If man evolved, where does God fit into the equation?

[Notedstrangeperson]

If we're going to say that God is involved in the weather and natural events, then we might as well blame Him for the hurricanes and earthquakes that destroy people's homes and lives. I cannot do that. I have never been able to accept such a view and doubtfully ever will be able to.

A few other users may disagree with me, but keep in mind that the laws of nature are a process created by God - not God himself. In other words when a natural disaster strikes (such as the tsunami in Japan) this was not God punishing the Japanese people, it was a shift in the Earth's tectonic plates shifting millions of tons of water and nothing more.

There are several instances in the Bible where God breaks the natural laws: Moses parting the Red sea, Jesus healing people with medical problems, the dead coming back to life etc. With this in mind it's fair to say the natural processes usually work by themselves and God only intervenes when he needs to.

 

[er72]

I'm sorry, I didn't follow any of that. The only part I understood was your reference to atheists using evolution to disprove God -- which I agree they do, and which is patently wrong. Evolution, as a scientific theory, has nothing to say for or against God.

You can use the theory to quite easily disprove (as much as possible anyway) that there is no divine creator. Trying to mix religion and science, in this case, while quaint and somewhat admirable, seems erroneous at best, to me. But if it works for you, God bless.

 

[er72]

A few other users may disagree with me, but keep in mind that the laws of nature are a process created by God - not God himself. In other words when a natural disaster strikes (such as the tsunami in Japan) this was not God punishing the Japanese people, it was a shift in the Earth's tectonic plates shifting millions of tons of water and nothing more.

There are several instances in the Bible where God breaks the natural laws: Moses parting the Red sea, Jesus healing people with medical problems, the dead coming back to life etc. With this in mind it's fair to say the natural processes usually work by themselves and God only intervenes when he needs to.

I completely agree with your first statement.

Perhaps the instances you mentioned are but metaphors? Maybe they didn't really happen, but people believed they did, or perhaps they symbolize some other greater "spiritual" truth? Perhaps the "raising of the dead" symbolizes life new in one's walk with God? And the parting of the Red Sea was a metaphor symbolizes the parting of good from evil? I don't know, I'm just making this up as I go.

 

[Mallon]

You can use the theory to quite easily disprove (as much as possible anyway) that there is no divine creator.

How? What experiment could you do to show that God doesn't exist?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

You can use the theory to quite easily disprove (as much as possible anyway) that there is no divine creator.

Not so. There are two good reasons why it's not sensible to do this - first it replies on the arrogant assumption that we know how God made the world, and second it relies on the equally arrogant assumption that we have full knowledge on how evolution works.

Let's say that an atheist tries to disprove God using evolution: "The Bible says mammals came before dinosaurs. We have fossil evidence that dinosaurs came before mammals therefore the Bible is wrong." He wrongly believes we have found all the fossils out there. It's now been shown that mammals did indeed come before dinosaurs.

Perhaps the instances you mentioned are but metaphors? Maybe they didn't really happen, but people believed they did, or perhaps they symbolize some other greater "spiritual" truth? Perhaps the "raising of the dead" symbolizes life new in one's walk with God? And the parting of the Red Sea was a metaphor symbolizes the parting of good from evil? I don't know, I'm just making this up as I go.

Which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are not is a major point of debate among Christians. Basically it comes down to evidence - we have solid evidence showing the age of the Earth to be millions of years old, therefore the "6 days" mentioned in the Bible are metaphorical.
Some theistic volutionists believe in a literal Adam, the first human to be given a soul. Since souls don't fossilize we cannot prove whether Adam was a metaphorical or literal human being. Equally we have evidence of the existance of a man called Jesus who called himself the son of God. He was literal.

Keep this in mind though - evidence comes and goes, and not all evidence is interpreted the same way.

 

[er72]

How? What experiment could you do to show that God doesn't exist?

In science you don't prove anything. You can only disprove something.

God can neither be proven nor disproven (although the theory of evolution quite 'nicely' accounts for a universe that exists apart from a divine creator). Assuming Hawking is correct, then if something other than God caused the Big Bang, then there is no need for a god, God or gods to be the Creator.

 

[er72]

Not so. There are two good reasons why it's not sensible to do this - first it replies on the arrogant assumption that we know how God made the world, and second it relies on the equally arrogant assumption that we have full knowledge on how evolution works.

Let's say that an atheist tries to disprove God using evolution: "The Bible says mammals came before dinosaurs. We have fossil evidence that dinosaurs came before mammals therefore the Bible is wrong." He wrongly believes we have found all the fossils out there. It's now been shown that mammals did indeed come before dinosaurs.

The first statement is exactly what evolutionists teach, however - Christian Darwinists, or otherwise.

As I said, you can only disprove something according to science.

 

[elopez]

If we're going to say that God is involved in the weather and natural events, then we might as well blame Him for the hurricanes and earthquakes that destroy people's homes and lives. I cannot do that. I have never been able to accept such a view and doubtfully ever will be able to.

