Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[The Barbarian]

Genesis 1

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

 

[olgamc]

No

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 and worked evolution. 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 sciences, there is not as much mathematical justification for Evolution. 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?.

Depends on how you define Christian and evolution. Can you be an alcoholic and saved? Yes. Can you be a practicing alcoholic and still be saved? Yes - because we are being made perfect, but we are not perfect yet, and we still sin repeatedly. Can you be a practicing unrepentant alcoholic and seeing absolutely no problems with substance abuse and damage produced by your behaviour when you are drunk, and claim that you have the Spirit? Maybe, because maybe the Lord has already brought you to a saving faith but not yet revealed that you need to work on this area of your life. Can you be a Bible believing born-again follower of Christ, and at the same time think that substance abuse and the resulting behaviour is not sin? No. Because that goes against Ephesians 5:18.

In other words, you can be a Bible believing Christian and believe in aspects of evolution that do not violate the scripture. Creationists do believe in micro-evolution, though not everybody. So I think a better question is, can you believe that you descended from an ape and that Adam is not one man, and at the same time believe and accept the message of salvation in Romans 5:12-19?

 

[Joseph G]

Let proposition P1 = Information creates itself.

True?

Not sure what you are saying - that information has its source in information? ie: in the beginning there was... information?

 

[tonychanyt]

you can be a Bible believing Christian and believe in aspects of evolution that do not violate the scripture.

See Adam, Eve, and Evolution and follow up there

 

[tonychanyt]

Not sure what you are saying - that information has its source in information? ie: in the beginning there was... information?

Let proposition P1 = Information creates itself, i.e., information has its source in information.

True?

 

[sfs]

So I think a better question is, can you believe that you descended from an ape and that Adam is not one man, and at the same time believe and accept the message of salvation in Romans 5:12-19?

Romans 5:12-19 isn't the message of salvation; it's a message about salvation, that is, it's Paul's interpretation of salvation. You can certainly believe and accept the message of salvation through Christ without believing that sin literally entered the world through one man.

 

[AlexB23]

See Adam, Eve, and Evolution and follow up there

Brother, it would be easier for all of us participating in these threads of yours to not have to jump between multiple threads and follow up conversations in "Adam, Eve, and Evolution" when we can just follow up in "Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?". It feel like an obstacle course or goose chase for us to hop from thread to thread, and it confuses the context of both threads. Most other original posters here never require us to follow up on another thread. Can we stay on this thread sir?

Depends on how you define Christian and evolution. Can you be an alcoholic and saved? Yes. Can you be a practicing alcoholic and still be saved? Yes - because we are being made perfect, but we are not perfect yet, and we still sin repeatedly. Can you be a practicing unrepentant alcoholic and seeing absolutely no problems with substance abuse and damage produced by your behaviour when you are drunk, and claim that you have the Spirit? Maybe, because maybe the Lord has already brought you to a saving faith but not yet revealed that you need to work on this area of your life. Can you be a Bible believing born-again follower of Christ, and at the same time think that substance abuse and the resulting behaviour is not sin? No. Because that goes against Ephesians 5:18.

In other words, you can be a Bible believing Christian and believe in aspects of evolution that do not violate the scripture. Creationists do believe in micro-evolution, though not everybody. So I think a better question is, can you believe that you descended from an ape and that Adam is not one man, and at the same time believe and accept the message of salvation in Romans 5:12-19?

First time using multiquote here. I agree with you Olgamc, as there are many Christians who believe in micro-evolution such as myself (old-Earth Creationist here). It is impossible for an ape to evolve into a human, and even our fossil records show there is a gap between humans and apes. That gap has not been closed. Same with the Precambrian explosion. Those must be God's work right there.

 

[tonychanyt]

Most other original posters here never require us to follow up on another thread. Can we stay on this thread sir?

When I do that, it means that I no longer have anything more to add to the current thread. However, if you wish to consider a related issue in another thread, we may continue the discussion on that thread. I try to stay on topic in each thread.

 

[AlexB23]

When I do that, it means that I no longer have anything more to add to the current thread. However, if you wish to consider a related issue in another thread, we may continue the discussion on that thread. I try to stay on topic in each thread.

Then the thread dies. Other threads go on for 30+ pages, while your threads die out at 5-15 pages.

 

[olgamc]

Romans 5:12-19 isn't the message of salvation; it's a message about salvation, that is, it's Paul's interpretation of salvation. You can certainly believe and accept the message of salvation through Christ without believing that sin literally entered the world through one man.

I disagree about it being merely Paul’s interpretation. All scripture is divinely inspired, and in cases were Paul talks from himself he specifically states that it is him saying it, not God. This passage is not just one man’s interpretation, but a divinely inspired explanation of how all can be saved through One. But I agree that we can accept that we are sinful and in need of a saviour, and that Jesus is that Saviour and the only Saviour, and we can accept His gift of salvation, all without believing that Adam was literally created from dust on the 6th day when the world was a bit more than 120 hours old. But anyone I have talked to who is a young earth creationist would disagree.

