Evolution conflict and division

[Job 33:6]

Note: My replies are not intended to question your personal relationship with God. They are meant to examine the theological implications of theistic evolution for the biblical narrative. Nor are they intended to impeach the scientific theory of evolution itself. Rather, their purpose is to highlight the points of tension and dissonance between evolutionary theory and the overarching storyline of Scripture.

No offense taken

I agree that Scripture does not give us a calendar date for Adam, and I’m comfortable with that as well. But Scripture does give us something more important than a date: it gives us a sequence and a cause. According to Paul, sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin (Romans 5:12). Death is not treated as a background condition of creation, but as the direct consequence of Adam’s sin.

Agreed.

That connection is essential because the New Testament consistently frames Christ’s work as the reversal of that event. “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Christ is called the “last Adam” precisely because He brings life where the first Adam brought death. If death was already the normal state of the world long before Adam, then Paul’s parallel collapses—and Christ’s victory over death becomes something other than a true undoing of the Fall.

I do not view the death in Genesis as being equated to a concordist or naturalistic death that we view in the animal kingdom. As noted with passages such as Psalm 104.

I agree that Christ was not giving biology lectures—but that’s beside the point. The question isn’t whether Jesus taught science, but whether He treated the Genesis account as historical and authoritative. And He clearly did.

When Jesus appealed to Genesis in His teaching on marriage, He didn’t treat Adam and Eve as symbols or literary devices. He said, “From the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’” (Mark 10:6), grounding a present moral command in a real act of creation. That assumes a historical beginning, not a long prehistory of death and emergence.

The passage doesn't say anything for or against death in history.

More broadly, Jesus consistently affirmed the Old Testament narrative as truthful history—speaking of Abel’s murder (Luke 11:51), Noah’s flood (Matthew 24:37–39), and Jonah (Matthew 12:40) as real events. He also spoke of creation itself as the work of God, not an unguided process (Matthew 19:4).

Historical, sure. But not scientifically concordant.

Most importantly, Jesus’ mission presupposes the Genesis framework. He came to deal with sin and to conquer death—real enemies that Scripture says entered the world through human rebellion. His resurrection is not merely a spiritual lesson, but the decisive victory over death itself. That victory only makes sense if death is an intruder, not the original engine of creation.

Sure. A supernatural death. Not a scientifically concordant one.

I don’t think the embedded assumption is that all animal death is morally evil in itself.

Ok. Well that's evolution in a nutshell. It is animal death that is not morally evil. Death that in fact, is not bad. But is part of God's wisdom and planning.

Crucially, Paul extends this problem beyond humanity alone. In Romans 8 he writes:
“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now” (Romans 8:20–22).

This doesn't even mention death.

God’s present governance of a fallen order does not imply His endorsement of it as final or ideal. God also governs suffering, disease, and violence, yet promises their end. The biblical story moves toward restoration: Isaiah envisions a renewed creation where predation ceases (Isaiah 11:6–9), and Revelation declares, “Death shall be no more” (Revelation 21:4).

Again, this isn't a scientifically concordant death. And Isaiah never says that there won't be predation. It just says that species of the human domain, such as domesticated animals, will be protected from predators.

No amount of AI support can't bend the text to become scientifically concordant.

 

[Mercy Shown]

No. But like I said, we could do this for any theory. Yet evolution is the one that has your attention.

Have you noticed which forum we are posting in? I am not about to share my Grandpa's meatloaf casserole recipe here.

Ok, now we are arriving at the real point of contention.

But wait a minute, I thought that you accepted that the theory of evolution is true?

You’re still missing the point. My posts were never focused on proving the Bible true or disproving evolution. The point was that both positions ultimately require an act of faith.

Theistic evolution does not make God a distant initiator. It just means that God is engaged and active in functions that we witness.

God sustains everything, even gravity. He is active and present with us, in every moment. Acknowledging the existence of physical processes does not remove God from being present. Acknowledging evolution does not remove God from engagement.

