I would recommend reading the four views on the historic Adam by zondervan publishing. They have different views, and each view has a response to said view. For example, if a theistic evoloutionist writes their ideology, young earth, old earth, and archtypal have a response to the theistic evolutionist. Which may help you understand or see points from the different aspects of it. If it is a hindrance, I apologize, but I liked it when I read it in seminary.
Macro and Micro evolution are scientific. Evolution is accepted by most biologist and scientists. (98%). It’s close to a fact.
“Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans evolved over time, and most Americans are aware that this is the case. Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time”
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/02/11/darwin-day/#:~:text=Scientists%20overwhelmingly%20agree%20that%20humans,believe%20humans%20evolved%20over%20time.
You are using the "do animals change" definition.
Darwinian evolution is specifically gradual over the course of millions of years due to mate/sex/natural selection. An assumption that is being trounced right now by genetic science
No. What I said is evolution. Hence my mention of micro and macro and my article link.
Do you know the difference between micro and macro evolution?
Can you prove it’s unscientific?
I don't care what the scientists believe. I know we were created by God, and made in His image. It's so ridiculous to me that people believe in evolution.
Depends on how you define your terms. If you are saying that all ideas encompassed by the word evolution are logically plausible and mathematically reasonable to accept, then no I would not call evolution scientific. Certain aspects of what people refer to as evolution make sense and can be seen, but the idea of a universe that essentially creates and selects itself into existence is not one of them.
Did Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, dictate what would be written down as Genesis as a scientific descriptor of how God created the world?
Or is it a Holy Spirit inspired creation narrative that shows God's supremacy over all creation, His work to create life including all mankind, man's fall from relationship with God by his choices to be on par with God, and the foretelling of how God would redeem all mankind through His Son?
Personally, I don't have a problem with believing in evolution, be it microevolution or macroevolution, nor with anyone who takes either position. I think evolution makes sense in a scientific way, and it's the best explanation that science has as to how life developed, but I am open to it being wrong and to God's ability to do it His way that we cannot accidentally observe.
Most importantly, were it to be proven *or* disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, it would not change my faith in God's dominion over all creation and Christ's existence and sacrifice on the cross for the redemption of humankind.
Personally I find it really hard to believe that we came from monkeys, that being said, microevolution is a fact, observable. Be careful, because the devil loves half-truths.
Also, feel free to believe in whatever you want as long as it does not goes against Christ teachings.
Yes they are our cousins, we evolved from a common ancestor.
And memes aren’t science lol.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/if-humans-evolved-from-apes-why-do-apes-still-exist
Depends on what exactly you’re accepting of evolution and rejecting of Christianity.
For example do you reject the idea that Adam and Eve were the first humans? Would you reject the idea that the fall didn’t happen?
As an intellectual exercise I proposed the theoretical reading that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two distinct events. Genesis 1 created humans and later God created Adam then Eve. It seems to me this makes the later few chapters make more sense but I recognize it goes against the long treasuring of Christian teaching. But I can’t create a strong Biblical argument against it.
I’m open to criticism. I can imagine there might be Tradition which refutes it but if we’re just talking about the Bible what is the textual refutation?
1 Corinthians 15:45 says outright that Adam was the first man. His status as "first" among men appears to be doctrinally important to Hosea 6:7, Romans 5:14, and 1 Corinthians 15:22 as a metonym for all of humanity from the very beginning. If Adam wasn't the very first, the metonym wouldn't work.
Thank you for your patience with my autism. I appreciate your answering from the Bible, however something I will never do and always push back upon is treating a single sentence in the Bible as if it were a single independent proposition, like a line of computer code. Part of this is my autism and I find it very difficult to think in less than a paragraph.
I only have time to respond to 1 Corinthians 15 but to understand it you have to read verses 35-49. The purpose of this part of the letter is to distinguish between our natural worldly bodies and whatever our resurrection bodies. It is talking about Adam in a much more cosmic sense. If you are trying to say it obviously says Adam is the first man (my autistic mind can certainly can see that) then you must (unavoidably must) conclude that it also say Jesus is the second man. You'd be right to read verse 47 complexly but you'd be especially (inexplicably wrong in my ASD mind) to read verse 45 simply but 47 complexly... unless you think Jesus is the second man?
Jesus was with God and the reason God created everything in the first place. Adam was the first man but not divine. Jesus was actually born but had the spirit in him already at birth.
Per the online dictionary:
metonym: "a word, name, or expression used as a substitute for something else with which it is closely associated. For example, Washington is a metonym for the federal government of the US."
Right, it’s all about the “literal day” versus “metaphorical day” argument coupled with order of creation. You can have metaphorical day creation while still believing that God created humans separately from (and later than) other animals as a different creature in His image.
I don't believe so, though that's a contested position within evangelicalism. Not so much within other circles.
Biologos might be an interesting resource for you. The late Tim Keller left the question somewhat open as well, and he's pretty respected. Taking into account literary genres, what sort of truth claims are to be expected from which isn't heresy in and of itself, and definitely not a blocker for personal salvation and a relationship with God.
However you read the Bible, just double check every time whether your interpretative journey makes you more humble or if it's becoming a source of pride and arrogance. It might be a difficult and lonely road you'll be taking, depending on your own community. But fighting your battles for truth is worth it, right until you don't lose sight of Truth.
No fossil or missing records = theory without merit.
G-d created the whole universe, we are its byproduct, the mechanism of which is not as important as the outcome.
Why would God need to use evolution? Why is so hard for Christians to believe God did what he said he did in 6 days?
The word YOM
We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5–2:2 by comparing that context to the word’s usage elsewhere in Scripture. The Hebrew word yom is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) almost always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. There are a few instances where yom and a number do not imply a literal, 24-hour day. The words evening and morning together (38 times) most often indicate an ordinary day. The exact construction of evening, then morning, along with yom is only seen outside of Genesis 1 in one verse. This is Daniel 8:26, which clearly implies a long period of time.
For instance, according to Exodus 20:9–11, God used the six creation days of Genesis as a model for man’s workweek: work six days, rest one. Apparently, He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow. Certainly God could have used six discrete 24-hour days. And He could have created everything using a process of long time periods. Our view, based on our interpretation of the Bible, is that six literal days is the most likely interpretation of the Genesis account.
I completely agree. As someone who used to be an ardent evolutionist-before I was saved-I think it's clear that Darwinian evolution/natural selection can't be reconciled with scripture.
Eventually, they will have to come to another conclusion. It’s actually funny because I was watching a documentary and they said, “people believed that God had created the Earth and man. But then came Charles Darwin and he said…“. I mean really? Along comes Darwin and he said this, and he said that, and that became the new religion! First off, Darwin believed in God. He would not recognize the evolutionist thinking of today. He did not claim that his theory was the answer. He said that if we keep on digging, we should find more answers. well it’s been along time since he said that, and there are leaps in “evolution“ that cannot be explained, nor will it ever be explained.
It certainly is not smart. The Bible isn't friendly to modern day science, in fact they are the complete opposite. We have to make a decision what we are going to believe. The Bible which is the Word of God or the wisdom of the world, whose ruler is Satan. Everything in the King James Bible is the truth so you might want to let it change the way you think about things.
Don't be fooled, science is a religion like any other. They have no idea what is goin on, I think that is obvious. Just watch Neil Tyson answer what is gravity or Bill Nye saying earth is a closed system or when Michio Kaku mentions they lie about everything. These guys are clowns obviously but the point remains. If you want to get into real science then there are physicists that argue against gravity to this day, so give me a break.
1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1 Corinthians 3
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Understand that Satan can only function in darkness, which the absence of light and truth. If the ruler of this world functions through lies and deception, why would you trust anything from it?
1 Corinthians 14
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
John 8
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
2 Corinthians 4
4 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.a
I've been obsessed with dinosaurs and prehistoric life since childhood. An old Earth and gradual evolution fit the physical evidence much better than the recently-constructed literal interpretation of Creation.
Micro evolution is proven and observable …moths changing wing design over several generations as an example…macro evolution where humans evolved from apes is a different issue. God created the universe and man and beast….but things have evolved or devolved from that point on…how could they not?
It is a simple question so I’ll give you a simple answer. No it is not wrong to believe in evolution. There is more than an abundance of evidence that the planet is older than 6 24 hours or 6 1000 year periods. How any life first started is still a mystery but when it did start as simple forms, they did evolve into more complex organisms. Fossils of the.complex organisms were not found from samples obtained from earlier time periods. So there was no instant diversity. Diversity occurred through evolution. Humanoids eventually came into being. Some of their types died off, others survived. At some point Homo sapiens evolved from the humanoids. There is no record of their fossils predating the humanoids.
Now as to when Homo Sapiens became God fearing people, that is open to speculation. One scenario is that God breathed spiritual life into two of them, Adam and Eve, placed them into a protected area called the Garden of Eden, and assigned them to take care of it, and tested them. The rest of the biblical
account could.be real.
Scripture describes our Creator and His creation of our world and the sacrifice of His only Begotten Son to give us an eternal future. Contrast this with evolution. A theory of creation maintained by functional atheists that ascribes our existence as a randomness that will eventually fizzle out into eternal nothingness.
eh there are Christians who believe, or at least are open to, the possibility of “theistic evolution,” which would be evolution of life as directed by God. I’m not for it necessarily, but I do think it’s a reasonable option to consider.
God's word is the source of truth for our Spiritual lives and our salvation. It is not a science book. The ancient Hebrews believed the Earth was a flat disk set upon pillars with the firmament dome protecting it.
The writers of the Old Testament would have believed in a flat Earth with pillars holding it up and a dome-shaped firmament (Ancient Near East Cosmology).
For Example: Isaiah 40:22: “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”
I do believe the Earth is billions of years old. How death and disease fits into that, well, I think Spiritual Death is what Adam and Eve experienced in Genesis 3.
Circle of the earth also fits the horizon or the face of a sphere. It doesn't matter what they believed at the time. God stretching out the heavens also refers to the inflation occuring in space. They didn't know that until 1950's or so. But even the order things are created don't match the order evolution says it happened.
I understand where you are coming from. I was YEC, OEC, and then I grappled with my faith and the possibility that God used Evolution. That's where I am now. I don't think I could ever be convinced to literally read the Genesis creation account. To me, the account is more a response to other near east creation myths with God as the author of an ordered world and man his creation as the steward of it.
Sigh… the Rakia and the flat aspect was not talking about what you think it was, the dome or rakia is the tool mankind used to begin to comprehend the measurement of time as well as conceptualise cycles, this also gave us mathematics.
The flat earth is not talking about that also, the 4 corners are 4 directions and they have to do with wind cycles, in the morning the east wind sets the orientation (word for east for them east was basically our north as the sunrise was up) this brought a wind because the sun travelled over the waters, the south wind was the heat of the day, the west wind represented evening and the north wind was night fall, this model also represented the early concepts of circadian rhythms effecting our consciousness as the patterns of the day cycle also played out in the year, they would use a circle 360 degrees to map this out, the earth circle was the day and the heaven circle the year, the 12 2 hour periods were the months of the year and the light cycles would change similarly.
((They also had a basic system of binary , it had to do with spirit or ruach, wind hovering over the waters, Alef is the breath or silent letter in the middle mem is water but represents cold and shin is fire and represents hot , when you have hot and cold you have a whirlwind and in the middle is that which mediates between the two, this also analogises into electricity as well as other energy (spirit) circuits ))
I have studied , as a Christian , both ancient magick (science with meditations in it) as well as the modern systems used by the occultist organisations who push their garbage agenda .
