I’m a Catholic, and I’m going to school to be a historian. Recently in one of my classes, we were talking about Neanderthals, and I get interested in that! I was watching a video made by a scientist, (who is atheist), but he makes amazing videos! One of the people in the video is Christian and said that only atheists believe in science. I thought that was weird, since I’m Christian, and I know that science is literally true. Why do some Christians not believe in science and evolution? Like, we have fossils and stuff, like how can you say that it doesn’t exist? Also, I know i shouldn’t really say “believe”, because there’s actually facts for it, but i didn’t know what any other word to say
Many many do. It is usually just Biblical literalists and Young Earth Creationists who do not, because their beliefs may conflict with scientific discoveries.
If you think the earth was created 6,000 years ago, for instance, it's difficult to also believe dinosaurs existed 300 million years ago.
But there are also many of us who are Christians and also understand science :) You can be a Christian without being a literalist or a YEC
Thank you so much! I mean, how did that even come about? I even found out that there’s a museum where they say that dinosaurs lived with humans. What is this? The Flintstones? Yabba Dabba Do?
Young Earth Creationism? I think it starts with taking the Genesis account literally, and I think they also count years in the geneologies. Like they'll really believe one guy lived to 600 another to 900, etc, and when you add up the years they believe they can trace it back to Adam. Since they also think Adam was the only person on earth shortly after it was created, then they get to around 6000 years.
I could be wrong on some of the details, though. My parents are YECs so I grew up with the idea, but I haven't been one myself in a long time
Omg really? Like, they do know that humans can’t live that long right? Thank you so much!
Yeah, I've heard some version of "people use to live longer back then." Sort of like when people bring up incest to counter the "only Adam and Eve existed" and then someone will say "well, they had pure genes back then"
For instance, I've heard people claim the earth was surrounded by water before the flood. They also take the Noah's ark story literally. So they think the flood was all of this water falling down onto earth. Anyway, because the earth was surrounded by water before the flood, they'll say it created this greenhouse effect that let people live longer
I think all of this is just as much fiction as deciding genetics worked differently for Adam and Eve, of course, but I've heard people make the argument. Some people will say anything to keep from having to revise their original belief.
I will say, about the Noah’s Flood, I did recently find out that there’s also similar stories in other cultures! Also, yes Adam and Eve too
Definitely, I took a class on myths and the flood myth is common. Gilgamesh being perhaps the most common example
Yes! I forgot the name, but yes Gilgamesh! I thought it was really interesting! I heard that there was a flood in Greece that inspired those myths
During the end of the last ice age there was this phenomenon called a "glacial outburst flood," where ice dams would store massive amounts of water from the melting ice caps, which would occasionally collapse resulting in massive floods. The best examples in the US are the Missoula floods, which carved waterfalls the size of Niagara in hours and left riverbed ripples up to 50 feet tall.
You're going to notice that most civilizations grow up around large bodies of water, very often alluvial plains which large rivers run through. There's another aspect of large alluvial plains and deltas that rivers run though, when there are seasonal monsoons or similar weather systems.
If you're denying that humans can't live as long as scripture says some did, are you not denying the validity of scripture?
And it’s all to lead up to the 1000 year reign. Creation mirrors our history supposedly, so once the first 6000 years happen they finally get a 1000 years of rest on the “7th” day.
That's intertesting, I've never heard that before.
It’s how they interpret “a day is like a 1000 years”.
God told Adam on the day he partakes of the fruit he will die. So they try to get Adam’s life to make up about 1000 years to fulfill God’s promise, of dying the same day.
Stories like this give rise to timelines like Adam spent 40 years in Eden before being cast out.
It's true, this is how God created earth, 1995 years ago dude Jesus got Crucified. Have you forgotten? We live 6000 years yeah. We do believe in a form of evolution but dinosaurs have always lived with man. Just like Giants (Nephilim)
You might either be entertained or depressed after looking at this site that I was given to learn 'science' from as a homeschooled fundamentalist in 2008. It claims that dinos are still alive in undiscovered regions.
WHAT? I mean, they’re not wrong tho! Chickens are from dinosaurs!
This is more along the lines of 'the Loch Ness Monster is real and a dinosaur. Checkmate, atheists'
OMG yess
My son loves dino chicken nuggets and I always think the journey is hilarious. From dinos to chickens and back to dinos again
Yesss! I love that!! I’m 20 years old, (gonna be 21), and i still love Dino nuggets!
There's a good video by Folding Ideas about the history of Young Earth creationism in the US, called, "Mantracks: A True Story of Fake Fossils." It's really well done, and goes over the history of what a (harmless, imo) grift during the depression of carving fake fossils turned into a major misinformed theological movement.
Oooh thank you so much! I’ll have to check it out
Well, YEC-ism predates the European discovery of the Americas (the first one of course being an Icelander!).
Eh, sort of. The modern version is a specific rejection of scientific findings, so I'd classify it differently. Just like how flat-earthers today are separate from Ptolemy
I believe there are dinosaur displays at the Ark Encounter in Kentucky. They go as far as saying there were dinos on the ark.
I do think that’s crazy like dinosaurs were long gone by then
Non-avian dinosaurs if you want to be technical, but yes; birds aside, the dinosaurs went extinct long before man existed.
Oooooh I bet thats the one next to Dinosaur Valley State Park in Texas. I saw that when going to the park and was a little surprised.
I actually do wanna go, because it looks so cool!
It is, there are actual Dinosaur foot prints in the river in DVSP. Very very cool.
OMG that’s actually so cool!
It's actually pretty interesting! So, back in the day, various people tried working out exactly how old the world is based on lining up Biblical timelines. One of the most influential has been that of James Ussher in the 1600s, who gave the date of creation at 4004 BCE. Similarly, people noticed the presence of clearly aquatic fossils on land and had speculated that it might have something to do with the Biblical flood.