Theistic evolution may claim that God is engaged and active, but that engagement comes with a profound moral problem. If evolution is God’s chosen method, then humans were produced through billions of years of pain, disease, predation, and violent struggle—suffering so immense it defies comprehension. Creatures killing, starving, and wounding one another was part of His “plan” for humanity’s eventual arrival.

And then, on top of that, God commands humans to love one another, even their enemies, to show mercy, and to pursue justice. How can a God who deploys endless violence to create His image-bearers demand that they embody love and compassion? This is not a minor tension; it is a moral dissonance so stark it borders on the paradoxical.

Acknowledging God’s sustaining presence in natural processes does not resolve the problem. Evolution as God’s method portrays Him as a tyrant of time and suffering, and it raises the question: can a God who creates through relentless death and destruction truly be the moral exemplar He calls His children to follow?

How can these stories be incompatible if you accept that evolution is true? Are you an atheist?

If I accept that evolution is true, then I'm an atheist or a believer in a non-biblical religion. If I am a believer that the bible is God's word, then I cannot accept macroevolution.

Your responses seem to imply that if a process is described in natural or material terms, then God must be absent from it. That assumption effectively pushes God toward a deistic role, where divine action is restricted to gaps in our explanations rather than understood as operating through the very processes God sustains. Classical Christian theology, by contrast, has always affirmed that God works through secondary causes without being displaced by them.

Consider human birth. We have detailed biological explanations for conception, development, and delivery, yet Scripture still speaks of God “knitting us together in the womb.” The presence of natural mechanisms does not imply divine absence; it is precisely through those mechanisms that God ordinarily acts. Explaining how something happens does not negate who ultimately brings it about.

This is why Intelligent Design becomes a theological liability rather than a strength. By treating natural processes as insufficient for divine action, it unintentionally suggests that God cannot be fully involved in material causation and must instead be confined to unexplained origins, often abiogenesis alone. That move does not protect God’s agency; it narrows it. A robust doctrine of creation affirms that God is no less active where processes are understood than where questions remain open.

I understand your point about God working through secondary causes, and I agree that natural explanations don’t automatically exclude divine action. Scripture consistently affirms that God sustains and governs creation, even through processes we can fully describe biologically or physically. Human birth is a perfect example: God acts through conception, development, and delivery, and we can study those processes in detail without denying His agency.

But this perspective runs into a profound problem when applied to evolution as a method of creation. If God brought humanity into existence through billions of years of death, predation, disease, and relentless suffering, then His “action” is inseparable from a process marked by enormous pain and violence. That raises a moral tension: God is fully engaged in creating humans, yet the method involves suffering and death on a scale that seems profoundly at odds with the ethical character He commands His creatures to embody—love, mercy, and compassion.

So while God certainly works through processes, theistic evolution makes Him a tyrant of time and suffering, sustaining a world of relentless death to produce creatures He calls to love one another. That is not a minor theological nuance—it is a dissonance that Scripture itself highlights through the connections between sin, death, and redemption. God’s engagement through processes does not remove the moral tension; it intensifies it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Have you noticed which forum we are posting in? I am not about to share my Grandpa's meatloaf casserole recipe here.

You’re still missing the point. My posts were never focused on proving the Bible true or disproving evolution. The point was that both positions ultimately require an act of faith.

Theistic evolution may claim that God is engaged and active, but that engagement comes with a profound moral problem. If evolution is God’s chosen method, then humans were produced through billions of years of pain, disease, predation, and violent struggle—suffering so immense it defies comprehension. Creatures killing, starving, and wounding one another was part of His “plan” for humanity’s eventual arrival.

And then, on top of that, God commands humans to love one another, even their enemies, to show mercy, and to pursue justice. How can a God who deploys endless violence to create His image-bearers demand that they embody love and compassion? This is not a minor tension; it is a moral dissonance so stark it borders on the paradoxical.

Acknowledging God’s sustaining presence in natural processes does not resolve the problem. Evolution as God’s method portrays Him as a tyrant of time and suffering, and it raises the question: can a God who creates through relentless death and destruction truly be the moral exemplar He calls His children to follow?