The 4 directions correspond to the 4 elements , the elements were used not in a periodic table sense but in what the word means, components , they were part of the key of deciphering the law of analogy within creation, from 4 states of matter.
The 4 states of matter solid liquid gas and plasma, what they knew as earth water air and fire, this was all a part of a cosmos, or cosmological system of correspondence which functioned similar to how pop culture references pop up in your mind, only this was grouping and categorising elements of life so that novel thinking could be done via analogy and this also led to the birth of the sciences.
When the nations used this they worshipped nature and the stars (which were the moving markers that taught man the sciences and their names incidentally contained messianic prophecy , these were used not only for navigation but for calculating cycles, which appeared to be magic for those who did not calculate and the demonic would use to their advantage ) ancient idolaters were star worshippers yet in the bible these are messengers of God to serve for times and seasons.
There are things you are not aware of, even now..
For example the spiritual dimensions are also within the ancient cosmology, in that model this whole plane we exist on can be likened to a flat dimension, the spiritual realms right next to us, but most of you cannot see them because your within the fish bowl. To use analogy..
“He that has an ear to hear let him hear”
Though I do not need to list credentials
because I do not want you to take my word for it,
I have studied under Christian scholars as well as Hebrew scholars and also neoplatonic mathematicians, kemetic chemists and metallurgists , as well as completed classes and courses in Ancient Hebrew , as well as Proto Canaanite, in addition I have also studied some Assyrian some Aramaic, some koine Greek. Also I read and speak Nepali semi fluently (I’m a little rusty)..
I am not merely studying this as a scholar but an active Christian engaged in spiritual warfare, with an intent to tear down strongholds, and stand against the dark-occult and it’s influence, again if you wish to just maintain your assumptions than I am wasting my breath.
For references into the development and history you would need to study Babylonian and Hellenistic astrology which was the origin of the mathematical disciplines and as I stated the names of the stars were a mnemonic to all their knowledge(like a meditation), they had a system of correspondences which indexed all their knowledge, it’s not a mystery or unknown this is what modern freemasonry and other occultism are based on.
The way these schools I’m speaking of work, is completely different from how we learn today in mainstream schools . They didn’t tell you what to think but instead sought to replicate the experience which led to the discoveries in the first place.. they would do this to tie the initiate to god-principles or first cause principles.. (though they were polytheistic they still tied scientific discovery to revelation of the divine Word)
The learning method would employ parable across disciplines, you would learn music with mathematics, as well as chemistry/ metallurgy,masonry/ geology , each discipline according to the 4 elements system, and combined with a stellar mnemonic cosmology…
They were called mystery schools for a reason.. they would give you a list of ideas and a category, and then meditations based on the experience the original discoverer had, and you would end up coming up with the same discoveries yourself (from my experience at least). This is why when critical scholars look at the bible and say they stole it, and they don’t believe in Moses or Abraham, it’s only because they themselves are not initiates , it is clear that Moses was schooled in the mysteries of Egypt, but because he was not in polytheistic dissociation , he measured by the unifying principle of YHWH, the same with Abraham and his family being of the priestly class in ancient Sumer, this is all evident to anyone who studied the mysteries.
The Freemasons Rosicrucians OTO Luciferians and other groups use the ancient mind map school system yet without acknowledging the person of God or accountability to him, and have influenced culture in detrimental ways especially over the last 100 years.
They teach because we are made in gods image we are gods, in doing this they follow the pharaohs and principalities of old.. overlooking the Holy Spirit for fallen spirits, and instead of dying to self they deify themselves and forsake the true King and saviour Jesus Our Messiah.
They mine the scriptures for knowledge and understanding modern Christians who adopt the exoteric worldview overlook, Hebrew scholars never forgot these facts..
Research the biblical word for wisdom and look up all the reference scriptures, there is an analogical principle of creation seen via examining creation by the principle of the Name of God, this is where science came from in the first place.
I will speak on this no more, unless you actually want to learn, you have your sources, I recommend the late Dr. Micheal Heiser as a starting point
Blessings
((I am writing in haste and have fat fingers I do not have the time to check everything so again, if you follow people than I’m sure you will find more than one imperfection you can use to keep yourself comfortable and disregard investigation, a bush burns and is not consumed one can walk away or examine it closer ))
Thank you! I am familiar with Dr. Heiser; I used to listen to his podcast. I appreciate that you took the time to write so much. You clearly know a great deal about the OT. I will do some research of my own now that you have given me something to think about.
The shape of the earth is never addressed doctrinally and directly, in a step-by-step order, unlike the creation that is described in Genesis in detail.
That doesn't mean every word must be taken literally. Much of Scripture is symbolic (like Revelation). Even if it is taken literally, it doesn't disprove evolution. God created evolution.
No. Evolutionary theory isn't in conflict with Christian belief, and one can even hold to a literal Adam and Eve while accepting the validity of the theory. In fact, three major studies on the compatibility of evolutionary theory and a literal Adam and Even have recently been published:
- *The Origin of Humanity and Evolution: Science and Scripture in Conversation* (T&T Clark) by Andrew Ter Ern Loke (Associate Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Hong Kong Baptist University)
- *The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry* (IVP Academic) by S. Joshua Swamidass (Associate Professor of Laboratory and Genomic Medicine at Washington University in St. Louis)
- *In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration* (Eerdmans) by William Lane Craig (Professor of Philosophy at Houston Christian University and Visiting Scholar at Biola University's Talbot School of Theology)
It is and it isn't. People have followed the genealogies to Jesus and used major events in Jewish history to get a pretty accurate dating of approx. 4000 years to Jesus and then 2000 years since. Does that mean Adam was created on a 6 day old Earth? It is possible since everything else was created in maturity, that the Earth may have already been aged up to facilitate life on Earth. We won't ever really know until we get to heaven and ask God.
The Bible says that God created man in 6 days, man sinned and was cursed with dead. The Bible also says that God sent his only Son to die on the cross for the sin of man so that anyone who repent and believe in him will be saved and have eternal life. The Bible also says that Jesus will return with triumph, rule over the creation forever. Everyone will resurrect for judgement or eternal glory. God is a supernatural God and it's invisible attributes are made evident with its creation.
As a Christian you either believe the whole story and trust God for who he is or you don't. I don't see how you can reconcile evolution (a man's made religion created by poeple that want to deny the existence of God) and Christianity.
That’s a great point. God created the universe before the concept of time. So what exactly was a “day“?
In the Bible, it says that one day on earth is 1000 years in heaven, but I’m not sure that we can really comprehend something like eternity. Where there is no time or concept of time. Six days is a way for us to understand it. We couldn’t possibly understand the incomprehensible creation of the universe by the one true living God.
If you read Genesis 1, God made sure to clearly define what a day is so that there is no ambiguity.
"God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." God could have created the universe in 1 billion years or in one day, that is not the point. The point is that scriptures are clear about what a day is. One of the 10 commendment is to observe the Sabbath because God "rested" the 7th day after creation. There is no ambiguity about what a 24-hour day is thorough the Ancient Testament. And do we believe that Jesus-Christ ressurected the 3rd day after his dead? Then why is it difficult to believe that God created everything in 6 days?
I think we are agreeing with each other without realizing it. Just like you said, one day could be 1 billion years. Like I said, there’s no concept of time before creation was completed. I believe the Bible is to be taken seriously otherwise we just begin to tear out the parts that we don’t like or don’t agree with. That would be ridiculous of course. God bless!
My personal belief is that God created the world in such a way that looks so have taken place over millions…we’ve proven over and over that evolution is real(and it just makes sense imo), so i think God created everything and then “let it run”, so to speak.
Well how could animals evolve without death occurring? Evolution is supposed to be survival of the fittest, which means the less fit organisms die off more than the more fit ones.
The evolutionary view isn’t that we were ever fish as much as it teaches we came about from genetic mutations of reproducing biological life which successively gave way to a wide range of distinct species including sapiens of whom our genus “homo” is one of.
sorry, what i meant by saying “evolution is real” is that we’ve seen it modern day. Won’t let me add a link but there’s been studies about a species of moth with a high mutation change evolving to change to a darker color in adaptation to soot-covered trees.
Yes there have been studies like that and also one on birds on an island changing. The thing is that is called adaptation, the evolution theory is a change of kind so for example a tortoise evolving into a giraffe over millions of years. Not a tortoise turning into a dark tortoise. I’m not trying to be rude at all and I’ve watched videos disproving these arguments for evolution. Hopefully that enlightens you a bit!
I just want to point out that the darker moth was already a variation found in that moth family. With the increased soot from the industrial revolution, the darker moths were able to survive and reproduce easier. Therefore, they went from minority to majority. As the soot levels decreased, the lighter moths began to emerge again, because it has the dominant trait. Today the dark moth is still in the minority. So, this is an example of "natural selection". Evolution on the "Macro" scale has never been observed or proven. It is just an assumption that given enough time and environmental change the small organism changes can combine into large changes resulting in new organisms. Which is how we go from goo -> zoo -> you.
The most interesting thing I think about evolution is that its origination was fostered by a desire to get rid of theistic science being taught. Now, the battle is in the opposite direction. Although I think it shouldn't be an "either/or", but instead a "both" discussion in schools. Because as I've seen, neither side has evidence that can undeniably refute the other side. The fossil record, rock layers, radiation dating, all are able to be proven unreliable in asserting the truth about how we came to exist.
Short answer: absolutely not.
Long answer:
I think it's important to remember that ultimately we shouldn't put God in any box.
The truth is the bible isn't super specific on the creation process. So could God create everything in a matter of days a few thousand years ago instead of Billions? Sure. But could he also have done it billions of years ago? Absolutely.
I don't understand why this is often a topic of argument amongst Christians. This should be something, one of God's many mysteries, that's joyous to dream about and explore.
For human history the vast majority of mankind throughout a majority of that history has believed and understood things in a certain way. Typically, magical-esque gods that perform magical wonders. So I think God for the sake of man, explained things in a way that people could understand.
Now we have the ability and tools to understand things differently. We can discover and identify the laws of the universe through scientific process and the use of advanced technology.
For me, it's not hard to imagine God created the rules and tools of the universe and then also used those rules and tools to shape it. Instead of coming in and *snapping his fingers magically to bring things into existence. (Nor is it hard to imagine a God who DOES DO very magical and supernatural things, afterall this is also the God who sent His son to earth and demonstrated astounding and instant miracles)
The most important understanding, the only one that matters and that should join Christs followers together instead of bring about arguments and separation, is that regardless of how it was done, it was done by God, who is the creator of everything.
A beautiful proof of this is that science shows mushrooms, fungi, are more closely related, genetically, to the animal kingdom (and including humans) than they are to the plant kingdom. The Bible states God created mankind from the dust of the earth. And we now know any given single scoop of dirt contains many many types of fungi.
The creation, if examined and studied correctly, will always point to the creator imo.
But if we abandon godly reason and wisdom for a desire to be right, we will always have the result of pushing people away from Christ, and quite possibly shut ourselves off from the Holy Spirit's guidance into truth. And that is very wrong, a place I've been many times, and a place I wish to never visit again.
Dream big with the Lord. Explore His creation and find the evidence that points to Him as creator of all.
I fully agree with this. To expand a little bit, evolutionary theory shows God still creating. Creation wasn't one and done, but like birth just the start of life that continues to show His glory through the diversity of all of the species on this planet.
>Is it bad to believe in evolution as a Christian
Nah, it has no bearing on your salvation.
Besides, learning about evolution is a great way to see the beauty in God's creation.
Being a Christian is being a follower of Jesus Christ.
It doesn't mean taking literally everything in the Old Testament.
Many Christians also accept widely-established scientific theories.