By the early 1800s, geological societies had started forming to facilitate sharing ideas about how geological features might have been formed, and the general consensus was that the earth must be much older than those chronologies. Models like diluvialism proposed that dramatic features like displaced boulders could be explained by Noah's flood, or by a series of floods like it, but also proposed that immense amounts of time must have passed before humans were running around. Eventually, as more work was done, it became clear that the story was more complicated than that.
In the mid 1800s, the prophetess of the Seventh Day Adventists (a Millerite offshoot), Ellen White reported visions about the flood. Her group was influenced by hearing about earlier diluvialist theories and also held a strictly literal 6-day, young view of Genesis. "Flood geology" hung on in Adventist circles and it was an Adventist, George McCreedy Price who published what became foundational texts of young earth creationism in the early 1900s.
In the mid 20th century, Whitcomb and Morris, an engineer and an evangelical theologian published The Genesis Flood, which relied heavily on Price and brought young earth creationism out of the niche of the SDA to a mainstream conservative (especially evangelical) American Christian audience. There are plenty of organizations that have cropped up, each with their own hills to die on regarding which chronology they prefer (Ussher's or someone else's) and what they think must have physically happened to produce the world we observe.
It's been swept into the larger "culture wars" by conservative American Christians ever since. I find it fascinating since my grandmother and great aunt joined the SDA later in life, and the amount of literature that that group produces about YEC is staggering.
"Back in the day" being ~2000 years ago.
And also more recently than that, as stated in my comment. Ussher's chronology is far and away the most influential.
The worst part is, is that (as I understand it) it says 6,000 in the bible because it was an impossibly large number. They couldn't comprehend millions, they just didn't have enough understanding of math and time to conceptualize it.
Its also funny because many of history's leading scientists were Christians. So people are rebuking a concept founded by a christian.
You know it doesn’t say 6,000 (or any number) for the age of the earth in the Bible?
That's absolute nonsense. First of all it doesn't say "6 000" (you add up various years) and second of all they did talk about millions (or "thousand thousands").
Yes!
I went to Catholic schools my whole life. They definitely taught us science and evolution. There was never a creationism vs evolution debate at my school. I was just taught evolution was God's tool for creating man and the creation story was just a story to help explain it to people. I don't know why other denominations might ignore science.
Yes I agree with you! I wonder why then did that person in the video say then that only atheists believe in science. I was like, uhhh
I wouldn't give that person much credit. You and I are both Christians and we both understand science. All my science teachers were also Christians. Heck, last summer I went to a service where the priest was talking atoms and deep time as part of his sermon. So he too clearly understood science.
My point is, there are lots of Christians out there who are scientists and have faith. I'd even go as far to say that my understanding of evolution and deep time has increased my faith in God. It's just all so complex. It's hard not to believe a higher power is behind it.
Ikr! I believe that God created evolution, and this also includes Neanderthals and stuff! Thank you so much
No problem. Evolution is my favorite science subject. It's just so neat! I'm glad you understand how cool it is too.
I really think it’s interesting, because, evolution led to Homo sapiens!
And one day, homo Sapiens will lead to a new species.
Many do. Catholics accept the Big Bang Theory and Evolution and many break-throughs in science were done by Catholic scientists.
Basically, Science is the "How" and God is the "Why"
Yes I agree!
Why would a theist accept the ‘how’, which is based on scientific research and demonstration, and then believe in an unproven god for the ‘why’? Either you value demonstrable evidence or you value unproven claims.
Because science and meta physics are two different things. Science is complimentary to Catholicism for me as it’s exploring the physical world God created and figuring out how God put it together. We believe in big bang and evolution but believe it’s being guided by God rather than by pure chance. That’s it. Science cannot disprove the metaphysical.
Let me give you an analogy, I am a software developer and I develop a SIMs type game or a Anno type game. I start my civilization then I watch the people grow and evolve in my game. Some of those guys become scientists and start digging into their world, they found evidence for a game engine, database servers, code, etc. but they cannot see me unless I reveal myself, they can only see whats beneath the hood of how their world works. Not necessarily who made it. They can choose to believe someone intelligently designed them or that it came by chance.
Thomas Aquinas 5 proofs for god explains it way better than I can.
The evangelical movement in America is highly conspiracy-theory based. They teach their followers to pat themselves on the back for this ignorance. They think it shows what a good Christian they are, that they dismiss "worldly" things such as biological knowledge.
Like, i think it makes like no sense. There’s actual evidence for it, and you just choose to ignore it! I went to a nondenominational church for youth group, and they told me that the reason why people in the Bible lived until like 900 years old, is because, and I quote, “their brains were so full of knowledge so they became big”
A very effective marketing technique is to tell people things like "Believe my story, and it'll mean you see the TRUTH where most of the world is blind." It appeals to people's egos.
So we've got people running around, confidently parroting half-baked gibberish that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
Ohhh thank you so much! I’m not saying all nondenominational people are like that, but i thought it was weird that she was telling me that when that literally is a bonkers statement
I was told Satan buried fossils in the ground to trick us, but I didn't buy it.
Omg really? Are you joking
As someone who is trying to talk my family out of these kinds of beliefs, they're just in there too deep. My mom has convinced herself that her ability to see her mother in the afterlife is contingent upon her not believing in science. I don't know how you fight that.
Whattt? That’s bonkers I’m sorry!
This is spot on honestly. Growing up evangelical I remember being taught that accepting evolution somehow meant you didn't have enough faith, like it was some kind of test. The amount of mental gymnastics people would do to explain away fossil evidence was wild
It's refreshing to see Catholics generally being more chill about this stuff - y'all figured out a long time ago that God could work through natural processes
A Catholic priest discovered the Big Bang!
Ikr!
Awww thank you so much! I agree
I’ve tried to defend Christianity at large in America but evangelicals and even many other Protestants make that difficult. They’re aberrations acting like everything they believe is canon.
As an American, I’m so sorry
That’s ok. You’re part of the right denomination.
I was under the impression that YEC/literalist evangelicals are primarily a US thing - can anyone confirm/deny this?
It is, but much like other US culture, it does travel outside the US, especially within the anglosphere.
