Why creationists will never accept the theory of evolution

That's true but if they also believe in a literal Adam & Eve as the very first people, I think there's a problem? This is because in scripture those two people had no parents but the theory of evolution clearly states that all living things descend from a previous generation or pre-existing example of the same species (depending on whether they were produced sexually or not).

The only exception to this rule is the very first proto-lifeform & it's still not certain what form that took.

So I think there is a fundamental contradiction between belief in a literal Adam or a literal Eve & the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary explosions? The so-called Cambrian 'explosion' took place over some 20 million years & is quite long enough for evolution to take effect & produce the results we see in the fossil record.

opie, if scripture claims that any human, or human-like creature, came into existence other than by sexual procreation, it fundamentally contradicts modern evolutionary theory. That's simply how it is.

All life on earth originated from a very ancient proto-lifeform. DNA analysis confirms this because all living things share a certain amount of the same DNA. Since that rudimentary, single-celled creature, every single living thing has descended from a previous generation of the same species. Modern evolutionary theory does not allow for any living creature to spring into existence by any other means.

So how you think "the Lord formed the man from the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into him and the man became a living being", conforms with evolution is beyond me.

It doesn't!

Not really, what do you think 'dust' is? And you can't possibly think Genesis is describing a long & very complex chain of evolutionary events between the formation of the first lifeform & the coming of man?

Read it literally as YEC's claim to do! 'God' creates Adam from a handful of dust but we now know this cannot be true.

That is true. Another way of saying that is God created man from the life of the earth and breathed into him and he became a living being. The term used "being" was a term used only for spiritual beings, Such as God, angels, demons, and the devil himself.

Actually, many, many many Christian's do not interpret that part quite so literally.

(Growing up, my Pastor was one.)

@ Stephen

I would like to draw your attention to a very interesting webpage. Is called The Clergy Letter Project.

http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm

Begun in 2004, this continuing project is an Open Letter, signed solely by ordained Christian Ministers, endorsing Evolution as a viable scientific possibility. And urging governments not to remove the teaching of such, from our schools.

15,178 signatures as of 7/11/19. Not counting many more Jewish, Buddhist, and Unitarian Clergy as well.

And it reads as follows:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Good comment in my opinion.

There's no separate class of actuality called 'religious truth'. Truth, if the word is to have any meaning, relates to what can be stated about matters of fact. All else is supposition, conjecture or opinion.

All human emotion & sense of spirituality, however deeply felt, is the product of the activity of a person's brain. I know of no evidence of any substance that points to any other conclusion.

Re: My response to hellodebake? I think he does read much of the OT literally but I know that the majority of Christians do not.

The Catholic Church formerly accepted modern evolutionary theory as far back as 1950 & most other denominations have followed, including the Islamic world I think.

But when somebody quotes directly from scripture, in an attempt to refute some scientific principle, I think it's important to nail whatever falsehood is being presented?

More of a 'curate's egg' - good in parts?

Let me take just the final sentences...

"We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth"

I fully endorse the sentiment that evolution should be taught to all children: As a scientific theory it's supported by an extensive body of evidence. I also think it's important to make clear what science is for, what its purpose is - to further our understanding of how natural systems work.

But I wince when I read the closing part because I don't know of any aspect of religious faith that can be described as 'truth' in the way I understand the term.

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life began & the emergence of the first proto-lifeform that was able to replicate its own rudimentary RNA/DNA is still a mystery.

But what evolution does tell us is that every subsequent lifeform, from virus or bacteria up to a Blue Whale descended from a parent(s) of the same species. No living thing after the first proto-lifeform  came into existence without a previous generation that was very similar.

The implication of that knowledge is that if some creature is claimed to have had no progenitor, then it would have had to have been the very first lifeform, little more than a self-replicating collection of RNA or DNA. Is that really what you believe Adam of the book of Genesis was?

No human being or any of the (immediate) ancestors of our species came into existence without procreation - 'dust' was not required!

+1

"The Catholic Church formerly accepted modern evolutionary theory as far back as 1950"

Of course that doesn't exactly clear the matter up because the Wiki article (as I recall) points out that the Vatican reserves special status for the human 'soul' (whatever that might be?) but also for there having been an actual Adam & Eve. And for the reasons I've stated, I think that's still a major problem for Catholics?

At least I've never heard any model of Adam & Eve in which they're born of parents of the same species.