Also a related important question is - do we believe the whole Bible or parts of the Bible? And how do we choose what to believe literally, what to believe figuratively, and what to infer? My creationist friends would say that the account of creation is literal and complete and infer that day 1 was 24 hours even though the sun did not exist yet to rule over the timing, because all other days are 24 hours and it’s the same language in day 1 as in day 6. When I look at it, I see the passage as literal but not necessarily complete with every detail, and I don’t infer things. And my husband looks at the repeating pattern in the passage and sees it as a poem and a figure of speech. So without going too far into the study of linguistics, the question is, if we can all interpret the passage differently and still be saved, why do creationists argue with the mainstream scientific evidence so much and get so offended at the mention of micro-evolution?

 

[Joseph G]

Let proposition P1 = Information creates itself, i.e., information has its source in information.

True?

If you mean that information sprang into existence by itself, for itself, yet without any perception of self as an intelligent being, I would decidedly say false.

Something to defend my response, if I may, before moving forward to your next proposition...

Here is Adam and Eve on the pristine earth, with maybe a hoe to till the ground with. Do you realize that that they were already surrounded by all the elements needed to create, say, the computer, or the smart phone, ect, ect.? The information to bring them together already existed, just not in the mind of man. Same goes with all knowledge - science, mathematics, art, philosophy and on and on. It already existed.

So what put this knowledge into the mind of man? A product of mere experimentation through observation? I would suggest that was only the means. The question still remains, what put the CONCEPT of the possible into the mind to begin with?

If information begets information, then why does it need man to cooperate in bringing about its desires? Why didn't computers and cell phones just spring into existence, by the providence of information itself? And for itself?

I would suggest that it is because information for the sake of information has no purpose. When I'm fascinated by the complexities of the human genome, I am awed and thrilled by the Mind behind it. From knowing the Creator, through His Son, I'm able to perceive His purpose - to draw all men to Himself and to eternal life.

And that's the crux of my problem with the theory of evolution. It deprives mankind of purpose. It is not only an affront to God's existence, but to His revelation of Who He is. And it is a degradation to the dignity of mankind - who He declares is made in His image - and exalted above the animals. That would include the ape, the rat, and the single-celled amoebe, for pete's sake.

To answer the OP, can you be Christian and believe in evolution? I suppose so. God has certainly freed me from some pretty nutty suppositions over the years. I'm sure there's more to come.

But I confess, I don't get it. How can one know God intimately yet fail to see His obvious hand - and Mind - in every aspect of reality? And further, how can one share with a straight face from the bulk of His Scripture while conceding that one part of it is a lie?

 

[sfs]

Also a related important question is - do we believe the whole Bible or parts of the Bible?

As far as I can tell, virtually all Christians believe parts of the Bible, whatever they claim to believe. I was reading Psalm 18 the other night, including this:
"I was blameless before him,
and I kept myself from guilt.
Therefore the Lord has recompensed me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight."

How many inerrantists think that the psalmist was free of guilt?

 

[olgamc]

Let proposition P1 = Information creates itself, i.e., information has its source in information.

True?

False by definition.

Definition of information from Oxford languages:

1. facts provided or learned about something or someone. "a vital piece of information"
2. what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. "genetically transmitted information"

If information is facts about something or someone, and those facts are provided or learned, it follows that there has to exist something or someone that provides or learns the information, and something or someone that is described by that information.

AI models are interesting in that it appears that they are creating new information. In a rudimentary example, we feed it a bunch of emails that are classified as spam or not spam, and it is then able to categorize new emails as spam or not spam. So it appears that new information is added to an email - before it was just a message, and now it's a message with an added attribute (spam/not spam). But it's not new information. All the words and patterns that are used to categorize the message have been in that message all along. As well, the AI program did not learn on it's own, somebody (a creator) had to have the knowledge of what constitutes spam, and impart that knowledge to the program. (Please don't go all technical on me, I only took an intro course in AI and I am only using this as an example because you do AI, tonychanyt. Also please correct me if I am wrong.)

 

[olgamc]

As far as I can tell, virtually all Christians believe parts of the Bible, whatever they claim to believe. I was reading Psalm 18 the other night, including this:
"I was blameless before him,
and I kept myself from guilt.
Therefore the Lord has recompensed me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight."

How many inerrantists think that the psalmist was free of guilt?

I do. For several reasons.

1. Sin, guilt, and being blameless are different things. David does not claim to be sinless. There are many other verses to support that. He does claim to be blameless, but look at verse 32 - "the God who ... made my way blameless". So he was not blameless on his own, but God made him blameless. He says he kept himself from guilt. Guilty is what we are when we have sinned and have not repented. We can keep ourselves from being guilty by repenting of our sin and believing in the Lord who forgives us, remembers our sins no more, and declares us righteous. Romans 8:1, 1 John 1:9, 1 John 3:21, Hebrews 10:22, etc.