They have a presence in Australia as well, with the major YEC organizations having their roots or branches there. Creationism is also a major belief in several sects of Christianity that are prominent in East Asia, notably including the Moonies. Also, the same folks bankrolling creationism in the US are exporting their rhetoric to regions of Africa, along with plenty of anti-gay funding.
While not quite the same, it's worth noting that "conservative" Muslims have also adopted similar rhetoric in parts of the middle east and elsewhere.
As a former YEC, it's a cult founded on ignorance, arrogance, and a belief in their secret truth. Most were raised in it, I was. It is not based on reason. It is solely based on a fervent belief that biblical literalism is the only valid interpretation of the Bible. And because the Bible must be infallible, anything that contradicts it must be false.
Ohh I see thank you so much! That sounds like cultish!
Many Muslim are like that too, when I say evolution is real, they say it's made by a Jewish scientist (Darwin) But Darwin isn't even Jewish... Even if he was Are there no bones of neanderthals to prove it? Some people just take things too literally
Ikr! Thank you so much! I bet there are some Muslims who do know that evolution is true!
(I am Muslim) Evolution is true my brother, we may have some faults in it but the main idea is hard to disprove I don't believe it goes against our religion(s) God made everything, evolution is one way god has created things
Yes! I agree with you!
I have a pretty simple way of looking at this. The reason some Christians reject science and evolution is not because science is wrong, but because a lot of modern Christians inherited a way of reading the Bible that is actually very new in Christian history.
For most of Christian history people did not read Genesis as a literal scientific report. Augustine, Origen, and other early Church thinkers warned Christians not to treat Genesis like a science textbook because it would make the faith look foolish when people learned real facts about the world. Christianity never had a problem with science. Most Christians in the world still do not.
The conflict really started in the late 1800s and early 1900s when a very strict literalism developed in some Protestant circles. Then in 1925 the Scopes Trial turned evolution into a cultural battlefield in the United States. After that a lot of people grew up hearing that evolution meant atheism and that science was the enemy of faith. That was never true, but it became part of their worldview.
Later in the 1960s young earth creationism exploded because of Henry Morris. That movement taught people that scientists are lying, that fossils are a trick, and that accepting evolution would destroy morality. If someone grows up around that message, they are going to feel threatened by science. It is not about evidence. It is about identity and fear.
A lot of Christians also misunderstand what evolution actually is. They think evolution means God plays no role or that humans lose their value. But evolution only describes how life develops. It does not tell us why life exists or what it means. Those are theological questions, not scientific ones. The Catholic Church fully accepts evolution while still affirming the soul, human dignity, and divine purpose.
So the short version is this. Some Christians reject evolution because they were taught a false conflict between science and faith, they fear losing God if they accept scientific reality, and they absorbed misinformation that came out of modern culture wars.
As a Christian myself I see no issue at all with science. God’s world and God’s word go together. If something is true in nature it is true because God created a world that runs on order, consistency, and discoverable laws. We do not have to choose between facts and faith. Truth is truth.
Ohhh I see thank you so much!
The deeper theological reason some Christians reject science and evolution is because they think their entire faith rests on a very fragile foundation. If Genesis is not literal in every detail, they feel like everything else collapses. So instead of reading Scripture for the message God is actually giving, they end up defending their own interpretation of Scripture as if it were the thing that saves them.
For many people the Bible became a kind of shield against uncertainty. If evolution is true, then the world is bigger than they were taught. The universe is older than they imagined. Humanity has a long shared story with the natural world. None of that threatens God, but it can feel overwhelming to someone who has always been told that faith means certainty instead of trust.
The Bible never teaches that faith requires denying reality. In fact the entire Biblical story is about trusting God in the middle of reality. The point of Genesis is that God is the Creator, that God brings order out of chaos, that humans bear the image of God, and that creation is good. None of that is changed or weakened by fossils, genetics, or evolution.
Some Christians also confuse the authority of Scripture with the accuracy of their own interpretation. If they were raised to see Genesis as literal science, then accepting evolution feels like admitting they misunderstood the Bible. That is a hard thing for anyone to face. So instead of rethinking the interpretation, they reject the scientific evidence because it feels safer.
Another theological reason is fear. If evolution is true, they worry that humans are not special or that morality has no grounding. But the truth is that Christianity gives humans purpose not because of how God made our bodies, but because of who God is and because we are made in Gods image. Evolution does not remove human dignity any more than understanding how our hearts work removes the dignity of love.
At its core faith is about trusting God. Not trusting our own ideas. Not trusting our own certainty. Trusting God. And Christians have always believed that all truth is Gods truth. Creation reveals God just as Scripture reveals God. When both are understood correctly they never contradict each other.
So the heart of the issue is this. Some Christians reject science because they fear that accepting it means losing God. But the reality is that God is not threatened by truth. The natural world is Gods world. The Bible is Gods word. The two work together and help us understand the beauty and depth of what God has done.
Ohhh I see thank you so much
What made the conflict start there is rather that then science started to discover things that contradicted the Bible.
Well, yeah. By that time it was 2000 years scientifically out of date.
Biblical fundamentalists and Young Earth believers have a very outsized media and cultural effect compared to their actual number of believers. The majority of Christians believe in evolution.
Ohhh thank you so much! What is a fundamentalist?
Basically a literalist.
Ohhh I see thank you so much
Adding a little more detail here: the definition is intended to refer to someone trying to get "back to fundamentals". They adhere to basic and foundational principles in a rigid and anti-modern manner, rebuking things that are "changes" or "additions".
Keep in mind that when it comes to religion this will also mean a strong rejection of other sects. In Christianity, it originated in the early 20th century Protestant movement, and it was equally a rebuke of more "liberal" or "modernist" Protestantism as well as Catholic dogma and interpretation.
Also, it's almost always going to be linked with conservatism (religious and/or political), as the whole idea is to reject novelty or reinterpretation in an effort to force traditional views or values to the fore.
No idea. You're gonna have to ask them why.
