Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[Job 33:6]

So... what species is it then? Because you said it has to be some species... so what is it?

Ok, well, if it doesn't matter, let's draw the line at Lucy. Should Lucy's parents be classified as the same species as Lucy or a different species than Lucy?

With Lucy I drew the line. With bucket you draw the line. Go ahead, please, draw the line when bucket changed from A to B? And then draw the line when bucket changed from B to A. However you do it, I don't care. You do you. Draw the line.

If you drew the line at Lucy, let's say she has some trait and she's, let's say she is the first of this isolated community, then she would be the first of her species. So for example, maybe her parents can still interbreed with other external populations, but there's something about her morphology or the region that she is present in, that she is the first to be isolated. Been over time the population builds up.

Even if you have a population of individuals that are reproductively isolated, you still have a first individual who's going to pave the way. An individual with the first mutation. A first explorer of the other side of a mountain.

And then after that first, then the mutation can move on through time to others. Or others will eventually make their way around that mountain etc.

 

[HarleyER]

I use the term evolution biologically and technically. It describes the process by which populations of organisms change over time through successive generations. It is driven by natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow.

Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

Sure, but you don't have to. You can assume evolution without believing in it. Let's talk about the utility of the theory of Evolution.

I am a Christian. I used the evolution model to implement AI programs. They are called evolutionary algorithms. You don't have to believe in evolution to work with it. If you search US patents in the last ten years, you will find many applications of evolution models. The theory of evolution has practical values. The US economy benefits from it. You cannot deny its utility.

Unlike other branches of hard science, evolution has less mathematical support. Nevertheless, it is a useful paradigm.

The Cheating Cell: How Evolution Helps Us Understand and Treat Cancer

If the theory works in daily practical life, there is no need to reject it. There is no need to believe in it either in the sense of spiritual faith.

See also

• Adam, Eve, and evolution
• How old is the earth?.

I only read a few of the posts but no animal on earth is similar to man so I may be repeating what others stated (I hope so).

Sure, there may be genetic similarities with man and animals. But animals don't reason, they don't feel right and wrong, they have no concept of sin, and they don't create religions. It isn't that we "evolved" to this higher plane. (On the contrary, given the mess the world is in I think we devolved.) The only animal on this planet that exhiibits these thought characteristics is man. And while one might create evolutionary AI, at the end of the day it will be soulless as the Terminator. Everything driven by programming algorithms. Even morality decisions. Man is unique and made in the image of God.

So can a person be a Christian and believe in evolution? A more pointed question, along the same vein, would be "Can a person be a Christian and believe only parts of the Scriptures." That is what is really being asked. I would say no. One can't pick and choose.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

2 Timothy 3:1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will ...5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power;

 

[sfs]

A more pointed question, along the same vein, would be "Can a person be a Christian and believe only parts of the Scriptures." That is what is really being asked. I would say no.

Where do you get the idea that believing anything at all about the Bible is required for salvation?

 

[olgamc]

Yes. So 0-9 would be species A, and B would be drop 10.

Right, and going the other way? If it takes 10 drops to reach the reproductive isolation, and you started taking drops out of a full bucket, when would reproductive isolation be reached?

 

[olgamc]

If you drew the line at Lucy, let's say she has some trait and she's, let's say she is the first of this isolated community, then she would be the first of her species. So for example, maybe her parents can still interbreed with other external populations, but there's something about her morphology or the region that she is present in, that she is the first to be isolated.

So if Lucy is the first person who cannot breed with species A, and everyone around her is species A, who does she breed with?

 

[olgamc]

I only read a few of the posts but no animal on earth is similar to man so I may be repeating what others stated (I hope so).

Sure, there may be genetic similarities with man and animals. But animals don't reason, they don't feel right and wrong, they have no concept of sin, and they don't create religions. It isn't that we "evolved" to this higher plane. (On the contrary, given the mess the world is in I think we devolved.) The only animal on this planet that exhiibits these thought characteristics is man. And while one might create evolutionary AI, at the end of the day it will be soulless as the Terminator. Everything driven by programming algorithms. Even morality decisions. Man is unique and made in the image of God.

Thank you! Exactly what I've been trying to communicate to this community.

So can a person be a Christian and believe in evolution? A more pointed question, along the same vein, would be "Can a person be a Christian and believe only parts of the Scriptures." That is what is really being asked. I would say no. One can't pick and choose.

