Christian beliefs were founded long, long before evolution was ever conceived. For a religion to be as strong as Christianity is, it must convince it's followers of dogma (that the religion is infallible). To embrace a new concept, however logical it may be, would be to cast doubt on it's own teachings and thus say 'hey, we were wrong". That is out of the question. Frankly, Christianity is a text-book example of denial. It's so afraid of the consequences of agreeing that it struggles to hold on to some reason to keep supporting the case that we just appeared. I should also like to note that a limited number of Christian denominations have embraced evolutionism, and kudos to them. edit: no evidence of evolution? A parapalegic woman must use her feet in the absence of both her arms, she uses them to brush her hair, steer her car, eat, etc.... the big toe on her feet starts to branch off from the rest on it's way to becomming opposable. Her body is evolving in the course of less than a lifetime. True story. Evolution is not a theory, it's a natural occurance that scientists have observed since zoology's birth. It's the notion that humans evolved from lower primates that is theory. There is no known occurance of things appearing from thin air, there is known occurances of things changing to match their environment. Intellegent Design has nothing to base itself on. Where, outside of religion, would this idea have come from? It's designing a car before you invent the wheel. Find me proof that things can appear from nothing and you'll have evidence of creationism, evolution has it's evidence and to dismiss it's logic is complete ignorance. -Updated answer: To dismiss the logic behind evolution is ignorance. That's a repeat of the last sentence but I figure this way maybe everybody will read it. Questioning my answer is why we are here: saying I am wrong because you disagree with me, is (and I stand by this) ignorant. I have given my answer and supported it, more than once in fact. I cannot prove evolution, and I make no claim to, but I can and did answer the question. I never once said that evolutionism is correct, only that it is logical and creationism isn't. Read things right the first time, this is the last edit to my answer.

This is a broad question; there are various reasons a Christian might reject evolution, some of which are doctrinal (which is the kind I'm assuming you're asking about), and some which are not. Probably the primary doctrinal problem between the concepts of evolution and Christianity comes from the very first pages of the bible. Read Genesis 1 for reference; reading this will provide quite a bit of insight for your question. http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201&version=31 Here are some key passages that relate to your question: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:20-21 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. Gen 1:26-27 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, the first discrepancy is that the bible says God created everything in six days (he rested on the seventh), not millions of years. If you interpret all of the bible literally, right there, there's a problem. However, many people (myself included), interpret the creation story allegorically; in other words, the 7 day timeframe is symbolic, and not necessarily 7 literal days. Still, even for allegorical-believing folks, there's a problem. It states that God created man in his own image. Evolution states that man started out as single-celled organisms. So unless God is a single-celled organism.... :-) Even if we don't interpret "in his own image" to be physical characteristics and instead spiritual, the obstacle still exists. Theoretically, the whole STORY could be allegorical; that God created everything in the sense that he created the earth and then primordial ooze that became bacteria that became amoeba that became...etc, etc. To me, though, that's stretching it too far. The much more likely explanation is that the bible meant God created man, complete, fully-formed. Finally, I just want to point out that evolution is a theory, not proven fact. That doesn't completely invalidate it, of course, but I don't think we should treat it as indisputibly true, either.

