Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[olgamc]

I appreciate the graciousness of your response. Forgive me that I've failed to be as gracious.

no worries, you were just passionate

Perhaps my lingering perplexity is a concern for how we, as Christians juggling Scripture and Science, are perceived. Or better, how our MESSAGE to each other and the lost is perceived.

I was once asked by a mocking atheist if I believed in aliens. I said I believe that if God wanted to make aliens, He could have. My friend who was in the group and who is also an atheist said to me "that was a good answer".

I think that mockers will be mockers until the Lord chooses to save them. We don't save them, it's not our job. But I don't think anyone sees us juggling two opposing forces except for people who believe that science is from the devil. (However they define science. In this case it's evolution. In the case of covid it was vaccinations...) The world doesn't see us juggling two forces, because they don't believe in two forces. They just see us as being hard-headed, brainwashed, and not able to reason. And if they see us fighting between ourselves about what we believe, how can they believe us? All they see is that we don't know ourselves what we believe. We claim to know the truth, but we fight about what truth is.

Also we are not going to prove God to anyone by arguing. We can only show them God by loving them. And if we make enemies out of them or judge them, we are not loving. And we are not supposed to judge unbelievers to begin with. Look at Acts 17:22-23. It's one of my favorite verses. Paul notices statues to gods. They are idol worshippers. But Paul doesn't say "how could you, this is so wrong". No, first he takes time to learn what they believe. Then he complements them on being religious in every way. Then he finds something he can grab on to - a statue to the unknown god - and uses that to tell them about the real God and His son.

Besides, we can use science to confirm the Bible. Imagine if an atheist comes in and says "I know that earth is billions of years old", and we say "well you are wrong". He is just going to walk out. But we can say "Sure. Earth can be both young and old depending on how you look.". We are not compromising on anything, because the statement is completely true. And we are not acknowledging that oh yeah, physical earth is definitely billions of years old. We are not saying anything actually, one way or another, but we are drawing him into a conversation. We can say things like "Darwin discovered that life developed from plants to water creatures to land creatures, and guess what, that's in the Bible!" But there is certainly a limit to how much we can affirm, because we have to tell the truth. So we have to know the truth and where the boundaries are between "could be" and "nope, no way". If someone says to me "I can marry whoever I want because I evolved from a snail and snails are hermaphrodites" - I honestly don't know how to answer that, except to say that well that's your opinion, but I know there is God who created them separate and special and they are much much more than a snail.

 

[olgamc]

Other examples of hyperbolic language with "kol erets", 1 samuel 14:25. All the world entered the forest. Usually translated as all the people of the land.

Isaiah 14:7. The whole earth is quiet and at rest.

‭‭Genesis 13:9 ESV‬‬
[9] Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right, or if you take the right hand, then I will go to the left.”

That's kol erets, but translators realize that the entire planet Earth couldn't be visible from standing in one location, so they translate it as land.

1 Samuel 13:3, blew a trumpet throughout all the world.

But again it's talking about a local region so it's typically just translated as land.


There are lots of passages like this. So when you read "earth", Just remember that the authors didn't think of the Earth as a sphere, so you have to think of it as a local region. @olgamc

‭‭1 Kings 10:24 ESV‬‬
[24] And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind.

No, Japanese people were not riding boats to the middle east to see King Solomon. It's hyperbole of a local region.

What about Acts 17:26? "From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand when they should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries."

Thank you by the way for posting that video. I haven't watched it yet, but I will.

 

[olgamc]

All people are people. Not sure if I gave the impression that I thought otherwise.

I guess my question is, if Adam had a mom and a dad, and Adam is the first person with a soul, does that mean that his mom and dad are people without a soul?

 

[Job 33:6]

I guess my question is, if Adam had a mom and a dad, and Adam is the first person with a soul, does that mean that his mom and dad are people without a soul?

What Bible verse are you referencing when you talk about Adams soul. I try to speak in terms of what the Bible says. If you don't have a verse, I can respond anyway, but it would help me understand your approach if I had scripture to frame your question.