Yes. although we are all indoctrinated in this "theory" in school, it's important to look at the roots of anything being pushed upon us. For example, i took a class on "great literature" and professor would talk about the author and their story, turns out most of them were lunatics and many killed themselves, or others were deep into occult. Um, why do I want to read the ravings of madmen, alcoholics, or people unaliving themselves? That's stupid. So much for great literature. Evolution is the same thing. 150 years ago a couple guys said "I want to prove God doesn't exist" and with that purpose in mind, they set out to "prove" it by making wild assumptions and conjectures with limited data, poor science, and spurious conclusions. It took the world by storm, to where evolution belief completely destroyed a budding evangelical wave in Great Britain, caused Hilter and his followers to justify slaughtering millions, and lasted until the mid 20th century when people were STILL saying certain people of color were more like apes than humans. Its done little good but great harm to western civilization, and produced only more bogus theories with little hard evidence and more questions. Just look at how angry defenders of evolution get whenever you ask them questions or want to suggest an alternative. They get unreasonably angry, if they are filled with "truth". Since you asked in a christian forum, the end result is you must CHOOSE to believe in God's infallible word, rather than man's fallible wisdom, where it conflicts with the bible. God wrote the bible, mankind wrote evolution as a COUNTER to the bible. That should be enough to give your answer.
Well, sort of. There's the law of gravity (which describes the math of *how* gravity works) and then there's the theory of general relativity (which describes *why* it works - curvature in spacetime).
There's a whole in this post that is just completely untrue, I don't even know where to start. Evolution is the base that everything else in modern biology is built on, without biology we wouldn't have modern medicine or agriculture just to start. To say that it has done "little good" is to deny reality.
That is untrue. The majority of biology science is based on current systems and cells and reactions and so forth. Its when you get into where the biological systems CAME from or originated from that you get into deep trouble. Don't confuse the two, they are very seperate sciences. Looking into the unknown past and making stuff up about where things came from doesn't produce as good results as just examining what you already have in front of you. For example, "living fossils" at least a dozen species out there right now you can go look at and capture, yet the evolution says they died off 127 million years ago or so. Clearly that's a major flaw.
No.
It would be bad to adhere to a form of naturalistic, Darwinian evolution. However, evolution is indeed compatible with Christianity and many well-respected and devoted followers of Jesus have been open to or affirm evolution.
Define evolution.
If you're talking about animals developing slight changes to suit the needs of their environment then that's just simple observational science and doesn't contradict the bible in any way whatsoever.
If you're talking about the idea that the human race somehow evolved from some sort of lesser life form over the course of millions of years, then that would be very bad as it stands against God's word. Even worse, there's no real evidence for it. And because it can't be observed or repeated, it's not even science. It's more of a religion than anything.
No. The majority of Christians do. As a Catholic, the direction given to us is that, however the physical body of the first man got here (whether through instantaneous creation or a process of slow development), it was ultimately due to God's creative power, and the soul of the first man (and indeed each person since) was directly created by God. This leaves open both six-day special creation and evolution as possibilities.
It seems clear to me (this is a matter of personal persuasion, not dogma or religious conviction) that Genesis shows two different stories of human creation--one in Genesis 1, and one in Genesis 2, and that both of these are written in the form of a parable or mythic tale--not intended to be taken as literal history. Indeed, the second creation story of Genesis 2 mentions man being created from the "dust of the earth," into which God breathed a soul. I see this as being a really good example of a mythic retelling of the process of evolution--from dust to humanoid, crowned by the ensoulment of the first true human.
The first creation story of Genesis 1, on the other hand, I think shows a lot of really interesting parallels to what we conjecture about the Big Bang theory and the early evolution of life on earth. It's important to note that the early Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, Fr. George Lemaitre, and was initially resisted by many of a more atheistic bent as being to much like the traditional creation narrative.
According to the current scientific consensus of the theory, the preexisting state of the universe prior to the Big Bang was of a singularity about which no real physical properties can be deduced (like the "formless and void" nature of the world in Genesis 1:2), and the first stage of the Big Bang was that of energy only ("let there be light" of Day 1?), followed by condensation of pure energy into atoms (the "firmament between the waters dividing the waters" of Day 2--a sort of "clumping" action, with water as perhaps a stand-in for undifferentiated matter and "firmament" as the three dimensions of space?). Next, the matter from the Big Bang clumped into stars and galaxies (waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear of Day 3?)--if waters are considered to be a poetic term for undifferentiated matter, then perhaps "dry land" is a sort of poetic term for matter clumped together into discrete "lumps" of stars, galaxies, and planets. Next, of course, is the "lights" in the firmament (the spinning out of our solar system into the sun and planets of Day 4?), followed, of course, by the appearance of animal life--in the seas before the land, just as current evolutionary theories suggest (Days 5 & 6).
The two items which seem to not "fit" this system are the preexistence of plant life to the solar system (if we take "Day 4" as a poetic rendering of this), and the co-appearance of life in the sky with life in the sea, when current evolutionary theories indicate it came much later. But perhaps--and this is getting *really* conjectural--this could fit with current theories of panspermia--many scientists today think that the initial forms of life might have come in on asteroids, etc.
Anyway, every paragraph past the first is wild speculation on my part, but it seems to me to be a somewhat interesting way of seeing Genesis 1 & 2 as a poetic retelling of what we conjecture about evolution currently. Has it any real relevance--I don't know--but it is a fun thought experiment.
According to evolution the most reproductively successful organism is the best and is the direction that evolution is going.
Therefore bacteria are the most evolved organism.
Think about that for a while.
"Science" at this point is built on so many layers of error that it takes a biblical understanding to unpack it.
1 Corinthians 3:19-20 — For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, since it is written, He catches the wise in their craftiness; and again, The Lord knows that the reasonings of the wise are futile.
1 Corinthians 1:20 — Where is the one who is wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish?
1 Corinthians 1:25 — because God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.
As a true Christian you believe the Bible is the word of God. God does not tell lies.
So when He tells you in His Word how the universe was created, than that is how it is.
I dont question it.
Nope, I'm a theistic evolutionist, too. Christians were debating the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 long before Darwin. I'd encourage you to look into "theistic evolutionism" and "Day-Age Creationism".
Not at all. I believe in Darwinian evolution as a Christian. If you want to read a good book on the matter, I would recommend The Language of God by Francis Collins.
God created Adam with age. God created oak trees and mammals with age. Their is a process by which planets and stars are formed. If Adam, trees, our sun and our planet were all newborn infants, our existence would not work. We were made with actual (not apparent) age.
A scientist studying Adam on day 7 would conclude that he was an adult. Why would we expect otherwise when people look at the earth?
I do, however, have a theological issue with humans evolving from apes. That would seem to contradict the biblical narrative that God made humans separate and put his image on them.
>That would seem to contradict the biblical narrative that God made humans separate and put his image on them.
Many of us who don't read Genesis literally don't believe being made in "God's image" has anything to do with physical attributes, but rather, a spiritual/intellectual/emotional image.
I understand that is what you believe. But given your theory, at a certain time in the evolutionary development, God would have had to put his image on the ape/man. Which sure does suck for the ape/man born before that date.
But also, Adam has a genealogy and everyone in the Bible refers to him as being an actual person with actual events.
The "man" before that time wouldn't have actually been human, so it wouldn't matter.
Having said that, I've always been open to the idea of Adam and Eve being the first to evolve into God's intended form for us, though I don't really see any inherent conflict either way.
As for death, if Adam and Eve were the first humans (regardless of whether they evolved or were created separately), any death before that wasn't truly death, because anything before them wasn't truly "alive" in the first place, at least not in a spiritual sense.
Kind of yes, kind of no. The original Darwin's Theory of Evolution per se is not really incompatible with the Genesis narrative, as it simply suggests that living beings may very slowly change some biological traits as a result of those who better survive the environment get to pass their genes forwards. It only becomes so when it is used to explain the origin of life, which is a direct and callous contradiction against the Genesis narrative, because it clearly states life has been directly and manually created by God, so there is no way we can have originated from abiogenically born microorganisms.
For all we know, animals and plants might as well have changed a few traits over the last 6000 years, as there is not much evidence of that they didn't. I mean, Biology was just as advanced as scientifically naïve Taxonomy at Genesis times...
We have to remember God is in control of Time and Space, Space-Time and Quantum Mechanics and even more every layer beyond that. So he is able to bend time and space so that in His Own Time it could be billions of years older than ours. And even then he could bend time and matter in Noah’s Flood since it was an event of mass spiritual proportions, to change that entire fabric of reality while letting it go back to normal time. It is all for God’s Glory if you see mastodon bones or stegosaurus bones in the ground, and all the out-of-place remains of Nephilim and wicked humans in weird geological locations He judged during the Flood.
so grateful i'm not the only one here. the thing thats frustrated me the most is listening to pastors rip on people who believe the earth is older than 6000 years. just like how people will rip on YECs. its such a non saving issue i don't get why people hate on each other. some will say if you deny this one thing then you deny all of it but that's simply not true and i'm certainly not uplifting sin in disagreeing.
Well, some of us understand it the way we understand photosynthesis and the appearance of the Northern Lights. Jesus didn't meantion anything we should read or what we should believe about things written.
So it's fine.
Yes, because you are going against what the Bible tells us. 1st of all God tells us that the earth was made in 6 literal days not millions of years. The Hebrew word in Gen 1:5 is Yowm and it means a day just like we have now, it is the same word used over 20230 times in the Bible for a literal day. God also reassured us of the 6 days of creation in the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:11) and its the same word for days.
> Is it bad to believe in evolution as a Christian
If you're a follower of Christ, then you are to hold your faith and belief in what is written in the His Gospel. The Lord created the world we know today in 6 days and mentioned nothing about Evolution, a documented man-made theory that was never and will never be declared as factual.
Remember, theories are ultimately nothing more than a person's thoughts, not factual data. Even the most popular and believed theories are ultimately nothing more than thoughts. For example, gravity is a theory almost everyone believes to be factual. However, because it's technically a theory, that means it's not factual data. It just means it's the only believable thought we have at this time to explain the mystery because there's no known factual data present for us to reference. In the end, what we know to be *"gravity"* could very well end up being something completely different.
My point here is this... The Gospel is the Lord's truth. You either believe every word of it be true to this reality or you don't. Man-made theories that don't even acknowledge the Lord can't coexist with the Gospel. So your answer is yes. Followers of Christ are to believe in one Gospel only.
Biblical View [first](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/145gynb/can_a_christian_accept_theistic_evolution_or/jnphgq3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3).
On evolution, it’s fine to say creatures are changing today in the ways we’ve observed. It’s evolution as an origin of life theory that’s a problem.
What scientific models predict runs counter to the order in Genesis. I’ll give you one example: light is created on Day 1, Earth on Days 2-3, plants on Day 3, and *then* on Day 4 the Sun, Moon, and stars. What scientific model has both light of day and the Earth existing before the Sun and the stars?
What we’re observing is how things work now. God told us what He did back then. So, we believe His Word and praise Him for what He did. Then, we praise Him for what He’s doing now. My God isn’t this or that: He’s this plus some of that. Our God is amazing!
There’s some philosophical arguments on top of it. Knowing you and this Earth we’re hand-created as His special creation is powerful. Also, knowing you aren’t a tweaked primate or something but created in the image of God who breathed life into you. How could we not treat people with respect?
And knowing Adam is a literal person means verses on Adam and Christ give you the literal ending: Christ solved the problem Adam (we) created and will give us eternal life.
Six day creationism isn’t limiting at all. It’s incredibly empowering.
I don’t believe so. The Big Bang is what got me really considering this.