The same kind of poeples also think that all atheists are evil, usually.
So be ready to face hostility when you'll tell them that you learned from one.
Yea that’s true! But, wait till I tell them that the Big Bang Theory, (not the show. The creators are Jewish believe it or not), was actually found by a priest I think! Also, I don’t understand because not every atheist is evil! My bff is an atheist!
Haha. I learned something. Good serie
Ikr! It’s a good show! But seriously, I think it’s actually interesting that a priest found the Big Bang Theory
My harsh answer is that they want to remake God in their own, small image. It’s comforting to imagine God is perched just on the other side of the moon like an earthly grandpa only bigger. And it’s scary to think of a God who can make a universe so big and old and complex they feel insignificant in it. But that’s only when I’m feeling irritable.
Two more immediate answers may be more kind.
First of all, I think they’re opposed to science because so many who leave the church or deconstruct are drawn to science. (My own father grew up a Bible-thumping, street preaching fundamentalist. When he became alienated from the church he became an equally fervent Darwin-thumping “secular humanist.” Same tunes, different lyrics.) That’s got to leave those who remain suspicious of those who seem to replace religion with science.
Another great reason, based in the late 19th Century, was the eager adoption of “survival of the fittest” by aristocrats and industrialists to justify their sometimes literally murderous exploitation of “lower” classes in their own countries, and “lower races” in other countries. (I’m not a fan of fundamentalists but I can say their opposition to evolution was inspired in part by discomfort with the inhumane implications evolution’s proponents were reading into it.)
A third reason is best captured by Christian Scientists who, while not opposed to science in general prefer to believe God made us this way and we shouldn’t try to intervene.
And, being harsh again, some small-minded types, Catholics as well as Protestants (but also parents!), just don’t want people asking questions that might undermine their earthly authority.
Finally, most Christians are 100% fine with science. To my mind there’s no conflict because the spiritual is as different from the material as food is to drink: we need both to understand ourselves in the world. And, like tea and toast, we can take not just nourishment but comfort in both.
[light edits for typos]
Thank you so much! I agree
Primarily because the scientific method does not account for supernatural phenomena. This typically puts it in opposition to the supernatural claims of the Bible. The ones whom you're asking about prioritize their faith or their understanding of Scripture over natural explanations of things as brought forth by the scientific method.
Example: There's no geologic or archaeological evidence of a world-wide flood. The ones you're asking about would say "The Bible says there was, so science is wrong." Christians more accepting of science would say that the flood was probably local and some elements were enhanced (Noah building some form of raft or boat and taking his livestock with him or something turning into "all the animals", or something similar).
Ohhh I see thank you so much! I will say, there are many flood myths in the area! I am studying to be a historian, and I’m also a Christian, and I will say, every story is based on a bit of truth. There are tons of cultures with similar myths about a great flood. There is some speculation that a flood during the Last Glacial Period, (which was around 115,000 to 11,700 years ago), wiped out a Stone Age society that lived close to the Mediterranean Sea, due to the rising sea level.
Because they think they ought to take the Bible literally, and that scientists/governments are making things up to make people move away from God.
It's the same thing the flat earthers think.
Also things like evolution are massive data points for the problem of evil/suffering.
Evolution is a brutal system, and while many Christians accept it (because it's true) it is a big data point against an all loving God.
I understand that, but evolution does exist! My personal opinion is that God made evolution
Yes of course it does. The evidence is overwhelming. Even Creationists accept evolution within "kinds" and even some amount of speciation. They've been dragged kicking and screaming towards it. What they continue to deny is a strawman version of "macro evolution" and common ancestry. They also deny human - ape evolution.
What do you mean
... I don't know what you're asking. I mean what I said.
Like the macro evolution
Creationists think "macro evolution" means an entirely new organism coming from another organism. That's not how it works.
So they accept "micro evolution" which to them means "adaptation within kinds" but they deny "macro evolution" which to them means some new "kind" has evolved. It's nonsense creationist definitions that biologists don't use.
"Macro evolution" is just broader speciation events over population levels over time.
Micro evolution is smaller changes in real time. They're both the same thing, the same mechanism. Creationists just want to pretend that evolution means something that it doesn't.
It's also worth noting that "kind" or "created kind" is an extremely vague and malleable term. It's a lot like "well, I know it when I see it".
Yeah exactly, that's why I put it in quotes.
Species isn't particularly that well defined either, but that's a product of evolution, not necessarily a fault in how we define things. It's more of an emergent level description.
"Kind" means nothing at all.
Ohh I see thank you so much! Yea, I agree with you! It doesn’t work like that!
You respond incredibly fast lol
I do lol! I just finished school, so I’m home now!
They are not the same process. To speciate has never been observed, while microevolution has been. So you could be 100% correct and maybe evolution is just the process by which God made us, and I respect you as a fellow believer and human. But I don't like being seen as some crazy idiot or "cultist" just because I think God's word is to be interpreted literally.
Edit, I am wrong, speciation is an observed phenomenon and is provable, but I was proved wrong by someone who has a better argument than I do. Dr Jason Lisle talks about the difference between species and kinds. I know in a later comment you talk about kinds meaning nothing but I think your should read this article. https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/species-or-kinds/
Speciation absolutely has been observed, just not in the way that the strawman creationist version is.
I don't think you're an idiot or a cultist, I just think you're wrong, and have a basic misunderstanding of the theory. That's fine, there are plenty of theories I don't understand as well. That doesn't mean you're an idiot, we can't all be experts about everything.
And as per your edit, that's awesome. Now I definitely don't think you're an idiot, because you're willing to change your mind.
I've seen all the information on "kinds" I need to see. The problem is that creationists don't know where to say "this was the created kind, and all the others aren't related to it" there's no mechanism for doing that.
Had to be intelectually honest there lol. And yeah I could see how you get to that conclusion considering were all over the place on definitions.
He said he made us in his image, and yet evolved us from primates, and further back, bacteria?