 

[Job 33:6]

What about Acts 17:26? "From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand when they should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries."

Thank you by the way for posting that video. I haven't watched it yet, but I will.

Well in Greek it doesn't say "from one man", it just says "from one". KJV I think says blood.

I usually view this passage in relation to Noah, because the Bible says that nations split after flood. There's a section of the Bible typically titled "the table of nations", And then in Babel they were scattered. Then by Deuteronomy 32, God established the princes of the nations.

But many translations say something like:
‭‭Acts 17:26 ESV‬‬
[26] And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

‭‭Acts 17:26 NASB2020‬‬
[26] and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

‭‭Acts 17:26 NIV‬‬
[26] From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

So I would interpret this passage as Paul, who also does not know that earth is a globe and is speaking with respect to the near east and Mediterranean, and he's saying that from Noah, descendents of Noah came to be.

But his main message is to point out that all things, nations, people, and otherwise, come from God. Even if he isn't aware of native Americans on the other side of the ocean or down in Australia. It's a theological statement. It's not really a statement about biological descent or anything like that.

 

[davetaff]

Agreed.

Right, which is why I agree there is at least two different applications of the word 'yom'.

I personally think so, but agree it isn't clearly defined in length as the prior days were.

I believe it was finished, yes. He rested for a period, however long, and then resumed creating. Why do I believe so? Because it's observable in human reproduction - throughout all of human history - correctly referred to as pro-creation.

Consider the arrival of your first child. I remember feeding him in the middle of the night and pondering just who he is. Yes, he's a product of my and his mother's genes - all his physical traits predetermined in the womb.

But this little fella is something more. His inner being is there - and also largely predetermined. His unique personality (strengths and weaknesses), his personal likes and dislikes, his special talents, what subjects he would excel at, all predispositions are all there. And I realized, I myself had absolutely NOTHING to do with creating all of that. This little man's spirit already existed in the mind of God before he was even knit in the womb. I know this not just because of what is obvious to my two eyes in his animated being, but because the Word I stake my life on says so. Yes, the literal, inerrant Word of God.

Due to this, I knew I had an obligation to teach him, as he grew, just who he is - a unique CREATION made in the image of God - with a special purpose. And guide Him to knowing just Who that God is and how to become eternally united to Him.

I knew that soon enough, he would have a godless world competing to convince him that he was nothing more than a glorified amoeba destined to struggle to survive amongst other amoebas - with nothing to look forward to but clinging to a temporal existence for all he was worth, in quiet desperation, distracting himself with entertainment to avoid the meaninglessness of it all, destined for the grave in an eternal state of non-existence - the only reason for having existed at all to perpetuate a species of similarly doomed amoebas. Oh, and to 'protect' the planet along the way.

THAT is the best hope of evolutionary theory... A religion of death. No thanks.

Every person desperately needs to know that there is a reason that they exist, that they have a purpose to fill, and how to find it - that is OUR purpose once we have been taught.

Darwinian theory, as you know, is only one of a myriad of worldly preoccupations designed to thwart our purpose. There is no compromising with our, and His, enemy. Pray for them and love them, yes, yoke with them in delusion, no.

Which takes me back to the OP - 'can we be Christian and believe in evolution?' Again I say, I suppose so. But why? Why partner a religion of life with a religion of death? How can one's gospel message be seriously considered when coupled with godless lies?

As an aside and before you repeat yourself, I also would request the writer of the OP clarify his subject line by clearly defining what he means by 'evolution'. I just hit the ground running assuming he meant 'Darwinian macro survival of the fittest origin of species evolution. Isn't that what 99% of the media, academia, scientific community and online forums are talking about?

While clarifying, I would add the request to define the word 'Christian'. Might clear up other pre-suppositions.

I'm not understanding. Why does the word 'yom' change here? Aren't 12 and 24 interpretations of the same word?