As far as man is concerned - agreed. I think man evolving is a contradiction of what we know about man from the Bible. What do you think about animals though? Could God have created, used and directed evolutionary processes to create plants and animals?

 

[HarleyER]

Where do you get the idea that believing anything at all about the Bible is required for salvation?

So you don't need to believe anything at all about the Scriptures and yet be saved? Did you proof read your question?

How can one NOT believe the Bible and still say one believe in God?

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

That includes Genesis 1-11.

You don't get to pick and choose what you want to accept.

 

[olgamc]

Where do you get the idea that believing anything at all about the Bible is required for salvation?

Because Jesus was a real historical man and Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through Me.” And so then the question becomes can we trust this guy and can we trust that that’s what he actually said. And as far as we know from historical records within and outside of the Bible, the short answer is yes. From that flows a series of conclusions that proves that the whole Bible is God’s word.

And so you don’t have to have read the Bible to be saved (think Abraham - there is no Bible yet), but you have to believe in the God of the Bible to be saved. And if you believe in the God of the Bible, and you believe that Bible is God’s word, then you have to believe everything in the Bible or else call God a liar.

 

[Job 33:6]

So if Lucy is the first person who cannot breed with species A, and everyone around her is species A, who does she breed with?

In one hand, a separation could happen in a single generation, to many individuals of a species. So for example, let's say Lucy and George have parents. Lucy and George and whomever else is of their generation, go off to the other side of the mountain, and Lucy can lead the way in this adventure. Or a storm takes them like in your video, to an island (if they're birds), and Lucy can be the first bird in the storm to land on the island. Well now Lucy's parents are part of population A, while she and George are part of population B on an island. But she's still among others she can interbreed with and she was the first to be separated. Despite her parents being isolated from her. A first individual of a first generation of an isolated population.

Later, we could consider that over time an isolated population would experience mutations. They pass their genetics through breeding with others in their isolated island population. Those mutations become common among the population, then the population can no longer interbreed with the original mainland species due to their genetic differences. In which case, Lucy could be the first individual with unique genetic traits that result in that negation of interbreeding with the original population (but she can still breed with her island population). The first individual to acquire the mutation, that when expanded out to her island population, results in full isolation of the island population from the mainland species, even if they were to be brought back together.

 

[HarleyER]

Thank you! Exactly what I've been trying to communicate to this community.

As far as man is concerned - agreed. I think man evolving is a contradiction of what we know about man from the Bible. What do you think about animals though? Could God have created, used and directed evolutionary processes to create plants and animals?

Yes. Unlike the post that started this thread, there were only species according to their kind aboard the ark (e.g. a species of dog, cats, etc.). There were not numerous animals that one sees now. These species interbred and evolved. And since everything are slight variations of DNA strands, this interbreding and evolutionary process among the animals creates confustion. Also, despite the written record from God's Word, few "Christians" want to believe it. It shows one the state of Christian belief today, doesn't it?

Man, on the other hand, has not changed. There are no fossils or anything else that would support an evolution of man.

It is great to hear a sensible voice. Keep true to God's Word.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right, and going the other way? If it takes 10 drops to reach the reproductive isolation, and you started taking drops out of a full bucket, when would reproductive isolation be reached?

Reproductive isolation is achieved on drop 10 as noted in your last post. So going backwards, drop 10 would be species B, then drop 9 and below would be species A.

 

[olgamc]

In one hand, a separation could happen in a single generation, to many individuals of a species. So for example, let's say Lucy and George have parents. Lucy and George and whomever else is of their generation, go off to the other side of the mountain, and Lucy can lead the way in this adventure. Or a storm takes them like in your video, to an island (if they're birds), and Lucy can be the first bird in the storm to land on the island. Well now Lucy's parents are part of population A, while she and George are part of population B on an island. But she's still among others she can interbreed with and she was the first to be separated. Despite her parents being isolated from her. A first individual of a first generation of an isolated population.

Later, we could consider that over time an isolated population would experience mutations. They pass their genetics through breeding with others in their isolated island population. Those mutations become common among the population, then the population can no longer interbreed with the original mainland species due to their genetic differences. In which case, Lucy could be the first individual with unique genetic traits that result in that negation of interbreeding with the original population (but she can still breed with her island population). The first individual to acquire the mutation, that when expanded out to her island population, results in full isolation of the island population from the mainland species, even if they were to be brought back together.