I feel the opposite. The more I learn about evolution and deep time, the deeper my faith has gotten. It's just all so complex, and there are so many factors that play into us being here. The formation of the moon and tides, gas giants protecting us from object in space, the fact that 1 time and only 1 time a cell engulfed another cell and instead of dying it formed a symbiotic relationship leading to the mitochondria which allows for multicellular life. There are just so many great barriers life had to jump through to get here. It makes it hard for me to believe it is all just random.
Same here!
You're talking about two separate things.
You're talking about complexity (which isn't a Hallmark of design) but that's fine. There are ways you can look at evolution and think "oh wow, that's crazy that happened, must have been God"
But that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the sheer brutality of evolution as a mechanism. When God could have just popped any life form in to existence using any mechanism he wanted, he decided the best course of action was to create a system full of suffering, confusion, and agonizing death.
"Survival of the fittest" means the brutal deaths of the weakest. Evolution works because of the constant fight for resources, organisms consuming other organisms, organisms fighting for survival in brutal conditions. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for mass extinctions for example.
So the point isn't "wow look at how complicated this is" the data point I'm referring to is the well known problem of evil/suffering. And if you're going to create life, deciding to create the system in one of the most brutal ways possible seems like an odd decision for a loving God.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Complexity is only a part of it for me. The bigger part is the rarity of the aforementioned events. As far as we know, all of those are oddities that lead to life being what it is.
I don't see evolution as proof God isn't all loving. But I also don't think God is this all powerful being that has magical powers. I don't agree that God could have just popped life into existence. He has to use tools. Those tools being physics. He still loves his creations. Some things are just out of his control.
I also don't see death and suffering (outside of human suffering caused by other humans) as universally bad things. Death is part of life. It gives life meaning. Death needs to happen so new life can have a chance at living. And when one thing dies, what is left gives life to new things. There are only so many atoms and elements on earth.
I did want to mention, a lot of Christians do not believe plants and animals have souls. So I don't think your argument about deaths in nature will be very effective when discussing theology in some circles. I personally don't agree about plants and animals not having souls. I just wanted to point that out for you to help with future decisions is all. :)
Thank you for the fun discussion so far by the way.
No, I wouldn't say it's "proof" in some sort of absolute sense of the word. It can be worded as a philosophical "proof" but it's not proof in the colloquial sense.
That's why I said it's a "data point"
That's interesting though, that you think God has to use tools that are already there, because most theists (in philosophy at least) define God as the necessary being that creates all contingent things. So in that sense, the laws of physics would be contingent on God, not the other way around.
If God has to rely on such things, then you may be able to save the "all loving" part, but you lose the "all powerful" part. So I guess it's up to you which way you want to have it.
It's not just about "death" though. You can die peacefully in your sleep. The question is why would the mechanism NEED to have brutal suffering like an animal getting it's leg trapped under a rock, dying and starving in confused agony with no one around to even witness it. Where's the gain?
Also on the subject of death, Christians don't even believe death exists for humans at least. They believe we are eternal beings.
You're talking adhoc here I think. "Death needs to happen to bring about other things" right, but God was the one who made that system of limited resources, where death, and decay, and suffering are a part of life. He didn't need to do that.
Whether planets or animals have souls or not is one question, but they still objectively suffer.
Apologies. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
God doesn't control living things. If an animal does something that causes itself to get hurt or finds itself in a location without food, that not God's doing. I love my chickens but if one escapes and gets hit by a car and dies there isn't anything I can do about it. I still love her and want her to have the best life. I just can't control what she, or any other living things, will do. I think God is the same.
Not sure who told you we don't believe in death. That doesn't align with what I was taught in Catholic schools. Maybe some denominations feel differently but I wouldn't know. There is eternal life in Heaven but our time here is limited as we do not belong here, we are only passing through. I wouldn't say going to heaven means you don't die. Death just refers to the end of one's physical form.
As stated before, I think physics are God's tools. So I'd disagree with your point of view"he didn't need to do it that way".
True. But it does mean they might not care about the suffering, which was my point. A nun at my school rolled her eyes at me when I wanted to pray for my sick dog when I was in high school lol. I don't think she cared that it was suffering. Again, I don't agree with that. I feel like pointing that out is important.
No worries, I was simply clarifying.
"That's not God's doing" right, and I don't quite buy that the creator of the entire world had no part to play in that, but let's just say he lets the tape roll forward without intervening.
It doesn't really matter because again, God didn't need to use this mechanism.
There's a lot you can do to keep your chickens safe, and stop them from running away. You don't just have an open yard with chickens facing the road. I'm assuming you have lit measures in place to keep them relatively safe.
You're also not God, so unfortunately the analogy falls apart. You're a human, you make mistakes, you make faulty protections that are unpredictable with unpredictable chickens because you don't know the entire future of everything. You do your best, sure, but you're just an ape trying to get on with your life, warts and all. God is supposed to be the perfect being.
Christians told me. If you're an eternal being, who exists in the eternal afterlife, then it's not really death at all. If death is just the end of the physical form then you still get to carry on existing afterwards without all this brutal evolution stuff, which implies it was never really necessary in the first place. I'm assuming once you leave your physical form, the laws of physics no longer apply, in which case your earlier idea that God needs to use the laws of physics as a tool is contradicted.
If he cares about the suffering, he wouldn't have created the mechanism that causes a lot of suffering. Do you know how many organisms including humans who have died alone in abject agony? The number is astronomical. And that's the mechanism he created?
The nun may have rolled her eyes (nuns right? Lol) but she is a human who is unable to control the situation in any way shape or form. God could have made it differently that's the point.
Now you could argue that there is some divine reason why he had to make it that way rather than another. But it's still a data point for the problem of evil.
It’s a byproduct of the Protestant reformation.
Oh really? I had no idea about this!
As you said Catholic are not against science. Once you say the Bible alone is the source of faith it’s a small step to Bible is only source of truth.