So again, one has to appeal to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For me personally, the question of literal 24 hour days was resolved by the fact that the Spirit gave me peace about it. And I've maintained that peace for 30 years now. He did it the same way He gave me peace about the problem of evil, the reality of an eternal Hell for the unbeliever, whether you can lose your salvation, and a hundred other troublesome doctrines - by teaching me to cling to a simple maxim:

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

It's the whole reason I can put faith in other more precious Scriptures, like "I will never leave you nor forsake you." My life, here and eternally, is utterly dependent on Him telling the truth in ALL of Scripture.

Yes we do, He spoke it into existence. And we didn't have to be there. We have the Holy Spirit in us Who WAS there.

Pardon my incredulity, but this is not true for all scientists. For the ones disciplined to adhere to the first law of good science - preach only what is observable and repeatable - yes.

Darwinian evolutionists, though, take a dollop of fact and create a pound of fantasy - all decidedly unobservable. And declare it as fact. And when proven wrong, no they don't own up to it, they just pivot to some other tack and carry on with other more bizarre theories.

Example: Remember Piltdown Man? Every evolutionist danced for joy and declared God is dead - until the hoax was revealed. Were there any mea culpas? Hardly. A period of stunned silence and then carrying on without comment. Standard behavior.

Great. Then stop declaring a theory as fact while still studying and learning. And get it the heck out of our schools.

More than the dishonest scientists - absolutely.

But you seem to make some erroneous assumptions about fellow believers - perhaps from your encounters to date. For myself, I certainly don't know every detail of creation. And I am constantly learning from science. I learned from you details about the fruit fly that I didn't know - and appreciated it. I am constantly fascinated by all facets of creation and perpetually curious.

It's just that my conclusions from what I observe and learn - that they are evidence of a brilliant creative Intelligence - is at avowed odds with the one who gazes at the same evidences and credits an unknowing, unknowable inanimate something as its ultimate source. In that regard, heck yes, I defer to Holy Scripture over science.

Yep - for the element from each group who are honest with themselves and others. The remainder need our prayers.


Being salt and light includes telling the truth - not compromising with a fantasy that is actively at enmity with God.

Weighing all evidence and standing on God's Word as the final authority on creation is not ignoring it.

As long as our overarching goal is to lead others to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ - I wholeheartedly agree!

Hi Gods sabbath rest is 1000 years its Christ's millennium reign its when God hands everything over to Jesus Christ to finish the creation of man in the image of God.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[tonychanyt]

If there is no creator, then genetic information has been created unintentionally.

If there is no creator, then nothing was created. You need to define what you mean by *created*.

 

[davetaff]

I agree that we don't need to prove it. We can't actually. God can't be scientifically proven or disproven, and that's why it's called belief or faith. But God gives different jobs to all of us, does He not? To some God gives curiosity. Some want to know why. I am one of those annoying kids who always asked why, and I was fortunate to have a mom who didn't say "just because". I distinctly remember that conversation with my mom when I was about 5 years old. Why is the sky blue? Because oxygen is blue. What's oxygen? It's gas. What's gas? If it's all around us, why can't I see it in my hand but only when I look at the sky? What makes it blue? And so on. My mom ended up getting a whole bunch of clear plastic bags for me. When you look at one bag, it's clear. When you put a whole thick stack of them together, they are white or blue or whatever tint they had. Wow!!!

My mom has a phd in chemistry, my dad phd in physics, and I grew up to become a software developer. God designed me to be curious, gave me a faculty of logic and reason, and put me in an environment where questions were welcome. Why did He do that? I don't know. But I have come to learn that the way the devil works is by twisting and perverting the truth, and intermixing it with a lie. Like a string made out of two different strands. And that sometimes I seem to be able to discern which part of the string is genuine silk, and which part is polyester, and I seem to be able to unravel it, throw away the polyester, and hold on to silk. And that we are actually commanded to do that - discern the truth and hold on to it. So in that regard, it is important to constantly question what we believe vs what God actually said.