2. Many of David's psalms are also figurative and prophetic and apply to Jesus. So this verse could be interpreted as having a double meaning. It could be talking about David who is guiltless and blameless and righteous because of his saving faith, and it could also be talking about Jesus who is literally all those things.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

"There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live."

 

[Lady Bug]

Does evolution remain a theory or has it been proven as a fact?

 

[olgamc]

But I confess, I don't get it. How can one know God intimately yet fail to see His obvious hand - and Mind - in every aspect of reality? And further, how can one share with a straight face from the bulk of His Scripture while conceding that one part of it is a lie?

I can't help but think that we are defining evolution differently. Can we dissect the word evolution? The theory of evolution states that the first organic life form was created by chance by a chemical reaction in non-organic matter, and that through a serious of chance beneficial mutations and repeated deaths and births and survival of the fittest etc, within a very long through limited time frame, it generated the complexity and variety of our existing world, including humans, and that the world continues to evolve. A species is a group of similar living organisms that can interbreed and produce a viable offspring. Right?

So first off, of course we can't believe in creation by chance because we believe in one God, who singlehandedly created all of the world. Well, triunehandedly. LOL

Can we believe that man evolved from an ape? I think we can believe that he could have, but that he didn't. Because the Bible clearly says that God created man special, different from all creation - in God's image, fashioned from the dust, made alive by a breath of God.

Can we believe that the rest of the animals evolved by chance? No, because again, the Bible clearly talks about God's involvement at every day of creation. Science findings so far have not actually violated that, because there is no evidence of some big jumps. There are missing links. When there is a missing link, did the more advanced organism evolve and we just haven't found the link yet, or has God interfered? I think God interfered.

So what can we believe then? Well, what about the reproducible experiments on the fruit flies? According to those, one species of fruit flies can become two separate species of fruit flies that can't interbreed. But people will say yes, but it's still a fruit fly. Well sure, but given enough time, is it possible to follow a series of random mini-mutations until it's not even recognizable as a fruit fly? Logically - yes it is possible, why wouldn't it be? And it doesn't violate the scripture that says that each kind gives birth to it's own kind. Because each fruit fly's baby was similar in kind to it's mother and father (kind = species = able to interbreed), but very slightly different, and over time those differences could have accumulated. So when you compare a remote descendant of a fruit fly in one group to a remote descendant of a fruit fly in another group, they are different species. Interestingly, my creationist friends will argue that many species of cat did evolve from one cat, so Adam could have named all animals in the garden in less than 24 hours, because he didn't have to come up with names like "leopard" and "panther" and "lion", he only had one animal to name - cat. But they will balk at the idea that a cat and a dog could have come from one animal - mammal. I am not sure why they balk, it seems logical to me.

So in short, I think we can believe in aspects of evolution that we can see in a lab. We don't even have to believe it - we can see it in a lab. I also think that we can believe in the Biblical account, which does not say that God made some kind of program and then set it to run, but that He did interfere every day, examined what He had made, and declared it good before He proceeded. And I think we can leave room for God to be God and do what He wants in the areas where the scripture is not being specific. When God says "let the water teem with living creatures" and it becomes so, the Bible is not being specific on HOW those living creates came to be, and out of what. Did they just appear? Maybe. Did God take an ameba and caused it to have a beneficial mutation that was according to his plan? Maybe. Did He take two amebas and make them both have different beneficial mutations that ultimately diverged the species? Maybe. It doesn't say. It doesn't say because it is not important. So we can believe whatever, and not argue, and not insist that "unless you believe my way you can't be a Christian".

And a small digression, but in regards to young earth vs old earth. Was Adam 0 years old, or was Adam about 20 years old? He was 0 years old because he was just created. But his body was a body of a 20 year old because it was fully grown and ready to reproduce. If he died the day he was created and his body was later found, the scientist would estimate him to be 20 years old based on his observable skeleton. So why couldn't earth be both young and old, created with an age? Why do we have to argue and refute each other's science, why can't young earth believers allow the possibility of both being true?

 

[olgamc]

Does evolution remain a theory or has it been proven as a fact?

A bit of both. Micro-evolution is a fact. Macro-evolution is a theory.

 

[Dan1988]

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 and worked evolution. 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 sciences, there is not as much mathematical justification for Evolution. 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?.

The title could have been, Can you be a Christian and not believe in God.

If a person believes in the theory of evolution, it means that they have put their faith in Charles Darwin and that means they are not a Christian. A Christian believes in God and forsakes everyone who opposes God as Mr. Darwin did when he conjured up his theory.

Simply put, God said He created the earth and all living things in 6 days. Mr. Darwin came along and said not so, the earth and all living things created themselves over millions of years.

The choice is simple, we can believe in Darwin or God. Both have said very contradicting things about how the world and everything else came into existence.

AI can only regurgitate what was put into it. It can't produce any new evidence to challenge the facts which we already know to be true.

 

[Lady Bug]

A bit of both. Micro-evolution is a fact. Macro-evolution is a theory.

Ah OK. I think what I had in mind was macro.