Watch the video again. Did the original birds that migrated to the island suddenly become the yellow species? No. They were still the red species for hundreds of generations.

 

[olgamc]

Reproductive isolation is achieved on drop 10 as noted in your last post. So going backwards, drop 10 would be species B, then drop 9 and below would be species A.

No. Reproductive isolation is achieved after 10 drops of change. Not on the 10th drop by itself. There is nothing special about the 10th drop. If the previous drops did not drop in the bucket, and only the the 10th drop did, the bucket would not change to full.

So the 10th drop completes the change. It does not by itself make the change. Change takes 10 drops. If reproductive isolation was achieved through 1 drop of change, we would have started with a 1 drop bucket. It takes 10 drops to fill the bucket. It takes 10 drops to empty the bucket.

In the video, the yellow birds continue to interbreed among themselves. They never stopped interbreeding with each other.

Your problem is that you don’t understand how evolution is measured. It’s like distance. If you compare 2 points and they are far enough from each other, they are different species. When you compare 2 adjacent points that are very close, they are the same species. It’s like starting a tape measure from a different point. Point R (red bird) to point Y (yellow bird) is two feet or more - different species. Point L1 to point L3 (Lucy and her immediate family) is 1 foot or less - same species.

R ————————-L1 L2 L3 ——————-Y

And it doesn’t matter where on the continuum Lucy was born.

 

[Job 33:6]

No. Reproductive isolation is achieved after 10 drops of change. If reproductive isolation was achieved through 1 drop of change, we would have started with a 1 drop bucket. It takes 10 drops to fill the bucket. It takes 10 drops to empty the bucket.

In the video, the yellow birds continue to interbreed among themselves. They never stopped interbreeding with each other.

In that case a drop of the bucket would be the difference. Achieved through one of the drops somewhere between 1 and 10.

At some point in time in the video, the island bird population crossed a generation of time in which they could no longer interbreed with the original population.

 

[Job 33:6]

Watch the video again. Did the original birds that migrated to the island suddenly become the yellow species? No. They were still the red species for hundreds of generations.

But there was a moment in time where they changed enough that they passed a point of no return.

 

[sfs]

So you don't need to believe anything at all about the Scriptures and yet be saved? Did you proof read your question?

Yes, I wrote that. Did you not understand the question? You didn't answer it.

How can one NOT believe the Bible and still say one believe in God?

Do you think no one believed in God before the Bible was written, or that no non-Christian believes in God?

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Yes, I know the verse. Your invocation of it here is flawed for multiple reasons.
1) 'Inspired' in English does not mean 'inerrant'. Something can be inspired and still be wrong in spots.
2) The verse says that every writing is profitable. It doesn't anything like what you're saying, which is that belief in them is required for salvation. Lots of things are profitable for reproof, correction, training in righteousness. I can point you to numerous sermons and books that are profitable for those things. No one would claim that belief in the infallibility of those sermons and books.
3) 'Every writing' does not mean the Bible, which didn't exist what II Timothy was written. The author is presumably referring to Jewish religious texts, many of which went on to become our Old Testament after the process of canonization, but which did not include the New Testament and which very likely included other texts not in our Bibles.
4) All of this presumes that θεόπνευστος is correctly translated as 'inspired'. John Poirier has a book-length treatment of this word (The Invention of the Inspired Text) that makes a pretty persuasive case that when II Timothy was written, the meaning of the word was more like 'life-giving' (there's another word available in Greek that means inspired, 'ενθεος').

The New Testament is pretty clear: to be a follower of Christ means to believe the Gospel and to follow him. All of the early conversions recounted in the Bible arise from people believing the preaching of the Gospel, before the Bible even existed as such. Requiring people to believe something specific about the Bible is adding to the Gospel.

 

[sfs]

Because Jesus was a real historical man

Sure. We routinely get information about real historical men from books that aren't inerrant.

Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through Me.” And so then the question becomes can we trust this guy and can we trust that that’s what he actually said. And as far as we know from historical records within and outside of the Bible, the short answer is yes. From that flows a series of conclusions that proves that the whole Bible is God’s word.