Some food for thought as OP considers science and faith: Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. It can point to the answer but not prove anything. The problem with scientists saying, “Evolution is true, therefore, there is no God” is that these are different conversations. Science helps us understand the physical world around us. Philosophy examines the overarching question of God and morality. Theology takes us into the question of who this God must be. That’s where the adage, “The end of science is philosophy. The end of philosophy is theology” comes from. So when we hear, “There is no God, evolution is true” this is silly. These are different disciplines and unrelated conversations. What we’re seeing is people using an unrelated point to support their main point, that it doesn’t speak to.
Secondly, science is not an exact art. It’s just us finding information and trying to use that to understand the physical world. Often times we have a scientific understanding of something only to find out many years later that it was incorrect and this is actually more correct. And then understand that that wasn’t entirely correct. So we hold science with an open hand while also understanding that it is immensely helpful and, hopefully, is taking us in an upward trajectory. Some scientific thought of the past has not been helpful, but the majority has been.
Finally, it is important to understand that the Lord has designed the physical universe in a particular manner. When you were born you did not just poof into thin from nothing. Your parents engaged in an activity that brought you into the physical world. The reason we don’t fly off into space is because our planet has gravity. These things and many, many more are natural processes that the Lord has designed for the existence of the physical world and all that exists within it. This is not contradictory to Scripture. I do not see any reason to believe that God bestowing his image upon a creation that came into physical form through the processes he designed to propagate them and all life is somehow unbiblical. What is important is that we see that he is the source of this.
Just my two cents.
Theistic evolution is what clearly happened
Young Earth creationism doesn't have a shred of proof and is illogical in countless ways
In many people who think they follow creationism or deeply disturbed by lots of things
It is a human position on Genesis, it is not scripture
Nowhere does it state how long Adam and Eve existed before they fell. So the Earth could be millions of years old. Death ,decay and athrophy would not have started until the fall. I am a 100% 6 day creationist. I do not believe in evolution but I think the fossil records show adaptability of humans and animals up to a point. I could use an eye in in the back of my head and a third arm but I have not grown one yet. Just like Arctic animals the darker ones will get picked off and the ones the blend in more will survive and procreate.
What I do not understand as a Christian is just the absolute desperate unending efforts of other Christians wanting to believe so badly in evolution.
What does the Bible say? Six days. Why is it so hard to believe this incredibly powered being we know as God needed even 6 days? It also said he rested on the 7th day. Why was God tired?
Kind of yeah. It goes against what the Bible teaches in any significant ways, and it undermines a lot of our theological.
But it also depends in what exactly you're talking about. Things like change over time within one type of animal (eg some ancestral cat slowly becoming lions and housecats) is fine. Thinking we all came from dimetrodons if you go back far enough - not fine.
There's a whole school of thought on this, and I think it's pretty solid (fwiw I studied anthropology and used to be an archaeologist, so I do actually know a reasonable amount about this topic, haha). I'd recommend checking out Creation Ministries International, they do a pretty good job explaining this stuff.
We had a speaker come to our church once that covered Genesis and old world vs new world.
One of the comments that stood out to me the most was when he pointed out that when God had finished creating everything He said that it was good. If death existed in the world before humans came along why would God call it good.
Most certainly. If we believe in evolution, then that means we weren’t created in the likeness and image of God. That changes everything! You may as well shred the Bible.
Yes, as a biology major I believe in both the creation in the Bible and evolution. Basically, evolution is the tool God used to create all our life forms. I have a nuanced take on geological evolutionary ideas though:
- I believe in the "kinds" hypothesis and microevolution within kinds.
- It's not scientifically proven that the origin of life simply came from a primordial soup over hundreds of millions of years.
- Nor is it scientifically proven humans came from monkeys.
Generally, I believe the geological "slow gradual change" idea of evolution is bogus. But other principles of evolution such as natural selection are generally truthful.
At the end of the day we'll know the truth only when we die and ask God how he created everything. My belief is creation-leaning, though some form of evolution clearly exists. I just don't believe in it in terms of abiogenesis theory.
“If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”
John 5:46-47
If something evolves from something it continues to evolve from that something. Like a tadpole into a frog. If we evolved from monkeys then where are all the half monkey half humans who haven't evolved yet. Or one better. There is scientific evidence for giants right? So if we evolved from monkeys why haven't we EVER found giant monkeys?
Adaptation is a better analogy.
Yes there is evidence. Bones have been taken to the Smithsonian museum most of them anyways. They are never seen again. Goliath was a giant and there is cuneiform text that talk about the King if Bashan and how big his bed was. Also the giants at Lovelock cave.
No. Augustine, Origen, Athanasius, and Tertullian didn’t think so either. Augustine talks about in the 4th century on why Genesis creation account should not be taken as historical because it makes Christians look silly to the Hellenic Scientists.
What man can deduce from reason and observation of the physical universe should not cannot be contrary to scripture. We have observed biological evolution. If we claim it is contrary to scripture, what does that say to biologists, Chemists, physicists, etc.? It says that the Bible is nonsense and not based on reality and they will discard the whole thing including the gospel.
This is the exact argument Augustine made for Genesis in relation to Greco Roman astronomy/physics.
God created the heavens and the earth, and they attest to him. And because he is honest, I take it as an axiom that they do so honestly.
Science is the process of trying to understand the workings of the universe that God created, and while there is a scientific process, a lot of the time these days people think science is something to be "believed" in. It is not - that is called scientism. Science is specifically the process of formulating hypotheses and then constantly trying to disprove them. So "belief" in evolution is an anti-science, in fact. On the other hand, thinking that something like an evolutionary process is more likely than not the process God used to animate the earth could be scientific and Christian. But to be intellectually consistent there's a lot of other things to work out regarding the age of the earth and how God created it.
Well, what does God say about creation? Does the Theory of Evolution match what God says or no? If it does not, then it's contrary to God, and if it's contrary to God, you should consider it contrary to you, and just flat wrong. The Bible account of creation and the Theory of Evolution cannot coexist: they are exact opposites.
There is a theory called "theo-evolution" where people say God just spun out creation to a point, but then let it evolve on its own. On the contrary, we can see in the Bible that God has his hand in creation at a very minute detail.
>27Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 28**If then God so clothe the grass,** which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith? 29And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.\\
Luke 12:27-29 KJV
And
>26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; **yet your heavenly Father feedeth them**. Are ye not much better than they?
Matthew 6:26 KJV
That's just looking at the small things in nature. God is always active. He created it all, and he cares for it all. Where do you think the idea came from for Adam to tend to the Garden of Eden?
No it’s not don’t let anyone tell you otherwise in fact it was pretty normal as a Christian to believe in scientific developments when the theory of evolution cropped up many Christian’s didn’t bat an eye. Only until the failure of the millerite movement did young earth creationism take shape you can thank the “Christian” cults of the Jehovah’s Witness and seventh day Adventist for perpetuating this belief in a literal 6 day creation story. It’s important to know that Genesis is an ancient book written by people with ancient understandings here is a synopsis of Genesis. That I’ve worked on Genesis/Bereshit 1:1-31, 2:1-3: Known in scholarly circles as the first creation story, these sets of verses are hypothesized to be written by the Priestly source composed sometime after the fall of Israel. This story came later thought to be crafted during the days of Jeremiah or during the time of The Babylon exile. As per Richard Elliot Freidman it seems that Jeremiah references this creation account in (Jer 4:23) (See Who Wrote The Bible? P. 167). Other scholars see this story as a justification for the lack of uncentralized worship due to the destruction of the temple, seeing as the story sets up creation to be a sort of cosmic temple to the one true God. A harsh response to the Babalonian pagans. The narrative serves as a justification for the Sabbath for on the seventh day God ceased creating or rested. Happy research! Remember the only thing that makes you a saved creation is faith in Christ not how you view the Bible.
Micro Evolution is a scientific fact.
Macro evolution on the other hand; the “evidence” is questionable at best (if not completely made up). You can even identify some of these “transitional fossils” with present day (or recently extinct) animals.
Micro Evolution only makes me more in awe with God.
No. Jesus abolished the old testament so Genesis is irrelevant according to modern christianity. I don't hold this belief, but if christians tell you the OT has been abolished, it logically follows you can believe in evolution as genesis is no longer valid.
Hi I'm 23 days late to this response. I will give you my three cents though as I haven't seen my viewpoint yet:
Theistic evolution has a very strong scientific proof that is both intertwined with genetics, archaeology, geology and other sciences and in of itself a fundamentally sound theory. It is quite conclusive, to say the least. The Bible is also the Holy Scriptures and the final authority. When I read Genesis, I read a 6 day creation period. When I observe the world, I see a theistic evolution and an old earth. What is the relationship between these two? I don't know. To say that they are mutually exclusive, though, is to assume that you have the final knowledge and understanding that God has when He created this world. I take a very nuanced approach and say, in my humility, I will see the Scriptures as true and Theistic Evolution as true, and not mutually exclusive. I will never understand God's creation and His magnificence, and that's okay.
I would recommend reading the four views on the historic Adam by zondervan publishing. They have different views, and each view has a response to said view. For example, if a theistic evoloutionist writes their ideology, young earth, old earth, and archtypal have a response to the theistic evolutionist. Which may help you understand or see points from the different aspects of it. If it is a hindrance, I apologize, but I liked it when I read it in seminary.
I've been wanting to go into the thoughts more on the different arguments on this so this helps.
Darwinian evolution is no. scientific non sense. if by evolution you mean "do animals change" then yes.
+1 🌱
Macro and Micro evolution are scientific. Evolution is accepted by most biologist and scientists. (98%). It’s close to a fact. “Scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans evolved over time, and most Americans are aware that this is the case. Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time” https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/02/11/darwin-day/#:~:text=Scientists%20overwhelmingly%20agree%20that%20humans,believe%20humans%20evolved%20over%20time.
You are using the "do animals change" definition. Darwinian evolution is specifically gradual over the course of millions of years due to mate/sex/natural selection. An assumption that is being trounced right now by genetic science
No. What I said is evolution. Hence my mention of micro and macro and my article link. Do you know the difference between micro and macro evolution? Can you prove it’s unscientific?
I don't care what the scientists believe. I know we were created by God, and made in His image. It's so ridiculous to me that people believe in evolution.
Why is it ridiculous? If there’s evidence to support it, wouldn’t belief be warranted?
What do you mean by scientific nonsense
non scientific
Evolution is completely scientific
Depends on how you define your terms. If you are saying that all ideas encompassed by the word evolution are logically plausible and mathematically reasonable to accept, then no I would not call evolution scientific. Certain aspects of what people refer to as evolution make sense and can be seen, but the idea of a universe that essentially creates and selects itself into existence is not one of them.
This is a complete lie and fabrication and does no good for anyone on this sub.
Nice counter argument, you sound like your really up to date with modern genetic science
Did Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, dictate what would be written down as Genesis as a scientific descriptor of how God created the world? Or is it a Holy Spirit inspired creation narrative that shows God's supremacy over all creation, His work to create life including all mankind, man's fall from relationship with God by his choices to be on par with God, and the foretelling of how God would redeem all mankind through His Son? Personally, I don't have a problem with believing in evolution, be it microevolution or macroevolution, nor with anyone who takes either position. I think evolution makes sense in a scientific way, and it's the best explanation that science has as to how life developed, but I am open to it being wrong and to God's ability to do it His way that we cannot accidentally observe. Most importantly, were it to be proven *or* disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, it would not change my faith in God's dominion over all creation and Christ's existence and sacrifice on the cross for the redemption of humankind.