I am qualified to answer this question because I am one of those "some Christians". Don't downrate it because you are not, I'm just answering the question I reject evolution because it opposes both the direct teaching of the Bible on origins, and because it undercuts the foundation of Christianity, that one man (Adam) brought sin into the world, and death by sin, and one Man (Jesus Christ) has conquered sin and death (Romans 5:12-19). Evolution proposes many years of death, disease, suffering and bloodshed before anyone who could remotely pass for Adam came on the scene. And God called all this "very good"? There is no need to atone for that which is very good. Secondarily, I reject the notion that evolution is established fact. Let's face it, it's not empirical science, it's forensic science. If I accept the Bible explanation of our origins for my starting assumtions, I can develop an origins model as consistent with, if not more consistent with, empirical science than the evolution model which has different, equally untestable starting assumptions. Here's one of many well written articles from Answers in Genesis, my favorite source on this sort of question: Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter1.asp And on the question of whether the Bible really says the earth was created in six literal days about 6000 years ago: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/answersbook/sixdays2.asp This question is about why some of us reject evolution, and I had hoped to leave the debate about the quality of our reasoning to answers under other topics. Easier said than done, since inherent in the "why" is the question of whether it's reasonable. I think I must add an answer to those who claim that evolution has been observed empirically. What has been observed empirically is often called "microevolution". Darwin's famous finches exhibit that as well as anything. The genetic information for producing beaks of various sizes and shapes already existed, and these variations would occur at some rate among the population. Depending on the prevailing conditions, one beak type or another would confer an advantage, and over time the population would tend to drift genetically toward that type. There is a limit to how far this can go (that is, we don't expect to see a finch that can crack a coconut), and it doesn't produce any new structure. This is the mechanism of antibiotic and pesticide resistance, changes to the color of peppered moths, and just about any other "evolution-in-action" example I've seen. Selection occurs from pre-existing genetic information, and can result in a loss of information but not a gain. Most creationists have no issue with this process, and attribute the large built in genetic variability to God's genius. The kind of evolution needed to create genuinely new structures and species is sometimes called "macroevolution", and has not been observed empirically, and is more often discredited empirically. This type of evolution would require adding new, meaningful genetic information. The only mechanism proposed has been mutation, which mostly results in reduced fitness for survival. To develop some completely new structure in an organism requires such a series of randomly generated but beneficial mutations each building on the other, as to stagger imagination and probablility. It actually becomes easier (that is, requires less faith) to believe in a Creator God, than to believe in this outlandish sequence of chance occurences which must happen over and over. Materialistic evolution has its own miracle-working creator-god: an unfathomable expanse of time. That the bacterial flagellum, for example, evolved from the excetory organ, has not been observed, but is simply a matter of casting about for some structure with sufficient similarity, on the assumption that evolution has occurred. This excetory organ presents the same quandry: how might it have developed? All this without even touching the base question of the origin of life requred for any of this to begin to work, another issue that is dealt with mostly by speculation and assumptions, and doesn't fare well in experiment. It is the Micro/Macro point that causes most confusion. Few laypeople realize that there is a difference, that the mechanism for one is not the mechanism for the other, and that in many discussions of evolution, that ambiguity is being expoited.

There are several reasons. (1) Lack of education. (2) They prefer the live in a fairy tale (3) They love dogma (4) Because they grew up in loving homes and want to carry on the make believe. -Dogma as defined--- A set of beliefs that religion holds to be true. It fits. A cynical definition is-- A set of beliefs that religions PONTIFFS hold to be true and want to shove down you throat in order to keep you captive.Looks like I am going to a make believe hell.

One day in outer space a million billion years ago there was these two lifeless rocks flying around and the BANG! ran into each other with the right force and gas charges to form a round planet. It started to spin at such a perfect rate that gravity was created. Then the planet some how stuck perfectly between the sun and moon and that made the perfect seasons for plants to magicaly appear. Then it grew a ozone layer to protect it from space. One day the oceans and rivers decided they would lift and fall else where. Just by chance the plants needed that water so they could grow special seeds. Then in the bottom of the river beds this cosmic goo wanted to have free will and learn to love one another. So it willed it's self legs so it could get out of the water to build homes and get a job. Just by chance the trees gave them strength so they could hunt the animals to dominate them to... Science is something people do with to much education and not enough common since. They make theroy's. They teach this to our kids in school? God created the world in 7 days because he said so. Some ask how do we know that his days mean the same as our days? Well, he knew we would ask so he put it in the 10 Comandments. "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh days is sabbath to the Lord your God... For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that it is in them, but he rested on the seventh day." -Exodus 20:9-11 That is why Christians reject evolution!

God gave us the blessing of our brains, and the blessings of science. We fulfill our potential by exercising science to uncover the mysteries of god's creations. Over a century of hard evidence and empirical science proves Evolution indisputably. How an individual can accept a simple verse that is milleniums old in the old testament over provable, empirical recent evidence is irrational and an abomination to God. As we know, over time a story will change dramatically. The Adam and Eve story has been passed through hundreds of cultures, and most likely was far different than the story that was finally committed to doctrine. Who knows what the original was? But ask this: We all know that the old and new testament has been amended with new Books and verses over the past millenia. We accept those new stories as part of the Bible. There's no reason to believe it couldn't happen again. One day, an archaeologist may open up a cave and find scrolls that are older than Christ, that amend stories of the Bible. So, one day what if we find a doctrine that says "oh by the way, here is the rest of the Adam and Eve story. We forgot the part about the monkeys, evolution etc. And yes, that really happened. " Since Biblical amendments to the Christ and Old testament stories are accepted in Bible, it's certainly possible that we just havent discovered the whole Origins Story yet. Is it only then, that Intelligent Design proponents will accept Evolution?