'Can we trust this guy' and 'do we have to trust the accounts of this guy to be inerrant(*)' are two very different questions, and the second does not in fact follow logically from the first.

(*) even when they contradict each other

And so you don’t have to have read the Bible to be saved (think Abraham - there is no Bible yet), but you have to believe in the God of the Bible to be saved. And if you believe in the God of the Bible, and you believe that Bible is God’s word, then you have to believe everything in the Bible or else call God a liar.

That's true if you believe the Bible to be dictated by God rather than inspired by God (and if you ignore the bits of the Bible where God deliberately deceives people). But since the authors of the Bible show no signs of such belief, as indicated by their willingness to disagree with and rewrite existing parts of the Bible, your conclusion does not follow.

 

[sfs]

In the theory of evolution, you're either one species or another. There are sub species, but those are still classified within one species or another.

There is no gray area of being classified as two species at once. No such thing as an in-between species. Even transitional fossils are still identified as individual species of their spectrum.

I'm not following this thread in any detail (it has far too many posts for my limited time) but I'm pretty sure I disagree with you on this point. The fact that any organism has to be classified as belonging to exactly one species(*) is an artifact of our arbitrary naming scheme, not a fundamental biological reality. Species are generally classified by their traits, not by their genetics. Since most traits are affected by multiple genes, there need not be a specific set of mutations that define a new species. If one picks some arbitrary threshold in some traits as defining the new species, it's quite possible for a first member of the new species to be born, and then for that individual to give birth to a member of the old species, while somewhere else another individual of the new species is being born with a somewhat different collection of alleles that also put it over the threshold.

(*) Except that this isn't true for hybrids -- they're designated as a hybrid of the two species.

 

[olgamc]

Sure. We routinely get information about real historical men from books that aren't inerrant.

True. Which is why we trust the Bible and take other writings with a grain of salt.

'Can we trust this guy' and 'do we have to trust the accounts of this guy to be inerrant(*)' are two very different questions, and the second does not in fact follow logically from the first.

Right. I did not say it followed directly. There is a logical chain which starts with who wrote the gospels and can we trust them to tell the truth.

That's true if you believe the Bible to be dictated by God rather than inspired by God (and if you ignore the bits of the Bible where God deliberately deceives people).

God does not deliberately deceive people, though He does allow other spirits to deceive people in order to accomplish His purpose. But the Holy Spirit of God does not deceive people.

But since the authors of the Bible show no signs of such belief, as indicated by their willingness to disagree with and rewrite existing parts of the Bible, your conclusion does not follow.

What parts of the Bible have the writers of the Bible re-written?

Also, an important point. Scripture is inerrant. Our understanding of Scripture is errant.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm not following this thread in any detail (it has far too many posts for my limited time) but I'm pretty sure I disagree with you on this point. The fact that any organism has to be classified as belonging to exactly one species(*) is an artifact of our arbitrary naming scheme, not a fundamental biological reality.

I know. I never said it wasn't. It's unfortunate, but that's just the way that it is.

Species are generally classified by their traits, not by their genetics. Since most traits are affected by multiple genes, there need not be a specific set of mutations that define a new species. If one picks some arbitrary threshold in some traits as defining the new species, it's quite possible for a first member of the new species to be born, and then for that individual to give birth to a member of the old species, while somewhere else another individual of the new species is being born with a somewhat different collection of alleles that also put it over the threshold.

Thanks. Well that's what I've been trying to express to our friend here. The latter half at least, that there is such a thing as a "first member" of a new species that is born.

(*) Except that this isn't true for hybrids -- they're designated as a hybrid of the two species.

Yea that's an interesting observation. Though I've noted above that this wouldn't be the case for a single lineage, because you can't have a hybrid that is a cross between a currently living species and some species that has yet to come into existence. Well, we wouldn't be able to identify such a thing as a hybrid at least. So, though it is interesting, it didn't really help us out there.


Ultimately the question was, could an individual of 1 species, give birth to an individual of another species. And my thought is, as strange as it sounds, the answer has to be yes. Because if mothers only ever had children of the same species that they were, then new species would never arise. So at some point, some mother, somewhere, at some time, must give birth, to an individual that is of a different species. Because if the new species (it's individuals in particular) is not born into existence, then there is no other way that a new species could come to be.

And so we went on this rabbit trail of analogies related to colors of paint and drops in a bucket.