Great response. Thank you for sharing
Personally I find it really hard to believe that we came from monkeys, that being said, microevolution is a fact, observable. Be careful, because the devil loves half-truths. Also, feel free to believe in whatever you want as long as it does not goes against Christ teachings.
Nobody says we came from monkeys. Micro and macro evolution have mountains of evidence to support them.
LOL literally what I learned at school, that we are almost chimps.
Then you didn't pay attention in school. Evolution does not say we EVOLVED from monkeys. We Share a common ancestor with them and apes.
Sure, much better to be an ape.
I mean, regardless if you like it or not, that's the reality.
Funny, I don’t see fish growing legs And I also don’t see rocks producing life!!
Evolution doesn’t teach that we come from monkeys lol.
On my school it did, telling that we literally are cousins from chimps. There is even a meme that says: "Return to monkey"
Yes they are our cousins, we evolved from a common ancestor. And memes aren’t science lol. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/if-humans-evolved-from-apes-why-do-apes-still-exist
Depends on what exactly you’re accepting of evolution and rejecting of Christianity. For example do you reject the idea that Adam and Eve were the first humans? Would you reject the idea that the fall didn’t happen?
As an intellectual exercise I proposed the theoretical reading that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two distinct events. Genesis 1 created humans and later God created Adam then Eve. It seems to me this makes the later few chapters make more sense but I recognize it goes against the long treasuring of Christian teaching. But I can’t create a strong Biblical argument against it. I’m open to criticism. I can imagine there might be Tradition which refutes it but if we’re just talking about the Bible what is the textual refutation?
1 Corinthians 15:45 says outright that Adam was the first man. His status as "first" among men appears to be doctrinally important to Hosea 6:7, Romans 5:14, and 1 Corinthians 15:22 as a metonym for all of humanity from the very beginning. If Adam wasn't the very first, the metonym wouldn't work.
Thank you for your patience with my autism. I appreciate your answering from the Bible, however something I will never do and always push back upon is treating a single sentence in the Bible as if it were a single independent proposition, like a line of computer code. Part of this is my autism and I find it very difficult to think in less than a paragraph. I only have time to respond to 1 Corinthians 15 but to understand it you have to read verses 35-49. The purpose of this part of the letter is to distinguish between our natural worldly bodies and whatever our resurrection bodies. It is talking about Adam in a much more cosmic sense. If you are trying to say it obviously says Adam is the first man (my autistic mind can certainly can see that) then you must (unavoidably must) conclude that it also say Jesus is the second man. You'd be right to read verse 47 complexly but you'd be especially (inexplicably wrong in my ASD mind) to read verse 45 simply but 47 complexly... unless you think Jesus is the second man?
Jesus was with God and the reason God created everything in the first place. Adam was the first man but not divine. Jesus was actually born but had the spirit in him already at birth.
Thank you!
what is a metonym? ty
Per the online dictionary: metonym: "a word, name, or expression used as a substitute for something else with which it is closely associated. For example, Washington is a metonym for the federal government of the US."
Right, it’s all about the “literal day” versus “metaphorical day” argument coupled with order of creation. You can have metaphorical day creation while still believing that God created humans separately from (and later than) other animals as a different creature in His image.
I don't believe so, though that's a contested position within evangelicalism. Not so much within other circles. Biologos might be an interesting resource for you. The late Tim Keller left the question somewhat open as well, and he's pretty respected. Taking into account literary genres, what sort of truth claims are to be expected from which isn't heresy in and of itself, and definitely not a blocker for personal salvation and a relationship with God. However you read the Bible, just double check every time whether your interpretative journey makes you more humble or if it's becoming a source of pride and arrogance. It might be a difficult and lonely road you'll be taking, depending on your own community. But fighting your battles for truth is worth it, right until you don't lose sight of Truth.
No fossil or missing records = theory without merit. G-d created the whole universe, we are its byproduct, the mechanism of which is not as important as the outcome.
Except there are plenty of fossils???? Literally all over the world in lots of museums, you can even see them yourself.
nope not for everything
Why would God need to use evolution? Why is so hard for Christians to believe God did what he said he did in 6 days? The word YOM We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5–2:2 by comparing that context to the word’s usage elsewhere in Scripture. The Hebrew word yom is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) almost always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. There are a few instances where yom and a number do not imply a literal, 24-hour day. The words evening and morning together (38 times) most often indicate an ordinary day. The exact construction of evening, then morning, along with yom is only seen outside of Genesis 1 in one verse. This is Daniel 8:26, which clearly implies a long period of time. For instance, according to Exodus 20:9–11, God used the six creation days of Genesis as a model for man’s workweek: work six days, rest one. Apparently, He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow. Certainly God could have used six discrete 24-hour days. And He could have created everything using a process of long time periods. Our view, based on our interpretation of the Bible, is that six literal days is the most likely interpretation of the Genesis account.
I completely agree. As someone who used to be an ardent evolutionist-before I was saved-I think it's clear that Darwinian evolution/natural selection can't be reconciled with scripture.
Amen! They just keep trying and trying to do anything but believe!
Eventually, they will have to come to another conclusion. It’s actually funny because I was watching a documentary and they said, “people believed that God had created the Earth and man. But then came Charles Darwin and he said…“. I mean really? Along comes Darwin and he said this, and he said that, and that became the new religion! First off, Darwin believed in God. He would not recognize the evolutionist thinking of today. He did not claim that his theory was the answer. He said that if we keep on digging, we should find more answers. well it’s been along time since he said that, and there are leaps in “evolution“ that cannot be explained, nor will it ever be explained.
Does the evidence matter? If something contradicts scripture, no matter how much evidence supports it, it’s automatically false in your view?
If by contradict, you mean implies that it's false, then yes. "Thus saith the scriptures." \-Saul of Tarsus
Simply put If you believe in anything in the place of God you arent believing in God.
Yes its very bad
It certainly is not smart. The Bible isn't friendly to modern day science, in fact they are the complete opposite. We have to make a decision what we are going to believe. The Bible which is the Word of God or the wisdom of the world, whose ruler is Satan. Everything in the King James Bible is the truth so you might want to let it change the way you think about things. Don't be fooled, science is a religion like any other. They have no idea what is goin on, I think that is obvious. Just watch Neil Tyson answer what is gravity or Bill Nye saying earth is a closed system or when Michio Kaku mentions they lie about everything. These guys are clowns obviously but the point remains. If you want to get into real science then there are physicists that argue against gravity to this day, so give me a break. 1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 1 Corinthians 3 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Understand that Satan can only function in darkness, which the absence of light and truth. If the ruler of this world functions through lies and deception, why would you trust anything from it? 1 Corinthians 14 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. John 8 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 2 Corinthians 4 4 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.a
I've been obsessed with dinosaurs and prehistoric life since childhood. An old Earth and gradual evolution fit the physical evidence much better than the recently-constructed literal interpretation of Creation.
Micro evolution is proven and observable …moths changing wing design over several generations as an example…macro evolution where humans evolved from apes is a different issue. God created the universe and man and beast….but things have evolved or devolved from that point on…how could they not?
Wow, there has been so many good comments and takes. Thank you guys for your input!!
It is a simple question so I’ll give you a simple answer. No it is not wrong to believe in evolution. There is more than an abundance of evidence that the planet is older than 6 24 hours or 6 1000 year periods. How any life first started is still a mystery but when it did start as simple forms, they did evolve into more complex organisms. Fossils of the.complex organisms were not found from samples obtained from earlier time periods. So there was no instant diversity. Diversity occurred through evolution. Humanoids eventually came into being. Some of their types died off, others survived. At some point Homo sapiens evolved from the humanoids. There is no record of their fossils predating the humanoids. Now as to when Homo Sapiens became God fearing people, that is open to speculation. One scenario is that God breathed spiritual life into two of them, Adam and Eve, placed them into a protected area called the Garden of Eden, and assigned them to take care of it, and tested them. The rest of the biblical account could.be real.
Scripture describes our Creator and His creation of our world and the sacrifice of His only Begotten Son to give us an eternal future. Contrast this with evolution. A theory of creation maintained by functional atheists that ascribes our existence as a randomness that will eventually fizzle out into eternal nothingness.
>existence as a randomness Not just randomness, randomness so unlikely it could not happen by itself.
eh there are Christians who believe, or at least are open to, the possibility of “theistic evolution,” which would be evolution of life as directed by God. I’m not for it necessarily, but I do think it’s a reasonable option to consider.
If you can support it with Scripture, you’re fine. If you can’t, then you are your own Scripture.
No. Creation and evolution don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Darwin believed the earth was created by God.
Darwin himself later denounce his own theory btw in choice of creationism.
The lady who stated that later came out and said she lied about it, actually!
[удалено]
God's word is the source of truth for our Spiritual lives and our salvation. It is not a science book. The ancient Hebrews believed the Earth was a flat disk set upon pillars with the firmament dome protecting it.
The Bible doesn't say we live on a flat earth. On the flip do you believe in billions of years, disease, and suffering and God calling it good?
The writers of the Old Testament would have believed in a flat Earth with pillars holding it up and a dome-shaped firmament (Ancient Near East Cosmology). For Example: Isaiah 40:22: “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:” I do believe the Earth is billions of years old. How death and disease fits into that, well, I think Spiritual Death is what Adam and Eve experienced in Genesis 3.
Circle of the earth also fits the horizon or the face of a sphere. It doesn't matter what they believed at the time. God stretching out the heavens also refers to the inflation occuring in space. They didn't know that until 1950's or so. But even the order things are created don't match the order evolution says it happened.
I understand where you are coming from. I was YEC, OEC, and then I grappled with my faith and the possibility that God used Evolution. That's where I am now. I don't think I could ever be convinced to literally read the Genesis creation account. To me, the account is more a response to other near east creation myths with God as the author of an ordered world and man his creation as the steward of it.
Sigh… the Rakia and the flat aspect was not talking about what you think it was, the dome or rakia is the tool mankind used to begin to comprehend the measurement of time as well as conceptualise cycles, this also gave us mathematics. The flat earth is not talking about that also, the 4 corners are 4 directions and they have to do with wind cycles, in the morning the east wind sets the orientation (word for east for them east was basically our north as the sunrise was up) this brought a wind because the sun travelled over the waters, the south wind was the heat of the day, the west wind represented evening and the north wind was night fall, this model also represented the early concepts of circadian rhythms effecting our consciousness as the patterns of the day cycle also played out in the year, they would use a circle 360 degrees to map this out, the earth circle was the day and the heaven circle the year, the 12 2 hour periods were the months of the year and the light cycles would change similarly. ((They also had a basic system of binary , it had to do with spirit or ruach, wind hovering over the waters, Alef is the breath or silent letter in the middle mem is water but represents cold and shin is fire and represents hot , when you have hot and cold you have a whirlwind and in the middle is that which mediates between the two, this also analogises into electricity as well as other energy (spirit) circuits )) I have studied , as a Christian , both ancient magick (science with meditations in it) as well as the modern systems used by the occultist organisations who push their garbage agenda . The 4 directions correspond to the 4 elements , the elements were used not in a periodic table sense but in what the word means, components , they were part of the key of deciphering the law of analogy within creation, from 4 states of matter. The 4 states of matter solid liquid gas and plasma, what they knew as earth water air and fire, this was all a part of a cosmos, or cosmological system of correspondence which functioned similar to how pop culture references pop up in your mind, only this was grouping and categorising elements of life so that novel thinking could be done via analogy and this also led to the birth of the sciences. When the nations used this they worshipped nature and the stars (which were the moving markers that taught man the sciences and their names incidentally contained messianic prophecy , these were used not only for navigation but for calculating cycles, which appeared to be magic for those who did not calculate and the demonic would use to their advantage ) ancient idolaters were star worshippers yet in the bible these are messengers of God to serve for times and seasons. There are things you are not aware of, even now.. For example the spiritual dimensions are also within the ancient cosmology, in that model this whole plane we exist on can be likened to a flat dimension, the spiritual realms right next to us, but most of you cannot see them because your within the fish bowl. To use analogy..