It would be better said that it is macroevolution which is rejected, or the idea of species becoming other species, something we don't see in nature. This seems clearly unBiblical, for one thing, in Genesis 1 it says that birds and fish were made the 5th day and animals the 6th. So macroevolution clearly contradicts the Bible records. Whether one believes such a thing could happen or not, the record in Genesis 30 does seem to be an account of microevolution, or changes within a species. Darwin's finches show only that species can adapt in minor ways. Many creationists argue in favor of microevolution, that there were many original species, i.e. one original dog species from which wolves, coyotes, etc. come from. They would say there was one original cat species, from which cougars, lynxes, etc. come from. This would also mean there were far less animals on the ark during the flood. Furthermore, they have actually found Noah's Ark, and the nation of Turkey has declared the area a national park honoring the find. To see my post on the topic go to: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view.php/42284 Furthermore, there is a new theory challenging Einstein's theory of relativity involving Riemannian mathematics, which suggests light is not nearly as diffused when traveling through space as has been thought. If so then the universe would be far less younger then those suggesting otherwise. There's the matter of nature in general teaching us that mutations tend to be harmful and often fatal to an organism, rather than beneficial. There's the giant problem with dating methods that comes from assuming factors like carbon levels remain constant even as they suggest catastrophic events like ice ages, global floods, and worldwide dust storms from meteor showers were affecting the earth. There's the irony that all the necessary transitional forms needed that are being taught as fact in science classrooms either were found to be fakes or mysteriously disappeared, i.e. Peking Man, Java Man, Neanderthal Man, etc... Some have been found to be skeletons with degenerative diseases or else to be simple apes. After being around for decades, evolutionary theory is so full of holes as to be ridiculous. And yet some people pass it off as science and choose it over Scriptures that are continually affirmed by modern science, archeology, and logic as incredibly reliable.

Because the Bible rejects it. Genesis chapter 1 says God created the Earth and everything that resides on it. Genesis 1:11-12 states "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yeilding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:20 says "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after thier kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and god saw that it was good." Genesis 1:24-25 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after thier kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." From these verses we can conclude that not only did God create the earth He made everything to reproduce after its own kind and not speciation or evolution of each thing that He created. God also made man in His own image and not after primates or monkeys. And He gave man dominion over all the earth.For it says in Genesis 1:26-27 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over everything that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them." 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." According to this verse all scripture is inspired by God and true.

Because evolution is mans way of saying" dont tell me that there is a God that I have to answer to, Im prideful and I want to live my life the way I want to". Satan also said"I will be like the most High God" Evolution is a theory not a fact. There is more evidence that the bible is real than is there for evolution. Evolution is not science it is fantasy! There have been many evolutionists that have eventually said" by facts, evolution is not real" and have turned to God!

I reject it because I do not believe that the Bible teaches it and I beleive there is strong evidence against it. If you want to see some information on scientific evidence against Darwin's theory, go to the evolution section on Jesus-is-Saviour.com and the creation/evolution section on Christian Answers.Net. Thank you and God bless you!

Because many Christians feel that it isn't true and 'they' are supposed to reject all untruths. The only part of evolution that has any basis on fact is what the evolutionists call 'micro evolution.' That, as a Christian, I can agree to. Microevolution describes the changes within a species or kind of animal. Like the changes seen among dogs or cats. There are many variations of dogs and cats but they're still dogs and cats.

I am a Christian, new in my walk, and I don't find scientific proof of "evolving" incompatible with the bible. The problem always seems to be atheists overstating known facts, and Christians oversimplifying Genesis. There are staggering probabilities scientists will never overcome in the attempt to explain life on Earth, and the Big Bang. They can never answer why? Christians always need to be careful in stating rigid interpretations of Genesis, when God's means and purposes are beyond our comprehension. It always seems to me the debate always reduces itself to atheism vs. theism, circumventing whether God created a noticeable evolution in DNA? Or what explains the complexity of DNA even in the simplest life forms? anyway I continue my walk with Jesus, but I haven't thrown out my thirst for science.

I think some because of ignorance about what evolution actually is. Others because they have been fed a line of BS from someone about what evolution is. And some, because it threatens their faith.

To put it in brief format. since it seems to have been answered. Christians only reject evolution when someone says it disproves God. Hence they panic and find the flaws in it. Also all Christians acknowledge micro-evolution (which the proper term is speciation because the animal never changes species) However macro-evolution is the one most panic about.

Because christianity is a bane to modern society and science.

Succinctly, evolution denies God.

This is the "world-view" of Evolution...