If I accept that evolution is true, then I'm an atheist or a believer in a non-biblical religion. If I am a believer that the bible is God's word, then I cannot accept macroevolution.

I understand your point about God working through secondary causes, and I agree that natural explanations don’t automatically exclude divine action. Scripture consistently affirms that God sustains and governs creation, even through processes we can fully describe biologically or physically. Human birth is a perfect example: God acts through conception, development, and delivery, and we can study those processes in detail without denying His agency.

But this perspective runs into a profound problem when applied to evolution as a method of creation. If God brought humanity into existence through billions of years of death, predation, disease, and relentless suffering, then His “action” is inseparable from a process marked by enormous pain and violence. That raises a moral tension: God is fully engaged in creating humans, yet the method involves suffering and death on a scale that seems profoundly at odds with the ethical character He commands His creatures to embody—love, mercy, and compassion.

So while God certainly works through processes, theistic evolution makes Him a tyrant of time and suffering, sustaining a world of relentless death to produce creatures He calls to love one another. That is not a minor theological nuance—it is a dissonance that Scripture itself highlights through the connections between sin, death, and redemption. God’s engagement through processes does not remove the moral tension; it intensifies it.

This is all patently false. And here I thought you were a firm advocate of Intelligent Design. I apparently misunderstood your assertions. It seems, rather, you're a Biblical Creationist of one sort or another rather than an ID'er.

And your implied rhetoric about the conditions by which anyone can "be" a Christian is telling, and I reject firmly reject it.

 

[Mercy Shown]

No offense taken


Agreed.




I do not view the death in Genesis as being equated to a concordist or naturalistic death that we view in the animal kingdom. As noted with passages such as Psalm 104.


The passage doesn't say anything for or against death in history.




Historical, sure. But not scientifically concordant.


Sure. A supernatural death. Not a scientifically concordant one.


Ok. Well that's evolution in a nutshell. It is animal death that is not morally evil. Death that in fact, is not bad. But is part of God's wisdom and planning.



This doesn't even mention death.


Again, this isn't a scientifically concordant death. And Isaiah never says that there won't be predation. It just says that species of the human domain, such as domesticated animals, will be protected from predators.

No amount of AI support can't bend the text to become scientifically concordant.

AI isn't making these arguments, I am. And if scientific concordance is the standard, then atheism is the clear choice.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

AI isn't making these arguments, I am. And if scientific concordance is the standard, then atheism is the clear choice.

False dichotomy.

 

[Job 33:6]

AI isn't making these arguments, I am. And if scientific concordance is the standard, then atheism is the clear choice.

I know that you're making them. I'm just saying that...AI can't make your argument...out of context.

And I prefer the non concordist Christian approach than the scientifically concordant atheist approach.

 

[Mercy Shown]

This is all patently false. And here I thought you were a firm advocate of Intelligent Design. I apparently misunderstood your assertions. It seems, rather, you're a Biblical Creationist of one sort or another rather than an ID'er.

Don't try to convince me that something is false by just declaring so. If I were discussing this with atheists, it would be a very different conversation because there would be no magic wand to tap away the questions. There is scant difference between theistic evolutionists and creationists. They simply argue over the means and mode, but essentially appeal to God as the answer to their imponderables.

 

[Mercy Shown]

False dichotomy.

Well, if you simply declare it is so then allow me to simply declare, "Why, no, no it is not. There, that was simple.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Don't try to convince me that something is false by just declaring so. If I were discussing this with atheists, it would be a very different conversation because there would be no magic wand to tap away the questions. There is scant difference between theistic evolutionists and creationists. They simply argue over the means and mode, but essentially appeal to God as the answer to their imponderables.

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm making statements. Do you know the difference between these speech-acts?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, if you simply declare it is so then allow me to simply declare, "Why, no, no it is not. There, that was simple.

False dichotomy. And I don't don't put up with implications that I'm not Christian from anybody........................................ I don't have to jump through your hoops in order to be "Christian," just like you don't have to jump through mine.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm making statements. Do you know the difference between these speech-acts?

