but the people who read it don't know that it is an outdated study, that the conclusion is overinflated (the 400 year thing), or that it contradicts the findings of dozens of more recent and more accurate studies.\n\nApparently the phenomenon of distorting scientific data to further a creationist agenda is fairly widespread. One of my bio profs talked about a particularly egregious example of someone (I don't remember his name) who actually obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology for the expressed purpose of disproving the theory of evolution, and now goes around writing articles that pretty transparent to scientists but are just believable enough to confuse the general public.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the
334378
There is certainly some truth to what you say.  However, it is not the only reason.  If it were, there would be no converts to or from any religion.  The Bible defines faith as "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."  By this definition, believing evolution or the Big Bang IS faith.  In fact, even sitting down in a chair without first testing to see if it can support your weight is faith.  There are two types of faith, however, blind faith, and faith based on reason.  I believe most people have blind faith, no matter what they believe in.  Believing in something despite evidence to the contrary is blind faith to the extreme.  Many people have that, too.  I believe a faith based on reason is what we should demand of ourselves and each other.  That is why I put my faith on the line.  I have told many others, "If you can convince me that what you believe is more logical than what I believe, I will change my beliefs."  It doesn't matter how small or large the belief.  I have changed many times because of this.  My belief that Jesus raised from the grave, however, has always proved to be more logical than any other argument.  I believe it always will be.  That's faith.
472184
I think the most important thing to do is to get rid of the word, 'belief', when it comes to evolution.  It is a tactic used by creationists to marginalize evolution and it bring it to the same level as theology.  It's very important to take out the word, 'belief', when it comes to scientific systems because we're not talking about belief.
571979
Sometimes the line between evolution and christianity is blurred. Evolution is not just the theory that we came from apes. Evolution is just the theory that all creatures can evolve over time its like is a bear is mainly living in one environment and then moves to another that is evolution. The theory that man came from apes should not be taught nor the theory that man was made by God. That way nobody is offended. But Evolution should be taught.
31401
Creationism by our Creator. And the evolution theory would be okay if it werent contradictory to scripture... The bible says He created everything according to its kind.  See Genesis 1:20.  Also if we evolved, why are we not stil evolving?
10898
Because people don't want to believe in a God. I have yet to find a single person who can answer the question of why science can't have God. But other than that, people don't like to be wrong, evolution is a religion, and it is the popular opinion (which many people will follow, although this does not determine the truth of it). There is tons of evidence against evolution, and not too much for it. If you want some sources, www.trueorigin.org is a good one. There is also the Institute for Creation Research, which I can't remember the website of right now. If want lots of sources, email me. I have a huge list of them right now from the paper I just wrote on this topic. It's spiderlover128@yahoo.com.
569914
christians who accept the theory of plate tectonics should also have no reason not to accept the theory of evolution. if christians had it their way there would be no technology or science, because science strives to resolve why something exists or happens, when christians already have their answer, "because god wills it..."