Why is Evolution at odds with Christianity?

While it's true that eternal life and resurrection from the dead are central to Christianity (Paul talked about the worthlessness of the faith without eternal life), the reason someone might believe in God or Jesus without it is that it works.I know that for most people it looks like it doesn't work. Overall, Christians are not different from non-Christians (says the statistics). I'm not surprised. Jesus said his way was one the few would take, and Christianity is the many, not the few. It's no surprise Christianity has a message that doesn't work.I, on the other hand, have waited for the day when I could see people really banded together into something like Jesus and Luke (in Acts) described. People who loved one another and become one family, sharing everything.Now I've seen it, and I've tasted the delight of it, and I see the hand of God keep it going and growing.So, my answer is that one reason that people might believe without it is evidence found in a Life here on earth.

No evolution and the worship of the Bible are at odds. Making Christianity a religion based on a book is a new and obviously bad thing.

Well, here I go again. Personally, I find it hard to fine a creationist who is a serious Christian, if the definition of a serious Christian is a Bible believing one.Where is the creationist who has sold all his possessions and given them to the poor (Luk 12:33, and notice this is addressed to everyone, not just the apostles)? Where is the creationist who cares enough about the Bible to live close enough to his church members that he can "exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin" (Heb 3:13)?Where is the creationist who agrees with David that it is "good and pleasant for brothers to dwell together in unity," or at least who believes it enough to live with his brothers?That's a start. We can go over some more if you want, but I think that where there are people who are as united as the Father and the Son (Jn 17:20-23), you will find non-literal Bible believers, and where you find people who are distinguished by their love for one another (Jn 13:34), you will find people who don't believe Genesis one is literal.Where you want bickering, division, and people who "pick the best church," there you will find literal believers of Genesis one. The more bickering and the more vitriolic rhetoric you find, the more likely it is that they will staunchly hold to a six day creation and a six thousand year old earth.I believe the Bible. It says, "You will know them by their fruit."Thanks.

I fear God.But that's not why I'm writing. I was curious why most everyone else warranted a response, but you ignored my post.

Rrhain,I don't think your link (A chiroselective peptide replicator)says that anyone "made" this peptide replicator. The wording of the paragraph on that page is terribly complicated, so maybe I'm missing something, but the most it appears to say is:"Here we report that a 32-residue peptide replicator, designed according to our earlier principles, is capable of efficiently amplifying homochiral products from a racemic mixture of peptide fragments through a chiroselective autocatalytic cycle."That doesn't say they, anyone else, or even nature made it. It just says that if someone (or nature) did make it, it is capable of replicating peptide fragments (I think). I did that, too, but after going to a couple sites, I still didn't have anything real solid. The first hit was EVCforum! Actually, that wasn't a bad link (http://EvC Forum: Self Replicating molecules -->EvC Forum: Self Replicating molecules).I'm not arguing that no one has created anything self-replicating. If no one has, I'm sure someone eventually will. However, those links didn't work very well for me, and I'm not even an opponent.I guess if you're asking paul nicholson to do a lot of research through those links, they'll do. I just thought since you chose an example, maybe you could have picked a better one.

This one would appear to work pretty well for us non-scientific types, and it gives links to Ghadiri's peptides if people want more.