Ohhh thank you so much! We were just talking about the Protestant reformation in class I should’ve told my professor this
Big bang theory. Genetics. Are both Catholic theories/ discoveries
Oh I didn’t know that a Catholic discovered genetics
Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian friar!
OMG I had no idea!
Now you know!
I love that actually!
Honestly its because Young earth creationism is proving to be an invaluable tool for Evangelicals to discredit other religions, discredit science that is contradictory...I am not Catholic but I don't see many catholics living and dieing on the fact their Muslim neighbor just won't go to their church or their gay friend just won't go talk to someone at their church who "changed through Jesus". The Christians who really buy into YEC I don't even know if they believe it so much as it just makes their theology work
it's easier to get them to vote for republicans if you convince them that evidence is a lie.
Poor education is usually the answer.
Ohhh I see thank you so much
Because they think science is woke?
I have no idea! I don’t know how science is “woke” it’s fact
I personally think it’s blasphemous to ignore the scientists that God bless us with.
Yes I agree with you! Also those Christians that don’t use doctors or blood transfusions! I was born one pound, and I had 9 blood transfusions. If I didn’t have those blood transfusions, I would’ve died
Because science and evolution are methodologies that removes gaps in our understanding, and it does so with the most accurate and powerful track record in all of human existence.
And the vast majority of people need some gaps in understanding for their gods, or supernatural explanations to fit in. So it’s really comes down to how many gaps of what’s type does an individual require to place their supernatural explanation/god in.
There will always be atleast one gap, we cannot know all things it’s logically impossible, so a gap will always exist, but not all Christians especially the more evangelical, conservative, literalist, inerrantist are not content with that single ultimate gap for there supernatural explanations. They require the supernatural fill everything and all gaps past and present. There faith requires a god that is the explanation of every minute detail, and science provides contradictory explanations.
Ohhh I see thank you so much
Every church believes in science and the scientific method.
Every church, or at least almost every church, (yes, yours too) is willing to reject what science is telling us when it goes against closely held theology.
Ohhh I see thank you so much
i think it boils down to the argument from incredulity fallacy and not understanding that science is descriptive not prescriptive. scientific laws are just repeatable observations.
Ohhh thank you so much
If you pick a random group of people belonging to any religion in the world, some of those people will be highly intelligent, and some will be... stupid. Some Christians are highly intelligent and some are stupid. Some Christians believe dinosaurs aren't real, and some Christians believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
What's extremely ironic though is that there are Christians who ask things like "But if dinosaurs were real, then why doesn't the bible mention them?". Well, it does. The bible directly says God created every kind of land creature. Were dinosaurs not land creature? Why would they not be included in the "every thing that creepeth upon the earth"?
Yess I agree!
I wouldn't say were all stupid and not all YEC's believe in no dinosaurs, as Job has some earily similar depictions of animals that resemble dinosaurs.
Anyone who takes the Bible literally belongs in a mental institution.
Thank you so much
And I say this as a devout Christian. My hero is John Shelby Spong, also a devout Christian, who has been widely vilified by many church leaders simply for speaking the truth. 50-100 years from now whatever remains of Christian churches will look very different and forward thinkers like Spong will be revered as modern prophets. SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE NOT INCOMPATIBLE!
It contradicts with their interpretation of the creation stories in genesis. It you want to do some reading look into the early 20th century fundamentalist movement, basically it was a reactionary movement to the perceived liberalism of mainline Christianity.
It for example contradicts their holy book.
It is a weird thing to say since Christian thinkers were largely responsible for the development of science.
Generally when a Christian rejects various scientific findings about evolution and the age of the earth, it’s because they read Genesis improperly, as if it’s a modern natural history text. As a result they see science as being at odds with scripture.
Skeptics do the same thing when they read Genesis this way, or see scientific findings as supporting for naturalism.
Ohh I see thank you so much!
I am a Christian and I do believe in evolution and science! I believe they go hand in hand! Science has allowed me to believe even more in God! Amazing how he created everything!
Same here! Thank you so much!
I know I lot of Christians that do, like myself, and a lot of Christians that don’t. I have encountered a few that don’t that had the concern of “if evolution exists then Adam and Eve didn’t exist and the creation story didn’t exist and therefore God doesn’t exist”. Which isn’t true, of course. Personally, I think learning about evolution and developments in science is one of the best things to happen to our relationship with God. We learn so much more about Him and how He created us and the world through observation and discovery, not just scripture.
I feel like science and evolution and Atheism have nothing to do with each other as in believing in one so that would mean you don’t believe in the other. Both can still somehow be applied. Just because I like or believe in science doesn’t mean I’m an atheist. Just because I’m an atheist (I’m not an atheist by the way) doesn’t mean I like or believe in science. Science is research and there are things that can not be explained and there are things that are hidden from us. Same with religion there are things that are hidden from us and things that can not be explained. We are not going to know everything and won’t be able to explain everything. I love science that doesn’t mean I’m an atheist. I believe evolution can’t really be explained without it being complicated but it’s still amazing to me. Question: why do some atheists say they believe in science as if that has to do with anything? Lots of things can’t be explained including history and why or how anyone can start a religion. You don’t have to believe everything that comes with science and evolution and religion. Everything is so confusing and sometimes people lie and hide things. I don’t completely believe that King Solomon was wise and I don’t completely believe that monkeys can magically turn into human beings (also let me know if the reverse is true and when both are supposed to happen along with the process and name since Metamorphosis is a thing which I do believe in btw). I wonder what not completely believing in these two things make me…maybe agnostic 🤣.
You raise some key points here; let's break down a couple of things.
You're mostly correct here; atheism and science are not inherently linked. While not common, there are atheists that believe in other supernatural things aside from gods, for example.
The connection is two-fold:
First, science denialism is popularly pushed by religious folks who feel that scientific findings violate their faith. Religion doesn't need to be accompanied by science denialism, but it is a vector for it; religion is often used to encourage people to deny science or scientific findings, and has been a major part of the anti-intellectual movements in America, Australia, and elsewhere. Because of this, when atheists get together to push back against religious overreach, the support of science is typically one of the things that atheists get behind since science is quite beneficial and science denial is quite harmful.