And yes, I do look up definitions of words in the original language. Bible was not written in English, and it was not written in modern times. Languages change, English changes, and with that our understanding changes. So to preserve the original meaning, we must absolutely study ancient culture and language. That's why we need each other, and God designed us to need each other - linguists, historians, geologists, scientists, theologians, philosophers - we all have a role to play in preserving the truth. So let's not fight with each other and let's not look down on people who have a different perspective. We have 2 eyes, because by having a slightly different perspective from each eye we can see in 3d. If one eye said to the other - your perspective is wrong, well, the whole body would lose out.

Thank you for your reply the point I'm trying to make is do we have to be an academic to understand God's word or is it enough to read the word and let God explain it I have spent quite a lot of money on books by academics they have all ended in the bin what I found was they all seemed to contradict one another so one day I sat down opened my bible at Genesis 1 and read it from cover to cover and have never looked back.

Love and peace
Dave

 

[olgamc]

What Bible verse are you referencing when you talk about Adams soul. I try to speak in terms of what the Bible says. If you don't have a verse, I can respond anyway, but it would help me understand your approach if I had scripture to frame your question.

Genesis 2:7 - God breathed into his nostrils a breath of life and he became a living being. If what you say is true, then Adam was already a biologically alive being, so this would be talking about God making him spiritually alive - giving him a soul. Which to me means that his mom and dad and siblings and every other human on earth living up to that moment had no soul.

 

[olgamc]

Well in Greek it doesn't say "from one man", it just says "from one". KJV I think says blood.

I usually view this passage in relation to Noah, because the Bible says that nations split after flood. There's a section of the Bible typically titled "the table of nations", And then in Babel they were scattered. Then by Deuteronomy 32, God established the princes of the nations.

But many translations say something like:
‭‭Acts 17:26 ESV‬‬
[26] And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

‭‭Acts 17:26 NASB2020‬‬
[26] and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

‭‭Acts 17:26 NIV‬‬
[26] From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

So I would interpret this passage as Paul, who also does not know that earth is a globe and is speaking with respect to the near east and Mediterranean, and he's saying that from Noah, descendents of Noah came to be.

But his main message is to point out that all things, nations, people, and otherwise, come from God. Even if he isn't aware of native Americans on the other side of the ocean or down in Australia. It's a theological statement. It's not really a statement about biological descent or anything like that.

Aristotel lived some 350 years before Christ, so the idea that the world is a sphere was known in Paul’s time. I don’t know what Paul personally knew or thought, but I think that it’s an assumption that he was talking about the geographic area. But it’s just my opinion. But ok, let’s assume that all the nations of the whole earth refers to a geographic area. That would mean that the flood did not wipe out all of earth, but only the known geographic are. That would mean that after the flood there would be descendants of Noah and a bunch of other people. And if at least one of those people travelled from their region to the area which Paul was referring to, and had a children, than God did not create all nations in the known world from one man Noah. This is why I think Paul is referring to Adam.

 

[olgamc]

If there is no creator, then nothing was created. You need to define what you mean by *created*.

Came to existence.

 

[olgamc]

Thank you for your reply the point I'm trying to make is do we have to be an academic to understand God's word or is it enough to read the word and let God explain it I have spent quite a lot of money on books by academics they have all ended in the bin what I found was they all seemed to contradict one another so one day I sat down opened my bible at Genesis 1 and read it from cover to cover and have never looked back.

Love and peace
Dave

Beautiful! I love how God works. That is exactly my point. We don’t need to understand everything and we don’t need to argue, because there is no conflict. We are all arguing and contradicting each other because we are looking at things from different perspectives. Both perspectives can be true at the same time, all we need to do is accept that multiple perspectives exist.

 

[olgamc]

‭‭But his main message is to point out that all things, nations, people, and otherwise, come from God. Even if he isn't aware of native Americans on the other side of the ocean or down in Australia. It's a theological statement. It's not really a statement about biological descent or anything like that.