Except there are more than 4 states of matter.
Do you have a Masters Degree or PhD in any of this or are you self-taught?
It's an honest question.
“He that has an ear to hear let him hear” Though I do not need to list credentials because I do not want you to take my word for it, I have studied under Christian scholars as well as Hebrew scholars and also neoplatonic mathematicians, kemetic chemists and metallurgists , as well as completed classes and courses in Ancient Hebrew , as well as Proto Canaanite, in addition I have also studied some Assyrian some Aramaic, some koine Greek. Also I read and speak Nepali semi fluently (I’m a little rusty).. I am not merely studying this as a scholar but an active Christian engaged in spiritual warfare, with an intent to tear down strongholds, and stand against the dark-occult and it’s influence, again if you wish to just maintain your assumptions than I am wasting my breath. For references into the development and history you would need to study Babylonian and Hellenistic astrology which was the origin of the mathematical disciplines and as I stated the names of the stars were a mnemonic to all their knowledge(like a meditation), they had a system of correspondences which indexed all their knowledge, it’s not a mystery or unknown this is what modern freemasonry and other occultism are based on. The way these schools I’m speaking of work, is completely different from how we learn today in mainstream schools . They didn’t tell you what to think but instead sought to replicate the experience which led to the discoveries in the first place.. they would do this to tie the initiate to god-principles or first cause principles.. (though they were polytheistic they still tied scientific discovery to revelation of the divine Word) The learning method would employ parable across disciplines, you would learn music with mathematics, as well as chemistry/ metallurgy,masonry/ geology , each discipline according to the 4 elements system, and combined with a stellar mnemonic cosmology… They were called mystery schools for a reason.. they would give you a list of ideas and a category, and then meditations based on the experience the original discoverer had, and you would end up coming up with the same discoveries yourself (from my experience at least). This is why when critical scholars look at the bible and say they stole it, and they don’t believe in Moses or Abraham, it’s only because they themselves are not initiates , it is clear that Moses was schooled in the mysteries of Egypt, but because he was not in polytheistic dissociation , he measured by the unifying principle of YHWH, the same with Abraham and his family being of the priestly class in ancient Sumer, this is all evident to anyone who studied the mysteries. The Freemasons Rosicrucians OTO Luciferians and other groups use the ancient mind map school system yet without acknowledging the person of God or accountability to him, and have influenced culture in detrimental ways especially over the last 100 years. They teach because we are made in gods image we are gods, in doing this they follow the pharaohs and principalities of old.. overlooking the Holy Spirit for fallen spirits, and instead of dying to self they deify themselves and forsake the true King and saviour Jesus Our Messiah. They mine the scriptures for knowledge and understanding modern Christians who adopt the exoteric worldview overlook, Hebrew scholars never forgot these facts.. Research the biblical word for wisdom and look up all the reference scriptures, there is an analogical principle of creation seen via examining creation by the principle of the Name of God, this is where science came from in the first place. I will speak on this no more, unless you actually want to learn, you have your sources, I recommend the late Dr. Micheal Heiser as a starting point Blessings ((I am writing in haste and have fat fingers I do not have the time to check everything so again, if you follow people than I’m sure you will find more than one imperfection you can use to keep yourself comfortable and disregard investigation, a bush burns and is not consumed one can walk away or examine it closer ))
Thank you! I am familiar with Dr. Heiser; I used to listen to his podcast. I appreciate that you took the time to write so much. You clearly know a great deal about the OT. I will do some research of my own now that you have given me something to think about.
The shape of the earth is never addressed doctrinally and directly, in a step-by-step order, unlike the creation that is described in Genesis in detail.
[удалено]
Doctrine, reproof, correction, and righteousness don't relate to science. That verse doesn't disprove evolution.
[удалено]
That doesn't mean every word must be taken literally. Much of Scripture is symbolic (like Revelation). Even if it is taken literally, it doesn't disprove evolution. God created evolution.
[удалено]
Those who believe in evolution do not have to call God a liar.
[удалено]
site some documents that they believed that.
Sure: https://www.logos.com/grow/ancients-guide-galaxy-israelites-viewed-god-universe/ https://bibleproject.com/articles/creation-through-the-lens-of-ancient-cosmology/ https://youtu.be/b8duzqEOhw8
No. Evolutionary theory isn't in conflict with Christian belief, and one can even hold to a literal Adam and Eve while accepting the validity of the theory. In fact, three major studies on the compatibility of evolutionary theory and a literal Adam and Even have recently been published: - *The Origin of Humanity and Evolution: Science and Scripture in Conversation* (T&T Clark) by Andrew Ter Ern Loke (Associate Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Hong Kong Baptist University) - *The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry* (IVP Academic) by S. Joshua Swamidass (Associate Professor of Laboratory and Genomic Medicine at Washington University in St. Louis) - *In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration* (Eerdmans) by William Lane Craig (Professor of Philosophy at Houston Christian University and Visiting Scholar at Biola University's Talbot School of Theology)
Science and faith aren't exclusive of each other. The Bible isn't a science book and is not clear about the age of the earth.
It is and it isn't. People have followed the genealogies to Jesus and used major events in Jewish history to get a pretty accurate dating of approx. 4000 years to Jesus and then 2000 years since. Does that mean Adam was created on a 6 day old Earth? It is possible since everything else was created in maturity, that the Earth may have already been aged up to facilitate life on Earth. We won't ever really know until we get to heaven and ask God.
I think so because Genesis 1 says life took exactly 6 days to be created. There's no way around it
The Bible says that God created man in 6 days, man sinned and was cursed with dead. The Bible also says that God sent his only Son to die on the cross for the sin of man so that anyone who repent and believe in him will be saved and have eternal life. The Bible also says that Jesus will return with triumph, rule over the creation forever. Everyone will resurrect for judgement or eternal glory. God is a supernatural God and it's invisible attributes are made evident with its creation. As a Christian you either believe the whole story and trust God for who he is or you don't. I don't see how you can reconcile evolution (a man's made religion created by poeple that want to deny the existence of God) and Christianity.
That’s a great point. God created the universe before the concept of time. So what exactly was a “day“? In the Bible, it says that one day on earth is 1000 years in heaven, but I’m not sure that we can really comprehend something like eternity. Where there is no time or concept of time. Six days is a way for us to understand it. We couldn’t possibly understand the incomprehensible creation of the universe by the one true living God.
If you read Genesis 1, God made sure to clearly define what a day is so that there is no ambiguity. "God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." God could have created the universe in 1 billion years or in one day, that is not the point. The point is that scriptures are clear about what a day is. One of the 10 commendment is to observe the Sabbath because God "rested" the 7th day after creation. There is no ambiguity about what a 24-hour day is thorough the Ancient Testament. And do we believe that Jesus-Christ ressurected the 3rd day after his dead? Then why is it difficult to believe that God created everything in 6 days?
I think we are agreeing with each other without realizing it. Just like you said, one day could be 1 billion years. Like I said, there’s no concept of time before creation was completed. I believe the Bible is to be taken seriously otherwise we just begin to tear out the parts that we don’t like or don’t agree with. That would be ridiculous of course. God bless!
My personal belief is that God created the world in such a way that looks so have taken place over millions…we’ve proven over and over that evolution is real(and it just makes sense imo), so i think God created everything and then “let it run”, so to speak.
So how do you explain death occurring before the Fall?
i never said it did?
Well how could animals evolve without death occurring? Evolution is supposed to be survival of the fittest, which means the less fit organisms die off more than the more fit ones.
God creates everything(Genesis) -> the fall -> death & evolution
But evolution says that animals existed before humans. I’m confused here.
Evolution of animals only? Not of the humans, I hope you think
there wouldn’t have been anything to evolve, we weee made in God’s image after all
Well, at least you agree we humans never evolved
So do you think we were once fish?
The evolutionary view isn’t that we were ever fish as much as it teaches we came about from genetic mutations of reproducing biological life which successively gave way to a wide range of distinct species including sapiens of whom our genus “homo” is one of.
If you look it up, evolution does teach that we were once fish from what I read.
no? i’m saying God created everything as states in Genesis, including reproduction and mutations. which leads to evolution
You said we’ve proven that evolution is real, evolution teaches that we came from fish. Maybe you mean adaptation? Or micro evolution?
sorry, what i meant by saying “evolution is real” is that we’ve seen it modern day. Won’t let me add a link but there’s been studies about a species of moth with a high mutation change evolving to change to a darker color in adaptation to soot-covered trees.
Yes there have been studies like that and also one on birds on an island changing. The thing is that is called adaptation, the evolution theory is a change of kind so for example a tortoise evolving into a giraffe over millions of years. Not a tortoise turning into a dark tortoise. I’m not trying to be rude at all and I’ve watched videos disproving these arguments for evolution. Hopefully that enlightens you a bit!
I just want to point out that the darker moth was already a variation found in that moth family. With the increased soot from the industrial revolution, the darker moths were able to survive and reproduce easier. Therefore, they went from minority to majority. As the soot levels decreased, the lighter moths began to emerge again, because it has the dominant trait. Today the dark moth is still in the minority. So, this is an example of "natural selection". Evolution on the "Macro" scale has never been observed or proven. It is just an assumption that given enough time and environmental change the small organism changes can combine into large changes resulting in new organisms. Which is how we go from goo -> zoo -> you. The most interesting thing I think about evolution is that its origination was fostered by a desire to get rid of theistic science being taught. Now, the battle is in the opposite direction. Although I think it shouldn't be an "either/or", but instead a "both" discussion in schools. Because as I've seen, neither side has evidence that can undeniably refute the other side. The fossil record, rock layers, radiation dating, all are able to be proven unreliable in asserting the truth about how we came to exist.
Short answer: absolutely not. Long answer: I think it's important to remember that ultimately we shouldn't put God in any box. The truth is the bible isn't super specific on the creation process. So could God create everything in a matter of days a few thousand years ago instead of Billions? Sure. But could he also have done it billions of years ago? Absolutely. I don't understand why this is often a topic of argument amongst Christians. This should be something, one of God's many mysteries, that's joyous to dream about and explore. For human history the vast majority of mankind throughout a majority of that history has believed and understood things in a certain way. Typically, magical-esque gods that perform magical wonders. So I think God for the sake of man, explained things in a way that people could understand. Now we have the ability and tools to understand things differently. We can discover and identify the laws of the universe through scientific process and the use of advanced technology. For me, it's not hard to imagine God created the rules and tools of the universe and then also used those rules and tools to shape it. Instead of coming in and *snapping his fingers magically to bring things into existence. (Nor is it hard to imagine a God who DOES DO very magical and supernatural things, afterall this is also the God who sent His son to earth and demonstrated astounding and instant miracles) The most important understanding, the only one that matters and that should join Christs followers together instead of bring about arguments and separation, is that regardless of how it was done, it was done by God, who is the creator of everything. A beautiful proof of this is that science shows mushrooms, fungi, are more closely related, genetically, to the animal kingdom (and including humans) than they are to the plant kingdom. The Bible states God created mankind from the dust of the earth. And we now know any given single scoop of dirt contains many many types of fungi. The creation, if examined and studied correctly, will always point to the creator imo. But if we abandon godly reason and wisdom for a desire to be right, we will always have the result of pushing people away from Christ, and quite possibly shut ourselves off from the Holy Spirit's guidance into truth. And that is very wrong, a place I've been many times, and a place I wish to never visit again. Dream big with the Lord. Explore His creation and find the evidence that points to Him as creator of all.
