Why I Think Christian Fundamentalists Hate the Theory of Evolution but Not Other Scientific Facts

Plenty of Scientific Facts Contradict Information Found in the Bible so Why Do Fundamentalist Christians Only Despise Origin Theories?
What do fundamentalist Christians and other religious fundamentalists have against the theory of evolution? Why do they seem so upset by the very idea of evolution? Evolutionary theory contradicts the literal story of Genesis as found in the Bible. However, a lot of scientific
knowledge contradicts parts of the Bible. For some reason, scientific knowledge or facts which contradict literal interpretations of parts of the Bible other than those in contradiction to Genesis in particular simply don't fall under fundamentalist Christian fire.

The Theory of Evolution evokes extreme emotions in fundamentalist Christians and other religious fundamentalists for some reason. They openly express disdain, fear and outright hatred of everything to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Fundamentalist Christians in America feel so strongly about the Theory of Evolution that they throw fortunes at getting it stricken from existence. The Christian Right in America lobbies aggressively to get evolution removed from public school curricula. Fundamentalist Christians have even created "Creation Museums" to counter the theory of Evolution at the cost of millions of dollars. The Christian Right in America is very upset with the Theory of Evolution.

So why do fundamentalist Christians feel threatened by that particular theory - evolution - but not by other scientific theories of natural processes such as erosion, eutrophication, or genetics? Why aren't they laughing at people and calling them stupid for accepting the theory of plate techtonics, too? Why don't fundamentalist Christians attack people for accepting geometry, geology, meteorology, and chemistry?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so focused on only those scientific schools of thought which contain elements contradictory to the literal interpretation of Genesis but not those which contain elements contradictory to other portions of the Bible?

My theory is that the book of Genesis deals with the nature of man himself and the nature of life. It defines man as a divine being created in God's image and sets him above all other thing excepting God himself. The Genesis story in the Bible leads to the idea of man possessing a soul,
given to him by God.

The Theory of Evolution places humanity as part of the world which gave him life and identifies mankind as a species of animals. That is counter to the nature of man described in Genesis.

People have strong emotional feelings about the divine nature of man, made in God's image. If pi is a tiny bit larger than exactly three or if science shows that the world has never been covered by a global flood, nothing about the nature of man is called into question.

So it all boils down to self-image. Anything that threatens long-held ideas of self-image will create a strong emotional impact and create a backlash, much as the Theory of Evolution has among fundamentalist Christians and other religious fundamentalists.

Via: AC

1 member likes this

Comment by Kell on February 22, 2009 at 5:13pm: I laughed pretty good on this one.

Comment by Dave on February 22, 2009 at 6:03pm: Good point, Morgan. I love this post.

You're right that evolution stabs right into the heart of the belief that we're divinely separate from all else in the world, but I'd also guess that it's got something to do with the perceived complexity of evolution theory itself. It's easy for people uneducated on the topic to say "We come from GOD, not a goddammed monkey!" or "Then explain what happened to all the intermediate species!". Granted, if they listened to the answers instead of putting their hands over there ears and saying "JESUS LA LA LA BLASPHEMY LA LA LA LA LA..." they'd understand species only adapt when their environment requires it, we're on a separate branch than monkeys and share a common ancestor, etc., etc.

Also, I think they don't understand that the word "theory" means "study of", not that the concept is unproven, so they think it's a leap of faith and therefore an easy target. They're convinced that if they can disprove evolution, there is no other possible explanation for the existence of all the species we have here on earth today. And of course once that gap is created they can reinsert their god to explain it. In their mind that not only deals a heavy blow to science, but is an automatic win for religion.

When I was still programmed, I remember trying not to think about the Noah's ark story with billions of species in walking distance of Noah's house, because it sounded ridiculous and created doubt. But as soon as somebody claimed to have found part of a giant boat in the top of a mountain I jumped on it and breathed a huge sigh of relief so I could continue believing and avoiding an eternity of hell fire for another day. Of course I didn't research it because deep down I knew it was still ridiculous, and the comfort of protection from disbelief was an easier option. People who want to believe don't need much proof. They just need someone to be on their side to say they have proof so they can claim the win by association and remain comfortably oblivious.

Most bible bangers also probably don't know enough about their bible or basic science to understand that the less debated categories are a threat, and the ones that do probably steer clear of the topics because it's too hard to argue against plate tectonics or chemistry.

Anyway, I've never given the question much thought before, so I really enjoyed the post.

Comment by John Duthie on April 23, 2010 at 2:46am: Hi, I am a Christian, and I love science, and respect scientists, and I have no problems with the theory of evolution. I find it fascinating as we reach out into space to explore, and the large hadron collide will hopefully provide us with more scientific knowledge.

I do NOT believe that the creation story as portrayed in Genesis is a literal story. The author was Moses, and I believe he was inspired to write Genesis. He combined the very limited scientific knowledge of the earth as of about 1000 BC, and added some very creative stories, and the result is the creation story in Genesis.

Comment by Joseph Chiaravalloti on April 25, 2011 at 10:49am: I disagree with your answer, I believe that the fundamentalist right means to attack all of science and has only chosen evolution because it is perceived to be a weak link. Of course Christians don't attack the theory of gravitation (so why aren't you floating away?), but believe the bible somehow defines PI as 3.0 and that the moon shines like the sun, only less. When Kansas was writing the study of non-material causes into their science curriculum I corresponded with Kathy Martin, one of the proponents of the bill which would allow "intelligent design" to be part of the biology curriculum. Her hostility to science can be seen in this quote from our correspondence. Please note her commnet -- "This will help to remove preceived
material naturalism from the teaching of science,
which is an aethistic religion." (Spelling errors belong to Ms. Martin.

Comment by Joseph Chiaravalloti on April 25, 2011 at 10:50am: Sorry. The system cut off the body of the email from Ms. Martin. Trying again.

Dear Mr. C., You are still not correct in your
assumptions. There is NO endorsement of any study of
non-material causes in science classes, nor of ID.
The person was misquoted if that was what was
reported. The Kansas Science Education Standards
allow and encouage teachers and students to research
and critically analyze ALL SCIENTIFIC data that either
supports or refutes the controversies surrouding
evolution theory. This will help to remove preceived
material naturalism from the teaching of science,
which is an aethistic religion. A much closer human
disaster - World War II - was fought to combat the
idealogies of Nazism and Communism based on this
worldview. Even scientist in China and India, which
are not Christian countries, are seeing the flaws in
extrapolating macroevolution, from microevolution.
It's not introducing the supernatural, it's assuring
good science, and reliable teaching. Kathy Martin