Ok, then. No debate, we just make statements. If you have a thought, let me know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, if you simply declare it is so then allow me to simply declare, "Why, no, no it is not. There, that was simple.

I'm not simply declaring something. I have limited time by which to be on these threads. If you really want to know my line of thinking, I can give you a nice, thick bibliography of the scholars who have influenced my own Abductive thinking and my view of the Christian faith (over and against the preponderance of Deductive 'just so,' Strong Foundationalist thinking I seem to get from way too many fellow Christians).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, then. No debate, we just make statements. If you have a thought, let me know.

Your hubris is noted.

 

[Job 33:6]

Have you noticed which forum we are posting in? I am not about to share my Grandpa's meatloaf casserole recipe here.

You’re still missing the point. My posts were never focused on proving the Bible true or disproving evolution. The point was that both positions ultimately require an act of faith.

Theistic evolution may claim that God is engaged and active, but that engagement comes with a profound moral problem. If evolution is God’s chosen method, then humans were produced through billions of years of pain, disease, predation, and violent struggle—suffering so immense it defies comprehension. Creatures killing, starving, and wounding one another was part of His “plan” for humanity’s eventual arrival.

The real horror is not a lion eating a gazelle. The real horror is mans sin.

Acknowledging God’s sustaining presence in natural processes does not resolve the problem. Evolution as God’s method portrays Him as a tyrant of time and suffering, and it raises the question: can a God who creates through relentless death and destruction truly be the moral exemplar He calls His children to follow?

I don't think so. As noted above. Death was never identified as evil in scripture.

If I accept that evolution is true, then I'm an atheist or a believer in a non-biblical religion. If I am a believer that the bible is God's word, then I cannot accept macroevolution.

I understand your point about God working through secondary causes, and I agree that natural explanations don’t automatically exclude divine action. Scripture consistently affirms that God sustains and governs creation, even through processes we can fully describe biologically or physically. Human birth is a perfect example: God acts through conception, development, and delivery, and we can study those processes in detail without denying His agency.

Great. Evolution is just a natural mechanism. That is all. It is not inherently good nor evil. It's just something that happens.

But this perspective runs into a profound problem when applied to evolution as a method of creation. If God brought humanity into existence through billions of years of death, predation, disease, and relentless suffering, then His “action” is inseparable from a process marked by enormous pain and violence. That raises a moral tension: God is fully engaged in creating humans, yet the method involves suffering and death on a scale that seems profoundly at odds with the ethical character He commands His creatures to embody—love, mercy, and compassion.

In your view, it clashes with who you view God to be. I don't view natural death as inherently evil, and do not see it as an immoral mechanism for God to use.

So while God certainly works through processes, theistic evolution makes Him a tyrant of time and suffering.

There are ugly things in the world. The Holocaust. Nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But a lion eating a gazelle, it might scare people, but I don't view this as inherently evil.

 

[Mercy Shown]

The real horror is not a lion eating a gazelle. The real horror is mans sin.


I don't think so. As noted above. Death was never identified as evil in scripture.



Great. Evolution is just a natural mechanism. That is all. It is not inherently good nor evil. It's just something that happens.

In your view, it clashes with who you view God to be. I don't view natural death as inherently evil, and do not see it as an immoral mechanism for God to use.


There are ugly things in the world. The Holocaust. Nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But a lion eating a gazelle, it might scare people, but I don't view this as inherently evil.

I think what I wrote is very clear and well-supported; however, I do not think you will ever be persuaded to change your position on this, no matter what evidence is put forth. In the end, it is not salvific in itself, and if one does not think too deeply about the implications of it and its reflection on God's nature, then they can parse death and absolve God of cruelty and believe He is love. I can't ignore the reality of it all. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think what I wrote is very clear and well-supported; however, I do not think you will ever be persuaded to change your position on this, no matter what evidence is put forth. In the end, it is not salvific in itself, and if one does not think too deeply about the implications of it and its reflection on God's nature, then they can parse death and absolve God of cruelty and believe He is love. I can't ignore the reality of it all. Thanks for the discussion.