Second, while atheists need not accept science, nor understand science, nor know much about science, when you don't have religious pressure to deny inconvienient facts about reality it's easier to accept science for what it is: a powerful tool for figuring out how the world works and a body of knowledge gathered by using that tool. Atheists have little motivation to reject science, so they typically support it whether or not they have any expertise in it.
It also helps that highly-educated folks and scientists are often not religious, but that's almost an aside.
Still, there's an important principle worth highlighting while on the topic:
The difference here is that science is, again, a tool for learning about how the world works. Science begins with the notion that we are ignorant and from there tries to work things out. It's not a means of becoming suddenly correct; science isn't a magic eight ball or prophet or whatever. Instead, science is a method for becoming less and less wrong, a tool for cleaving away things that are false or unfounded until what's left comes to resemble the truth. It makes predictive models and works to refine them.
Religion does not do that. It cannot; it has no means of self-correction. In so far as religion is based in faith, it requires accepting something as true either without evidence for it or despite evidence against it, and in that sense is antithetical to the sciences. In that regard, while a religious person can accept science, use science, and assure that their faith is compatible with scientific findings, the core belief of a religion runs contrary to the basics of science - because science doesn't accept things as true without evidence, and religion must do so.
To answer your question then:
Typically, that would come with the intended meaning "I trust scientific principles & findings over religious claims"; it'll usually be said in the context of believing what science has found instead of what some preacher says.
One last clarification:
Well, good news there, there's no magic to it. Monkeys don't and didn't magically turn into humans. Humans are just one branch of the family tree of the monkeys - or, to be specific, the simians. Literally all humans are monkeys. How can you tell? Well that's easy; all monkeys are haplorhines ("dry-nosed" primates, as opposed to "wet-nosed" lemurs and lorises) that have certain traits, notably including:
If you've got primate features, a nose that's not wet like a dog's, two nipples on your chest, and the ability to know that the monkey in the mirror is you, then you're a monkey just like the rest of us!
The process by which humans arose is no different from that of other creatures; lineages split, speciation occurred, and over time different branches of the family tree picked up mutations that led them to be quite different while different environments applied different selective pressures.
Thank you. I loved how you explained that 🥰. I wasn’t sure if according to evolution humans evolved from monkeys or not. I was kinda thinking if monkeys eventually evolved into humans so either that process just somehow stopped or slowed down and may come eventually and I was thinking if it wasn’t this then humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. But during class I’ve mostly seen how monkeys just somehow turn into humans and I heard that’s what evolutionists believe and I didn’t fully believe it. I feel like humans shared an ancestor that was still considered human and I eventually learned about the Neanderthal, which I learned about in sixth grade. I just find the concept between religion and science a bit ridiculous. Just because I believe in a religion that doesn’t mean when I start believing in science and how things are researched and explained that doesn’t mean I’ll just stop believing.
I really don’t get why people argue that evolution is real or that the earth is 6,000 years old. It’s scientifically proven and it doesn’t change my beliefs at all.
IKR SAME HERE
Science and Christianity simply cannot co exist. It must be one or the other. If you are a Christian that believes in sconce then why even bother complicating matters believing in supernatural/unscientific things (walking on water/god etc)
I see Christians mainly of the older generation being against evolution, whilst the younger generation being more in accord with evolution.
Just ask Christians that're around the ages of 50 and above if they believe evolution to be true, and you'd get extremely bewildering arguments and answers.
My grandmother herself and most Christians in my family disregard Evolution as a false truth. While many of my friends around my age see it as being true.
It really just depends on the person and their take on it, although I highly doubt that evolution didn't occur, as that would be highly amusing to think that God would have just randomly left behind bones of animals millions of years old and that clearly predate modern-day humans.
Evangelicals take Genesis to be literal. The reality is that Catholic scientists are responsible for more scientific developments than any other group and the church regularly has funded (and still does) scientific ventures including astronomy, genetics, mathematics, etc.
It's really just an evangelical Bible literalist thing (and ironically these are the same ones that vehemently declare John 6 to be symbolic)
Ohhh I see thank you so much! What is John 6? I forgot right now
Bread of life discourse. AKA the establishment of the Eucharist and the real presence of Christ in it.
Ohhh thank you so much
I guess I'm interested in the opposite question for you. How can someone who believes in science and evolution also be a Christian? Not that you can't be, but there does seem to be an obvious tension between faith and the scientific method. For example, a key tenet of the faith is that Jesus was born of a virgin. Science would tell us that it's impossible for a woman in that day and age to conceive a child without sex. Do I take the scientific consensus on how children are made, or do I accept by faith the virgin birth?
Well, God is a supernatural being.
Science deals with the natural.
Doesn’t mean that I can accept both as truths.
Honestly you have a good point! I haven’t really thought of that before
I think the difference between your two examples, evolution and Jesus being born of a virgin, is that science tells us that the former did happen, but cannot prove or disprove the latter.
There is a lot of evidence for evolution and the big bang theory, and these are not theories created on a whim. We can and have used science to test these theories.
In contrast, it’s simply not possible to use science to test the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. The only possible way we could test this would be using genetic material from Mary, Jesus, and Joseph. Since getting genetic material from Jesus is impossible, and getting it from Mary and Joseph would be at best very difficult, there’s no way to test that
Another commenter said that science is the how, and God is the why. I quite like that. I don’t think science and Christianity are in conflict any more than history and English literature are in conflict. They aren’t completely disconnected from each other, but they don’t directly interact with each other
The only issue with this, for me, is the Bible does lay out in detail how God made man and woman in the book of Genesis, Adam from the dust of the ground and eve from Adams rib. Now if we agree that evolutionary theory has proved that's not how humans have come to exist, you can either say the Bible is wrong and therefore untrue and unreliable or you can say it's just an allegory. If it is, then why can't the existence of Jesus or virgin birth also just be allegories that shouldn't be taken literally?