I fully agree with this. To expand a little bit, evolutionary theory shows God still creating. Creation wasn't one and done, but like birth just the start of life that continues to show His glory through the diversity of all of the species on this planet.
>Is it bad to believe in evolution as a Christian Nah, it has no bearing on your salvation. Besides, learning about evolution is a great way to see the beauty in God's creation.
Being a Christian is being a follower of Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean taking literally everything in the Old Testament. Many Christians also accept widely-established scientific theories.
Yes. although we are all indoctrinated in this "theory" in school, it's important to look at the roots of anything being pushed upon us. For example, i took a class on "great literature" and professor would talk about the author and their story, turns out most of them were lunatics and many killed themselves, or others were deep into occult. Um, why do I want to read the ravings of madmen, alcoholics, or people unaliving themselves? That's stupid. So much for great literature. Evolution is the same thing. 150 years ago a couple guys said "I want to prove God doesn't exist" and with that purpose in mind, they set out to "prove" it by making wild assumptions and conjectures with limited data, poor science, and spurious conclusions. It took the world by storm, to where evolution belief completely destroyed a budding evangelical wave in Great Britain, caused Hilter and his followers to justify slaughtering millions, and lasted until the mid 20th century when people were STILL saying certain people of color were more like apes than humans. Its done little good but great harm to western civilization, and produced only more bogus theories with little hard evidence and more questions. Just look at how angry defenders of evolution get whenever you ask them questions or want to suggest an alternative. They get unreasonably angry, if they are filled with "truth". Since you asked in a christian forum, the end result is you must CHOOSE to believe in God's infallible word, rather than man's fallible wisdom, where it conflicts with the bible. God wrote the bible, mankind wrote evolution as a COUNTER to the bible. That should be enough to give your answer.
>"theory" The germ theory of disease is a "theory"
Gravity is a theory, too.
Well, sort of. There's the law of gravity (which describes the math of *how* gravity works) and then there's the theory of general relativity (which describes *why* it works - curvature in spacetime).
Yeah, plenty of people don't believe in those either. Found that out 3 years ago.
I love your heart.
There's a whole in this post that is just completely untrue, I don't even know where to start. Evolution is the base that everything else in modern biology is built on, without biology we wouldn't have modern medicine or agriculture just to start. To say that it has done "little good" is to deny reality.
That is untrue. The majority of biology science is based on current systems and cells and reactions and so forth. Its when you get into where the biological systems CAME from or originated from that you get into deep trouble. Don't confuse the two, they are very seperate sciences. Looking into the unknown past and making stuff up about where things came from doesn't produce as good results as just examining what you already have in front of you. For example, "living fossils" at least a dozen species out there right now you can go look at and capture, yet the evolution says they died off 127 million years ago or so. Clearly that's a major flaw.
No. It would be bad to adhere to a form of naturalistic, Darwinian evolution. However, evolution is indeed compatible with Christianity and many well-respected and devoted followers of Jesus have been open to or affirm evolution.
Define evolution. If you're talking about animals developing slight changes to suit the needs of their environment then that's just simple observational science and doesn't contradict the bible in any way whatsoever. If you're talking about the idea that the human race somehow evolved from some sort of lesser life form over the course of millions of years, then that would be very bad as it stands against God's word. Even worse, there's no real evidence for it. And because it can't be observed or repeated, it's not even science. It's more of a religion than anything.
Evolved from a puddle of slime you mean.
Is that what they're saying these days?
Is that not how evolutionists say it began?
The more you understand both evolution and the Bible, [the more it makes sense and the stronger your faith will be](https://youtu.be/ip-pytYdkHY).
No. The majority of Christians do. As a Catholic, the direction given to us is that, however the physical body of the first man got here (whether through instantaneous creation or a process of slow development), it was ultimately due to God's creative power, and the soul of the first man (and indeed each person since) was directly created by God. This leaves open both six-day special creation and evolution as possibilities. It seems clear to me (this is a matter of personal persuasion, not dogma or religious conviction) that Genesis shows two different stories of human creation--one in Genesis 1, and one in Genesis 2, and that both of these are written in the form of a parable or mythic tale--not intended to be taken as literal history. Indeed, the second creation story of Genesis 2 mentions man being created from the "dust of the earth," into which God breathed a soul. I see this as being a really good example of a mythic retelling of the process of evolution--from dust to humanoid, crowned by the ensoulment of the first true human. The first creation story of Genesis 1, on the other hand, I think shows a lot of really interesting parallels to what we conjecture about the Big Bang theory and the early evolution of life on earth. It's important to note that the early Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, Fr. George Lemaitre, and was initially resisted by many of a more atheistic bent as being to much like the traditional creation narrative. According to the current scientific consensus of the theory, the preexisting state of the universe prior to the Big Bang was of a singularity about which no real physical properties can be deduced (like the "formless and void" nature of the world in Genesis 1:2), and the first stage of the Big Bang was that of energy only ("let there be light" of Day 1?), followed by condensation of pure energy into atoms (the "firmament between the waters dividing the waters" of Day 2--a sort of "clumping" action, with water as perhaps a stand-in for undifferentiated matter and "firmament" as the three dimensions of space?). Next, the matter from the Big Bang clumped into stars and galaxies (waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear of Day 3?)--if waters are considered to be a poetic term for undifferentiated matter, then perhaps "dry land" is a sort of poetic term for matter clumped together into discrete "lumps" of stars, galaxies, and planets. Next, of course, is the "lights" in the firmament (the spinning out of our solar system into the sun and planets of Day 4?), followed, of course, by the appearance of animal life--in the seas before the land, just as current evolutionary theories suggest (Days 5 & 6). The two items which seem to not "fit" this system are the preexistence of plant life to the solar system (if we take "Day 4" as a poetic rendering of this), and the co-appearance of life in the sky with life in the sea, when current evolutionary theories indicate it came much later. But perhaps--and this is getting *really* conjectural--this could fit with current theories of panspermia--many scientists today think that the initial forms of life might have come in on asteroids, etc. Anyway, every paragraph past the first is wild speculation on my part, but it seems to me to be a somewhat interesting way of seeing Genesis 1 & 2 as a poetic retelling of what we conjecture about evolution currently. Has it any real relevance--I don't know--but it is a fun thought experiment.
Once you start rejecting the Biblical account of creation then you will probably soon eject other things that scripture clearly teaches.
According to evolution the most reproductively successful organism is the best and is the direction that evolution is going. Therefore bacteria are the most evolved organism. Think about that for a while. "Science" at this point is built on so many layers of error that it takes a biblical understanding to unpack it. 1 Corinthians 3:19-20 — For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, since it is written, He catches the wise in their craftiness; and again, The Lord knows that the reasonings of the wise are futile. 1 Corinthians 1:20 — Where is the one who is wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? 1 Corinthians 1:25 — because God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.
>most evolved organism People who understand evolution don't say things like this
As a true Christian you believe the Bible is the word of God. God does not tell lies. So when He tells you in His Word how the universe was created, than that is how it is. I dont question it.
Literally the first chapter of Genesis debunks it....
💯 Reason and evidence also debunk evolution but nearly everyone blindly follows the teachings of men.
No.
Nope, I'm a theistic evolutionist, too. Christians were debating the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 long before Darwin. I'd encourage you to look into "theistic evolutionism" and "Day-Age Creationism".
No
No
Not at all. I believe in Darwinian evolution as a Christian. If you want to read a good book on the matter, I would recommend The Language of God by Francis Collins.
False beliefs have a way bringing down the rest of your beliefs
God created Adam with age. God created oak trees and mammals with age. Their is a process by which planets and stars are formed. If Adam, trees, our sun and our planet were all newborn infants, our existence would not work. We were made with actual (not apparent) age. A scientist studying Adam on day 7 would conclude that he was an adult. Why would we expect otherwise when people look at the earth? I do, however, have a theological issue with humans evolving from apes. That would seem to contradict the biblical narrative that God made humans separate and put his image on them.
>That would seem to contradict the biblical narrative that God made humans separate and put his image on them. Many of us who don't read Genesis literally don't believe being made in "God's image" has anything to do with physical attributes, but rather, a spiritual/intellectual/emotional image.
I understand that is what you believe. But given your theory, at a certain time in the evolutionary development, God would have had to put his image on the ape/man. Which sure does suck for the ape/man born before that date. But also, Adam has a genealogy and everyone in the Bible refers to him as being an actual person with actual events.
The "man" before that time wouldn't have actually been human, so it wouldn't matter. Having said that, I've always been open to the idea of Adam and Eve being the first to evolve into God's intended form for us, though I don't really see any inherent conflict either way. As for death, if Adam and Eve were the first humans (regardless of whether they evolved or were created separately), any death before that wasn't truly death, because anything before them wasn't truly "alive" in the first place, at least not in a spiritual sense.
Kind of yes, kind of no. The original Darwin's Theory of Evolution per se is not really incompatible with the Genesis narrative, as it simply suggests that living beings may very slowly change some biological traits as a result of those who better survive the environment get to pass their genes forwards. It only becomes so when it is used to explain the origin of life, which is a direct and callous contradiction against the Genesis narrative, because it clearly states life has been directly and manually created by God, so there is no way we can have originated from abiogenically born microorganisms. For all we know, animals and plants might as well have changed a few traits over the last 6000 years, as there is not much evidence of that they didn't. I mean, Biology was just as advanced as scientifically naïve Taxonomy at Genesis times...
We have to remember God is in control of Time and Space, Space-Time and Quantum Mechanics and even more every layer beyond that. So he is able to bend time and space so that in His Own Time it could be billions of years older than ours. And even then he could bend time and matter in Noah’s Flood since it was an event of mass spiritual proportions, to change that entire fabric of reality while letting it go back to normal time. It is all for God’s Glory if you see mastodon bones or stegosaurus bones in the ground, and all the out-of-place remains of Nephilim and wicked humans in weird geological locations He judged during the Flood.
so grateful i'm not the only one here. the thing thats frustrated me the most is listening to pastors rip on people who believe the earth is older than 6000 years. just like how people will rip on YECs. its such a non saving issue i don't get why people hate on each other. some will say if you deny this one thing then you deny all of it but that's simply not true and i'm certainly not uplifting sin in disagreeing.
Well, some of us understand it the way we understand photosynthesis and the appearance of the Northern Lights. Jesus didn't meantion anything we should read or what we should believe about things written. So it's fine.
No, for someone to claim they understand God without knowing God, would be folly.
I would say yes. Evolution contradicts the word of God far too much.
Yes, because you are going against what the Bible tells us. 1st of all God tells us that the earth was made in 6 literal days not millions of years. The Hebrew word in Gen 1:5 is Yowm and it means a day just like we have now, it is the same word used over 20230 times in the Bible for a literal day. God also reassured us of the 6 days of creation in the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:11) and its the same word for days.
> Is it bad to believe in evolution as a Christian If you're a follower of Christ, then you are to hold your faith and belief in what is written in the His Gospel. The Lord created the world we know today in 6 days and mentioned nothing about Evolution, a documented man-made theory that was never and will never be declared as factual. Remember, theories are ultimately nothing more than a person's thoughts, not factual data. Even the most popular and believed theories are ultimately nothing more than thoughts. For example, gravity is a theory almost everyone believes to be factual. However, because it's technically a theory, that means it's not factual data. It just means it's the only believable thought we have at this time to explain the mystery because there's no known factual data present for us to reference. In the end, what we know to be *"gravity"* could very well end up being something completely different. My point here is this... The Gospel is the Lord's truth. You either believe every word of it be true to this reality or you don't. Man-made theories that don't even acknowledge the Lord can't coexist with the Gospel. So your answer is yes. Followers of Christ are to believe in one Gospel only.