My response cleaned up by AI:

I want to make sure I’m understanding your position correctly, and also to clarify where I think our disagreement actually lies.

On the scientific side, my understanding is that you weren’t arguing against evolutionary theory itself. In fact, you acknowledged that its mechanisms are real. Because of that, I’m not sure where a scientific disagreement is being raised, as opposed to a theological one.

On the scriptural side, I don’t see clear biblical evidence that death in the natural (non-human) world is presented as inherently evil. The passages you cited don’t seem to make that claim explicitly.

For example, Romans 8 speaks of creation’s groaning, but it doesn’t directly identify animal death as morally evil. Isaiah 11 describes a future vision of peace, often associated with human safety and restoration, but it doesn’t clearly state that all predation in the animal kingdom is intrinsically wrong. The protected species are domesticated animals of human life and of our domain, not of the broader animal kingdom. With Psalm 104, I understand the argument that it reflects a post-fall world, but the text itself doesn’t mention the fall, and it appears to be a celebration of creation as it exists. I recognize that faithful readers can differ here.

When we look at Genesis, I also don’t see death in the animal world explicitly identified as evil, nor do I see a statement that animals were immortal prior to the fall. Because of that, I’m unsure what textual evidence is being appealed to when animal death is treated as a theological problem that must be resolved.

My concern is that some of these tensions arise not from evolutionary theory itself, but from how Scripture is being interpreted in relation to modern scientific questions. I worry that this can unintentionally create confusion, especially when ancient texts are asked to answer questions they may not have been addressing in the first place.

I’m not saying these interpretive questions aren’t important, only that it may be helpful to distinguish more clearly between what the biblical texts actually say and the theological inferences we draw from them.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is all patently false. And here I thought you were a firm advocate of Intelligent Design. I apparently misunderstood your assertions. It seems, rather, you're a Biblical Creationist of one sort or another rather than an ID'er.

And your implied rhetoric about the conditions by which anyone can "be" a Christian is telling, and I reject firmly reject it.

Sometimes we just have to remove the veil a bit to figure out the truth intent or heart condition at play. But in the end, Barbarian was right.

Nothing wrong with skepticism in science, but what are the motives? As it turns out, the deepest issues boiled down to scientific concordism.

Nothing new these days. The same story as it has always been.

 

[Mercy Shown]

My response cleaned up by AI:

I want to make sure I’m understanding your position correctly, and also to clarify where I think our disagreement actually lies.

On the scientific side, my understanding is that you weren’t arguing against evolutionary theory itself. In fact, you acknowledged that its mechanisms are real. Because of that, I’m not sure where a scientific disagreement is being raised, as opposed to a theological one.

On the scriptural side, I don’t see clear biblical evidence that death in the natural (non-human) world is presented as inherently evil. The passages you cited don’t seem to make that claim explicitly.

For example, Romans 8 speaks of creation’s groaning, but it doesn’t directly identify animal death as morally evil. Isaiah 11 describes a future vision of peace, often associated with human safety and restoration, but it doesn’t clearly state that all predation in the animal kingdom is intrinsically wrong. The protected species are domesticated animals, not of the broader animal kingdom. With Psalm 104, I understand the argument that it reflects a post-fall world, but the text itself doesn’t mention the fall, and it appears to be a celebration of creation as it exists. I recognize that faithful readers can differ here.

When we look at Genesis, I also don’t see death in the animal world explicitly identified as evil, nor do I see a statement that animals were immortal prior to the fall. Because of that, I’m unsure what textual evidence is being appealed to when animal death is treated as a theological problem that must be resolved.

My concern is that some of these tensions arise not from evolutionary theory itself, but from how Scripture is being interpreted in relation to modern scientific questions. I worry that this can unintentionally create confusion, especially when ancient texts are asked to answer questions they may not have been addressing in the first place.

I’m not saying these interpretive questions aren’t important, only that it may be helpful to distinguish more clearly between what the biblical texts actually say and the theological inferences we draw from them.