So in other words, what you are saying is that Paul says God created all the people and nations. Right? But then why does he say “from one man”? He could have just said “God created”, but he doesn’t. Does that mean that “from one man” is important? I think it is.

Here’s what I think the Bible says. God created a man, Adam, different from animals - in God’s image and with a soul. He was an actual physical person and not an allegory. I believe that Adam was created mortal, but as long as he could eat from the tree of life he was immortal. I believe that God created a physical Eve from Adam. She was the same as Adam - made not an animal, made in God’s image, mortal but having access to the tree of life. This one man Adam sinned, along with his wife, and both were forbidden to eat from the tree of life. Therefore sin entered the human kind (which at the time consisted of 2 people), and with sin, death. Then Adam and Eve had kids according to their kind - not animals, created in God’s image, with a soul, sinful, and mortal, and not having access to the tree of life. Then God sent His son to take a form of one physical man to redeem all human kind from sin and death.

Here’s what I don’t think the Bible says. How exactly God made the world. How long exactly it took. How exactly He made Adam.

God doesn’t spell it all out for us because it’s not important to our salvation. We can study things or not study things, we can know more or we can know less, and the different disciplines we study can disagree with each other and still not be in conflict. There is something we should not do, in my opinion. We should not present our interpretation of God’s word as God’s word. Gods word is inerrant. Our interpretation is not. We should try to understand the Scripture, and for that we do have to interpret it, but I don’t believe that we should say “I am right and you are wrong”, unless the person contradicts something very obvious. Like if someone said “the Bible says that devil is the good guy”, I would say that they are obviously wrong.

Oh, and just to clarify. Above I presented what I think. Doesn’t mean that it’s flawless, and I didn’t say that I am right and you are wrong. I just said this is what I think, this makes sense to me. That’s all. And when I ask you questions, I am not asking them because I am right, I am analyzing your opinion and my opinion, to see where they are the same, where they differ, why they differ, and is it important.

I find that people hear me ask questions and assume that I think I am right and they are wrong. That’s not why I ask questions, but I am evaluating a different opinion before I decide whether or not I need to change mine.

 

[tonychanyt]

Came to existence.

"Create" and "came to existence" are distinct concepts. Can you rephrase your paragraph with the appropriate wording? I prefer to argue in precise wording. It will also clarify things in your head.

 

[olgamc]

If there is no creator, then nothing was created. You need to define what you mean by *created

"Create" and "came to existence" are distinct concepts. Can you rephrase your paragraph with the appropriate wording? I prefer to argue in precise wording. It will also clarify things in your head.

Ok, I actually see what you mean. I am going to make a distinction between create data and derive information, where derive information means organize data into some structure.

let p1 = there exists a set of x such that x causes data to come to existence and x does not organize data. (all kinds of random forces)
let p2 = there exists a set of y such that y organizes data. (all kinds of machines that are able to derive meaning from data)
let p3 = if both p1 and p2 are true, there exists at least one x that creates data for at least one y. (some random force generates data that some machine is able to organize)

is p3 true?

 

[tonychanyt]

there exists a set of x

Is x a set or an element in a set? What was the highest level of math that you took?

 

[olgamc]

You're still trying to marry two opposing world views together, but the two will never be united in harmony. Mans view and understanding are deficient and corrupt. Man simply doesn't have the capacity to make sense of reality, all of his attempts to find reasonable explanations for the created order have failed.
Humans still don't know the very basics or fundamental facts, but we try to write papers to explain the high order programming of life. Please see the attached scientific presentation about biological evolution.

Hey. Thank you for posting the video, I watched it. I have a few comments.

1. I want to point out what he says around minute 35. "look outside the box and not confine yourselves to only one option". That is exactly what I've been saying! Scientists - evolution exists, God does not. Some Christians - God exists, evolution does not. Ok Christians. You want the scientists to open up their mind to other possibilities? But you have a log in your own eye. Why don't you open up your eyes to other possibilities, namely that both God and evolution can exist. And I am talking about the mechanics of evolution and not the theory of evolution, because we already know that the theory exists. It might not be true, but it exists.