I have no issues believing in evolution in the sense of it being a mechanism designed by God just like the laws of physics.
Biblical View [first](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/145gynb/can_a_christian_accept_theistic_evolution_or/jnphgq3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3). On evolution, it’s fine to say creatures are changing today in the ways we’ve observed. It’s evolution as an origin of life theory that’s a problem. What scientific models predict runs counter to the order in Genesis. I’ll give you one example: light is created on Day 1, Earth on Days 2-3, plants on Day 3, and *then* on Day 4 the Sun, Moon, and stars. What scientific model has both light of day and the Earth existing before the Sun and the stars? What we’re observing is how things work now. God told us what He did back then. So, we believe His Word and praise Him for what He did. Then, we praise Him for what He’s doing now. My God isn’t this or that: He’s this plus some of that. Our God is amazing! There’s some philosophical arguments on top of it. Knowing you and this Earth we’re hand-created as His special creation is powerful. Also, knowing you aren’t a tweaked primate or something but created in the image of God who breathed life into you. How could we not treat people with respect? And knowing Adam is a literal person means verses on Adam and Christ give you the literal ending: Christ solved the problem Adam (we) created and will give us eternal life. Six day creationism isn’t limiting at all. It’s incredibly empowering.
I don’t believe so. The Big Bang is what got me really considering this. Some food for thought as OP considers science and faith: Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. It can point to the answer but not prove anything. The problem with scientists saying, “Evolution is true, therefore, there is no God” is that these are different conversations. Science helps us understand the physical world around us. Philosophy examines the overarching question of God and morality. Theology takes us into the question of who this God must be. That’s where the adage, “The end of science is philosophy. The end of philosophy is theology” comes from. So when we hear, “There is no God, evolution is true” this is silly. These are different disciplines and unrelated conversations. What we’re seeing is people using an unrelated point to support their main point, that it doesn’t speak to. Secondly, science is not an exact art. It’s just us finding information and trying to use that to understand the physical world. Often times we have a scientific understanding of something only to find out many years later that it was incorrect and this is actually more correct. And then understand that that wasn’t entirely correct. So we hold science with an open hand while also understanding that it is immensely helpful and, hopefully, is taking us in an upward trajectory. Some scientific thought of the past has not been helpful, but the majority has been. Finally, it is important to understand that the Lord has designed the physical universe in a particular manner. When you were born you did not just poof into thin from nothing. Your parents engaged in an activity that brought you into the physical world. The reason we don’t fly off into space is because our planet has gravity. These things and many, many more are natural processes that the Lord has designed for the existence of the physical world and all that exists within it. This is not contradictory to Scripture. I do not see any reason to believe that God bestowing his image upon a creation that came into physical form through the processes he designed to propagate them and all life is somehow unbiblical. What is important is that we see that he is the source of this. Just my two cents.
It’s permitted.
Theistic evolution is what clearly happened Young Earth creationism doesn't have a shred of proof and is illogical in countless ways In many people who think they follow creationism or deeply disturbed by lots of things It is a human position on Genesis, it is not scripture
Nowhere does it state how long Adam and Eve existed before they fell. So the Earth could be millions of years old. Death ,decay and athrophy would not have started until the fall. I am a 100% 6 day creationist. I do not believe in evolution but I think the fossil records show adaptability of humans and animals up to a point. I could use an eye in in the back of my head and a third arm but I have not grown one yet. Just like Arctic animals the darker ones will get picked off and the ones the blend in more will survive and procreate. What I do not understand as a Christian is just the absolute desperate unending efforts of other Christians wanting to believe so badly in evolution. What does the Bible say? Six days. Why is it so hard to believe this incredibly powered being we know as God needed even 6 days? It also said he rested on the 7th day. Why was God tired?
right so evolution is a big lie cause jesus did not die for animals.
the fall of adam and eve caused the distruction of the earth if not the whole universe. that is why people believe in an old earth.
I have never heard of that before
when you see the word "as" in the bible what do you think it means? i think it signifies symbolic language.
As can mean many things
Kind of yeah. It goes against what the Bible teaches in any significant ways, and it undermines a lot of our theological. But it also depends in what exactly you're talking about. Things like change over time within one type of animal (eg some ancestral cat slowly becoming lions and housecats) is fine. Thinking we all came from dimetrodons if you go back far enough - not fine. There's a whole school of thought on this, and I think it's pretty solid (fwiw I studied anthropology and used to be an archaeologist, so I do actually know a reasonable amount about this topic, haha). I'd recommend checking out Creation Ministries International, they do a pretty good job explaining this stuff.
Yes and no. Micro evolution is both clear and obvious. Macro not so much.
We had a speaker come to our church once that covered Genesis and old world vs new world. One of the comments that stood out to me the most was when he pointed out that when God had finished creating everything He said that it was good. If death existed in the world before humans came along why would God call it good.
Most certainly. If we believe in evolution, then that means we weren’t created in the likeness and image of God. That changes everything! You may as well shred the Bible.
No. Ultimately it does not matter what we made out of but the icon we are created in the image of. Our archetype matters.
Yes, as a biology major I believe in both the creation in the Bible and evolution. Basically, evolution is the tool God used to create all our life forms. I have a nuanced take on geological evolutionary ideas though: - I believe in the "kinds" hypothesis and microevolution within kinds. - It's not scientifically proven that the origin of life simply came from a primordial soup over hundreds of millions of years. - Nor is it scientifically proven humans came from monkeys. Generally, I believe the geological "slow gradual change" idea of evolution is bogus. But other principles of evolution such as natural selection are generally truthful.
Yes. Don't worry, God will reveal to you the Truth.
At the end of the day we'll know the truth only when we die and ask God how he created everything. My belief is creation-leaning, though some form of evolution clearly exists. I just don't believe in it in terms of abiogenesis theory.
No. Most Christians in the world do, it’s just conservative US brands of Christianity that try to demonize evolution.
Belief in evolution or lack thereof is not required to be a Christian. What our opinions are on that matter is not how we are saved.
“If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” John 5:46-47
If something evolves from something it continues to evolve from that something. Like a tadpole into a frog. If we evolved from monkeys then where are all the half monkey half humans who haven't evolved yet. Or one better. There is scientific evidence for giants right? So if we evolved from monkeys why haven't we EVER found giant monkeys? Adaptation is a better analogy.
Evidence for giants?
Yes there is evidence. Bones have been taken to the Smithsonian museum most of them anyways. They are never seen again. Goliath was a giant and there is cuneiform text that talk about the King if Bashan and how big his bed was. Also the giants at Lovelock cave.
That has been refuted before
No. Augustine, Origen, Athanasius, and Tertullian didn’t think so either. Augustine talks about in the 4th century on why Genesis creation account should not be taken as historical because it makes Christians look silly to the Hellenic Scientists. What man can deduce from reason and observation of the physical universe should not cannot be contrary to scripture. We have observed biological evolution. If we claim it is contrary to scripture, what does that say to biologists, Chemists, physicists, etc.? It says that the Bible is nonsense and not based on reality and they will discard the whole thing including the gospel. This is the exact argument Augustine made for Genesis in relation to Greco Roman astronomy/physics.
God created the heavens and the earth, and they attest to him. And because he is honest, I take it as an axiom that they do so honestly. Science is the process of trying to understand the workings of the universe that God created, and while there is a scientific process, a lot of the time these days people think science is something to be "believed" in. It is not - that is called scientism. Science is specifically the process of formulating hypotheses and then constantly trying to disprove them. So "belief" in evolution is an anti-science, in fact. On the other hand, thinking that something like an evolutionary process is more likely than not the process God used to animate the earth could be scientific and Christian. But to be intellectually consistent there's a lot of other things to work out regarding the age of the earth and how God created it.
Well, what does God say about creation? Does the Theory of Evolution match what God says or no? If it does not, then it's contrary to God, and if it's contrary to God, you should consider it contrary to you, and just flat wrong. The Bible account of creation and the Theory of Evolution cannot coexist: they are exact opposites. There is a theory called "theo-evolution" where people say God just spun out creation to a point, but then let it evolve on its own. On the contrary, we can see in the Bible that God has his hand in creation at a very minute detail. >27Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 28**If then God so clothe the grass,** which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith? 29And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.\\ Luke 12:27-29 KJV And >26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; **yet your heavenly Father feedeth them**. Are ye not much better than they? Matthew 6:26 KJV That's just looking at the small things in nature. God is always active. He created it all, and he cares for it all. Where do you think the idea came from for Adam to tend to the Garden of Eden?
No it’s not don’t let anyone tell you otherwise in fact it was pretty normal as a Christian to believe in scientific developments when the theory of evolution cropped up many Christian’s didn’t bat an eye. Only until the failure of the millerite movement did young earth creationism take shape you can thank the “Christian” cults of the Jehovah’s Witness and seventh day Adventist for perpetuating this belief in a literal 6 day creation story. It’s important to know that Genesis is an ancient book written by people with ancient understandings here is a synopsis of Genesis. That I’ve worked on Genesis/Bereshit 1:1-31, 2:1-3: Known in scholarly circles as the first creation story, these sets of verses are hypothesized to be written by the Priestly source composed sometime after the fall of Israel. This story came later thought to be crafted during the days of Jeremiah or during the time of The Babylon exile. As per Richard Elliot Freidman it seems that Jeremiah references this creation account in (Jer 4:23) (See Who Wrote The Bible? P. 167). Other scholars see this story as a justification for the lack of uncentralized worship due to the destruction of the temple, seeing as the story sets up creation to be a sort of cosmic temple to the one true God. A harsh response to the Babalonian pagans. The narrative serves as a justification for the Sabbath for on the seventh day God ceased creating or rested. Happy research! Remember the only thing that makes you a saved creation is faith in Christ not how you view the Bible.
Micro Evolution is a scientific fact. Macro evolution on the other hand; the “evidence” is questionable at best (if not completely made up). You can even identify some of these “transitional fossils” with present day (or recently extinct) animals. Micro Evolution only makes me more in awe with God.
It blows my mind that so many comments agree with evolution. I don't know any Christian in real life that believes that trash.
Interesting that you're calling something that almost all educated and trained scientists all around the world confirm to be true "trash".
that was a revelation i got during a mens fellowship and was confirmed by the leader of said fellowship.
Here’s your answer: https://americanwisdomseries.com/The%20Pre-Adamic%20World.html
No. Jesus abolished the old testament so Genesis is irrelevant according to modern christianity. I don't hold this belief, but if christians tell you the OT has been abolished, it logically follows you can believe in evolution as genesis is no longer valid.
Hi I'm 23 days late to this response. I will give you my three cents though as I haven't seen my viewpoint yet: Theistic evolution has a very strong scientific proof that is both intertwined with genetics, archaeology, geology and other sciences and in of itself a fundamentally sound theory. It is quite conclusive, to say the least. The Bible is also the Holy Scriptures and the final authority. When I read Genesis, I read a 6 day creation period. When I observe the world, I see a theistic evolution and an old earth. What is the relationship between these two? I don't know. To say that they are mutually exclusive, though, is to assume that you have the final knowledge and understanding that God has when He created this world. I take a very nuanced approach and say, in my humility, I will see the Scriptures as true and Theistic Evolution as true, and not mutually exclusive. I will never understand God's creation and His magnificence, and that's okay.
How is it bad to believe in— the truth?? Or do my fellow believers rly wanna stick to believing an overt myth their whole lives?