That’s a fair question! In my opinion, the answer is simple: whether or not the events of Genesis literally happened doesn’t affect our salvation. Our salvation is not dependent on a specific way for God to have created the universe. In contrast, everything about the life of Jesus does have a direct impact on our salvation. Jesus was and is the son of God, and the fact that Joseph is not his father matters. By extension, the fact that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born matters because it serves as evidence that God is Jesus’s father, not Joseph
[deleted]
I just used it as an example because op was Catholic and as you said, the vast majority of Christians throughout history believe it as a key tenet. The term Christian is so meaningless and undefinable, apparently the famous atheist Richard Dawkins considers himself a 'cultural Christian', whatever that means. Are there any supernatural beliefs that you hold that fly in the face of what we currently understand as scientifically impossible? Miracles? The ressurection?
Yes! I will say, I have seen Mary before. She has come to me, (I’m not joking. I’m trying to get the Catholic Church to verify it but idk how)
It’s probably one of those things where you’d have to ask the individual person why they don’t “believe in science”.
Like what do you mean
It’s better to find someone who expresses they don’t believe in science, and asking them why.
Otherwise you’ll just get a bunch of speculation and assumptions based on little more than people’s “I feel like…”
Ohhhh ok! Thank you so much!
I feel like believing in science is easy as a Christian because when you look at gravity specifically it is a constant. If gravity ever faultered below or higher than what it is the earth would either implode off course and either way we all die which is crazy to think about. But also that constant doesnt just come from randomness. Randomness cant create that which is why its hard to believe in just the big bang theory because one that perfect number for gravity along with the perfect placement of the earth away from the sun to support life and the perfect placement of the moon away from the earth so the oceanse dont consume us and then all of that to come from two little particles just luckily "randomly" hitting each other and creating the whole universe? That takes more faith than believing in God. This whole creation requires an intelligent mind because there has to be an uncaused first cause. As far as evolution im kind of opposed to. First of all its the theory of evolution so its not even confirmed nor denied but its not proven. Second, i bekieve more in adaptation than evolution.
Well there are people who do believe In evolution as Christians like Cliffe Knechtle the real debate is whether or not it contradicts the idea of Adam and Eve. Some believe that genesis could be interpreted in a way that says humans did come from monkeys, while some say that God created Adam from dust and Eve from the rib cage of Adam. Science is the study of God’s creation whether atheist believe that or not here’s a link against evolutionism counter argument
"Counter argument"
*Proceeds to link us a website that's equivalent to a flat earth website*
Genius move there, Einstein.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I just had a read of it. They cite thermodynamics as an actual argument against evolution XD
Oi. Old mate. 2010 called. They want their debunked argument back. Muppet.
Respectfully this is highly debated theology not simple issues that were solved many years ago and I did not mean this to directly oppose this person point of view, saying “counter argument” was misleading, I did it as a way to answer OP’s question about why people think that evolution is not biblical and using an official website that has this point of view is one of the best ways to do that.
Respectfully, you shouldn't be linking horse shit websites which have had their arguments torn to pieces 15 years ago.
I am not kidding when I say the "evolution violates thermodynamics" nonsense was debunked 15 years ago. I should know, I was online refuting that crap at that time. It was 2010-2011 era. I was have been in my mid teens at the time as well. It's depressing that me - a kid at the time 15 years ago - knows better than you in 2025.
But even the there were still others reasons against evolution. Truly, if I spread misinformation I’m sorry I’m still very young and learning.
There are no valid reasons against evolution. It's a well established scientific theory with a century and a half worth of research to back it. It's about as iron-clad as you can get in science.
If you're on the younger side, I'll stop the scathing tones, that's my bad on that. I guess I'm just used to 40-something year olds who don't understand even the fundamental basics.
I will do my best to find more recent evidence and get back in touch with you.
My man, whatever you "find" I can 100% guarantee it will be bogus.
Well this video is less providing evidence against evolution and more debunking evolutionary beliefs Debunking evolutionary thoughts video
*Sigh* Dude. Answers in Genesis is a well known pseudo-scientific organisation.
Answer me this. If I went out of my way to search for a YouTube video that "proves" that the Earth is flat and I linked that to you, would you take me seriously?
If you're old enough to have a debate on Reddit, you would be old enough to understand what's considered reliable sources and what's not. Answers in Genesis is NOT reliable, for the same reason that Ancient Aliens isn't reliable -.-
Why should I listen to someone who insists the sun doesnt exist?
Yung concept of evolution lang naman po ang hindi ako naniniwala. Evolution says that we evolve from apes, so clearly it contradicts the Bible.
How about dinosaurs fossils? ofcourse I believe. Did you know that it was in the Bible? Refer to the book of Job, Job mentioned about behemoth- An animal whose tail was like a cedar tree. And you can also search that there was an evidence of a global flood due to the fossils of dinosaurs found in a opisthotonic death pose position and this supports the flood in Noah's time.
I love science and I always watch National Geographic series about the Secrets of the Bible
Some of us love science. What we don’t love is the “science” that outright contradicts the Word of God. But you name it, and I’m interested in it, fascinated by it, and am always wanting to learn more about it, when it comes to science in general, as long as it does not contradict God’s Word. And that covers a lot of territory. Contrary to what individuals may assume, the two are not mutually exclusive. Biology and medicine are chief interests of mine, but are not the only ones. It’s why I understand, for instance, how mRNA vaccines work and don’t make ridiculous assumptions about my Dana’s being altered, or my bloodstream being forever flooded with the virus that I then go around shedding. Ridiculous.
[removed]
Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Yes, well, and science is not an entity that would “care” either way. It makes no sense to me to anthropomorphize “science”.
Unfortunately for you, science doesn't care that your religious beliefs are contradicted by it. Scientific theories have mountains of evidence behind them, and you not agreeing with science that contradicts your religion, doesn't make it unscientific.
Reposting with altered words because mods don't understand the difference between my two cents and an accurate statement about reality.
I have yet to encounter a science that contradicts the word of God