My thread was never about this but has devolved into it. My thread was about faith in our axioms. Harkening back to high school geometry, when asked to create proofs we always started with a "given." My position was that there are givens which all origin theories are based on. For instance creationists base theirs upon their faith in God and the bible iuxta litteram. Those that adhere to evolution base there's upon gradualism, Steady-State Theory, Perfect Cosmological Principle, Physical Constants, etc.

The theological implications of theistic evolution was merely a side drift in the debate.

 

[Job 33:6]

My thread was never about this but has devolved into it. My thread was about faith in our axioms. Harkening back to high school geometry, when asked to create proofs we always started with a "given." My position was that there are givens which all origin theories are based on. For instance creationists base theirs upon their faith in God and the bible iuxta litteram. Those that adhere to evolution base there's upon gradualism, Steady-State Theory, Perfect Cosmological Principle, Physical Constants, etc.

The theological implications of theistic evolution was merely a side drift in the debate.

Evolution, strictly speaking, is not a theory of ultimate origins in the same way that creationism or abiogenesis is. It does not attempt to explain why there is something rather than nothing, or how life first arose, but rather addresses patterns like common descent and diversification once life exists.

It holds more in common with the birth of a baby, than abiogenesis in terms of being structured around ongoing mechanisms.

For that reason, I’m hesitant to place evolutionary theory in the same category as explicitly faith-based positions.

Let's see if this highlights the issue,
I think the heart of our disagreement is that we agree that all forms of reasoning begin with certain presuppositions, but we differ on whether that fact makes scientific theories and theological commitments epistemically equivalent. My position is that while science does operate with methodological assumptions, those assumptions function differently from confessional or metaphysical faith claims because scientific theories are constrained by empirical testing, revision, and predictive success. So my concern isn’t to deny that “givens” exist, but to resist collapsing distinct kinds of reasoning into the same category simply because neither begins from absolute certainty.

Related to this, evolution and creationism are not necessarily diametrically opposed, as approaches such as theistic evolution illustrate, which is another reason it’s important to keep scientific models and theological interpretations conceptually distinct.

Some people have motives for wanting them to be incompatible. But they aren't. It is actually common among conservative evangelicals, particularly among academics, to accept both creationism and evolution, and it can be done so in a faithful way.

 

[Job 33:6]

I understand the desire to lower the temperature on these discussions, especially among Christians who confess Christ as Lord. But fatigue does not resolve contradictions, and unity cannot be built on unresolved tensions indefinitely. The question is not merely who is right, but whether the frameworks we adopt are actually coherent with what we claim to believe.

Genesis is not simply a side topic for casual exploration. It functions as the theological foundation for much of the biblical narrative. While it’s true that no one has exhaustive epistemic access to the past, that uncertainty cuts both ways. Appeals to humility do not eliminate the need to ask whether certain positions quietly undermine others. When Christians speak as though mutually exclusive accounts of origins are equally compatible with Scripture, they are not avoiding dogmatism—they are assuming it in another form.

Humans certainly are capable of holding competing or even contradictory ideas at the same time. But the ability to do so does not mean there is no cost. Holding logical tension may provide psychological comfort, but it does not resolve the underlying dissonance. At some point, contradictions matter—not emotionally, but conceptually. Facts on the ground do not change simply because we agree to coexist with them.

And this is where evolution is not a peripheral issue for the Bible, but a deeply invasive one. Evolutionary theory reshapes how death enters the world, what it means to be human, whether Adam is historical or symbolic, how sin originates, and why Christ’s atoning work is necessary at all. Paul’s theology explicitly ties death to sin and sin to a real first man; Jesus grounds His teaching on marriage, judgment, and creation in Genesis as historical reality. Once evolutionary death precedes sin, those connections must be reinterpreted—often radically. This is not a minor adjustment to biblical interpretation; it is a restructuring of the biblical storyline from the ground up.

So while I agree that Christians can coexist across these disagreements, it is misleading to suggest that nothing significant is at stake. The question is not whether people can live with the tension—but whether they are willing to acknowledge just how much weight that tension is carrying.

What's at stake is fundamentalist hermeneutics and scientific concordism. Two things that have been a thorn in the churches side for a long time.