Why is the theory of evolution considered a threat by certain Christians?

tbh i'm less troubled by it than i once was

mainly because the more i talk to normal people the more i discover that creationism is far from being some sort of unique strain of irrational thought... it's merely one brand of irrational thought in a vast outlet-mall of made up BS that people subscribe to

e.g. most people i meet seem to believe jay-z and beyonce are puppets of the illuminati

or that aliens built the pyramids

or that 9/11 was and inside job

or that flouridation of water is an evil govt conspiracy

same with GMOs

questioning any of the above in working class circles gets you stared at like you have two heads, around here.

so i dunno maybe it's normal for people to believe dumb shit. skepticism seems like a relatively rare trait.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I've already accepted your concession for your incredibly poor english. You're just adding insult to injury at this point.

accepting imaginary concessions is also very mature 👆

Originally posted by Bentley
I know from previous discussions that some of those who deny historical evolution accept current evolution to some degree.

it's common for people who deny "macro-evolution" to accept "micro-evolution"

basically, they reject the idea that micro-evolution, stretched over a long enough period of time, would result in macro-evolution

usually they have some arbitrary taxonomic barrier which they say evolution can't transcend... e.g. species, genus, etc

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
this is a popular stance? it's very weird if they can observe/accept one while rejecting the other.

Current christians aren't set against mutations or for establishing fixed animal archtypes. That did happen on the middle ages. The current debate is more about using science as a measuring stick of what religion must be about. But I don't think most believers are so argumentative on their personal faith so is next to impossible to verify which stances would be the more popular.

Edit: I did learn about the différences red g jacks mentions rather recently, so I'm in no way expert on the subject. Take my assumptions with a grain of salt.

tbh my opinion is that nobody (that i know of) really rejects micro-evolution and the reason for that is because it has been directly observed in the lab. so denying that is kind of hard.

macro-evolution, on the other hand, requires inference from fossil evidence, genetics, etc. it happens over too long a period to be directly observed... so critics of the theory have more leeway for dismissing it.

but, tbh, all you need to have macro-evolution is an accumulation of adaptions cause by micro-evolution. so i still think its a bit silly to deny one and accept the other.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
[B]accepting imaginary concessions is also very mature 👆

So is denial

Originally posted by red g jacks
it's common for people who deny "macro-evolution" to accept "micro-evolution"

this would seem more plausible. i was confused by the initial wording, which seemed to suggest an acceptance of macro-evolution, but only after god creation man in his present form.

Originally posted by Bentley
I know from previous discussions that some of those who deny historical evolution accept current evolution to some degree.

Why do you think it is so worrying anyways? Most people take some information for granted in their lives, social constructs exist for that very reason.

For one because there are some outspoken people that campaign to ban evolution from high school curricula. Or possibly worse to teach an unscientific opposing idea as equal. That would have extremely adverse affects on the scientific literacy of students imo, which I think would in turn have negative impact on future advancements of humanity.

that's why democracy is wack

Originally posted by red g jacks
that's why democracy is wack

Hmm, well unfiltered Democracy without a state of law is crap. Though I think this is more an issue of human nature rather than political system.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, well unfiltered Democracy without a state of law is crap.

Well, the U.S. isn't a democracy anyway. Anyone who says it is ignorant. It's a republic. Constitutional republic, to be precise.

Originally posted by Star428
Well, the U.S. isn't a democracy anyway. Anyone who says it is ignorant. It's a republic. Constitutional republic, to be precise.

*federal republic

also the lack of "democratic" in the title does not denote a lack of democratic process, so not sure what you think you're correcting here.

This again, it's both, it is a democracy, it's a federal, constitutional republic, it's also other things. The idea that democracy and republic are mutually exclusive is idiotic.

what's idiotic to me is asking your average mouth breather for input on policy decisions/elected officials

Originally posted by red g jacks
what's idiotic to me is asking your average mouth breather for input on policy decisions/elected officials

I don't see it as that bad. What you said was the reason we have electoral colleges, but that is because way back in the day your average person wasn't that informed about politics.

Nowadays we are oversaturated with information about politics to the point where politicians getting burrito's are actual news.

yeah but a lot of lies are circulated as well. for example most of the "news" shared on social media seems to be baseless sourceless rubbish. i see no difference in the dangers of being barely informed vs extremely misinformed. same dangerous ignorance when left to a purely democratic process.

"the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with your average voter" - winston churchill

Originally posted by Bardock42
For one because there are some outspoken people that campaign to ban evolution from high school curricula. Or possibly worse to teach an unscientific opposing idea as equal. That would have extremely adverse affects on the scientific literacy of students imo, which I think would in turn have negative impact on future advancements of humanity.

Well, those people are misinformed about the role of school, but there are always many misinformed people that are active in political movements with no practical sense.

Evolution should never be taught to our children as fact. But, as a theory only. Hopefully, the parents, if they actually care about their children will educate them about creationism and tell them how evolution is a lie.

star what the shit
ok evolution can be taught as theory But should not be considered a lie when there is more evidence backing evolution there there is any religion

both should be taught but neither evolution or religion should be made as the one true ideal or belief nor force kids to believe in one or the other