2. Around minute 30 he defined different probability terms. At 33:59 he says that scientists confuse the terms and say "must have happened because it could have happened". But we Christians do the same!!! "God could have created things instantly, so He must have created the world instantly."

3. At 39:57 - "functional information cannot be generated from purely physical properties". Why did he say that? How does he know? I want proof. Then he says "it just has never been observed". Wait, what just happened? Did they just say "we haven't see it, therefore it is impossible"? According to their own definition of probability terms, that not what "we haven't seen it" means.

See? This is why I get so frustrated with these creation videos. The creators of these videos contradict themselves and don't notice logs in their own eyes.

 

[olgamc]

Is x a set or an element in a set? What was the highest level of math that you took?

I didn't take math in north america except for the ai course. I took one year of university before I came here, but I don't know how that translates to a north american curriculum. Also our notation is a bit different, and also it was many many years ago. LOL

let p1 = there exists a set X of elements x such that x causes data to come to existence and x does not organize data. (all kinds of random forces)
let p2 = there exists a set Y of elements y such that y organizes data. (all kinds of machines that are able to derive meaning from data)
let p3 = if both p1 and p2 are true, there exists at least one x that creates data for at least one y. (some random force generates data that some machine is able to organize)

 

[tonychanyt]

I didn't take math in north america except for the ai course. I took one year of university before I came here, but I don't know how that translates to a north american curriculum. Also our notation is a bit different, and also it was many many years ago. LOL

let p1 = there exists a set X of elements x such that x causes data to come to existence and x does not organize data. (all kinds of random forces)
let p2 = there exists a set Y of elements y such that y organizes data. (all kinds of machines that are able to derive meaning from data)
let p3 = if both p1 and p2 are true, there exists at least one x that creates data for at least one y. (some random force generates data that some machine is able to organize)

Sure. Now you need to prove p3 is true. If you like, I can assume that P3=p3 is true. What is next?

PS I reserve the right to ask you to prove p3 at some time in the future

 

[olgamc]

You're still trying to marry two opposing world views together, but the two will never be united in harmony.

That's where I disagree. I am not trying to marry two opposing views together. Opposing views would be "God exists" vs "God does not exist". Of course those conflict, which is why in my original answer I said that we can believe in aspects of the theory of evolution.

Ok, let me explain. You said we can read books on cooking, right? Cooking is chemistry. So we can perform a chemical reaction in our kitchen and call it soup. To us cooks, a soup is a dish that we can eat that consists of vegetables and maybe meat. But to our friend the chemist who is invited for dinner, soup is a mixture of chemicals. Then our friend the chemist says to us, hey, have you heard of the primordial soup? Are they talking about a dish with vegetables and meat? Or are they talking about a mixture of chemicals? Can we, from our perspective of what soup is, say to them - hey that's not soup? Well that's what we are doing. We are only seeing things from one perspective, and calling everyone else wrong.

Ok, another example. You and I are friends. I have a fish tank that I've been setting up for the past year and I am super proud of it. I invite some friends over, including you, to show it off. My friend the biologist looks at it and says "I see a bunch of guppies that poop. I also see through a microscope some bacteria that converts guppy poop into inorganic nutrients. I also see some plants (starts naming plants) that take up nutrients and produce oxygen for the fish. Oh, and by the way, that's a great little eco system you got going, but it will all eventually die.". A chemist looks at the tank and says "I see a process called photosynthesis by which the chemicals from the substrate and carbon dioxide from the water are converted to plant cells and oxygen...." and he keep muttering, but I tune him out. A physicist looks at the tank and says "I see that there is a heat exchange between cooler and warmer water and I see a bunch of matter that has always existed and will always exist".

Then Jesus walks into a room and says "hey folks, guess what? I made all that".

Are me, my friends, and Jesus in conflict? Who is right? Who is wrong? What should you believe about the fish tank?