It is hard to swallow but then what do we make of verses such as Amos 3:6 which reads, "If a calamity occurs in a city, has not the LORD done it?"? Or what about Isiah 45:7 which talks about God creating disasters?

The reason I posit that evolution does not need God to exist is because as far as the scientific community is concerned; it doesn't. If you feel it necessary or important to insert God (or a god) into the theory in order to synergize it with your faith, then by all means go ahead and do so.

Exactly as it is your prerogative to believe in creationism.

The problem, though, is that Christianity teaches certain assumptions and beliefs, like the existence of sin and the origins from which that sin came from. By saying man evolved, then his 'sin' is nothing more than a natural outgrowth of his natural design. For instance, many animals kill one another for food, territory, a mate, etc. Yet humans are told not to do these things because they are "sins." But if evolution is true, why is a natural behavior suddenly deemed to be wrong? At what point did such behavior go from "survival of the fittest" to "altruism over all else?" That doesn't make much sense. It is as though God suddenly appeared on the scene and changed the rules.

Just because one believes man has evolved doesn't mean he rejects Adam as the first man. Indeed most theistic evolutionists still believe in a literal Adam, just not that he existed some 6,000 years ago and was not specially created in full adult form. His original sin was still the first sin committed in the Garden. I don't think we can tell at what point exactly we became aware of morality in such a manner. I believe at the point God bestowed spirit/soul into man he was infused also with knowledge of morality and other such knowledge of God and creation. And no, it is not as if God suddenly appears for it was God who would ave guided the whole process as well as caused it to happen from the beginning of the universe. No rules were changed, just that man was endowed with soul and at that point he became aware of morality.

It is mere presumption to say that God guides child birth (and therefore must guide child death as well; a scary thought), the weather or natural selection. Where do you obtain such information from? I would presume it would be from an attempt at synergizing science and religion. As I said, that's fine - if it works for you, but I see a conflict.

I do not believe God guides childbirth, the weather issue like I said am still having issues with. It all stems from taking Genesis in a metaphorical way rather than literally. Augustine had works that shared a similar view as well as various other theologians throughout Christendom history. Yes, we see science and religion as not being mutually exclusive but compatible. Religion explains why God created the earth and man, whereas science explains how. I simply cannot understand how you see that as conflicting.

If man evolved, then science is clear - there is no need for the existence of a god or God. Evolution was not founded by Christians - Darwin walked away from his Christian faith and died a non-Christian. And that was his choice. However, the point is that science works very well with Occam's Razor or parsimony, which is clear - the simplest explanation is the best one. Top scientists and physicists have long theorized a world that can come into existence without the existence of God or a god at all. And assuming that evolution is true, then you are choosing which portions of the Bible you choose to believe and which to dismiss. Why do so? It seems like shaky ground to be playing around at which Scriptures you wish to believe and which you do not. You could easily do the same with ANY other verse or concept within the Bible, that you do not like. Is that dangerous?

Science doesn't comment one way or the other on the existence of God. We cannot discern scientifically that God exists through experiment or any other method, and the same with trying to show that God doesn't exist through science. The only thing that science does disprove is a literal reading of Genesis as it goes against the very basics of science. If you are saying that those who believe in evolution are picking which "portions" of the Bible to believe in and others to dismiss, what portions are those exactly? Could it be that we simply disagree with your interpretation of Genesis? I think so. Theistic evolutionists take the Bible just as serious as any other Christian, even one that doesn't believe in evolution.

I am not supposing that there is no God or the like, but I am finding it strange to see Christians compromising in areas of their faith for agreement with secular scientists who are adamant that "there is no God". Last I checked, Dawkins was NOT a Christian. Brilliant man, for sure, but not a Christian. Are Christians becoming so afraid of being labeled as "stupid" that we are adopting worldly beliefs, standards and customs?

Obviously we are not comprising our faith with agreement that there is not God because we still think that God exists and created the universe, earth, and all life. Last everyone checked Dawkins was an atheist. Just because he is an atheist doesn't mean we have to disagree with everything he has to say, like you said he is very brilliant. I have been called "stupid" for believing in evolution as well as other beliefs that have nothing to do with the creation/evolution controversy, so no, my acceptance of evolution has nothing to do with not wanting to be attacked like that.

The fact is, morality has little place within evolution. Or at least, absolute morality. Within the framework of evolution, man is just another animal, one who exists merely to propagate the next generation; nothing more. To whatever accomplishes that end (be it killing, destroying or stepping over another) is entirely permissible - heck, it is encouraged, as far as evolution is concerned. After all, all animals do this and it was (apparently) designed by God to be that way. So why would man try to fight his "God-given" programming? Why would God issue two different edicts; one, a natural, evolutionary "survival of the fittest" program, the other; a moral, contradictory, altruistic edict? How can we even condemn people for "giving in to" or following their animal urges, when God supposedly put them there in the first place?

Morality has evolved. Absolute morality on the other hand as you say, may not exist according to the unguided natural process of evolution, while TE's adhere to a guided process of evolution by God. Though it is true we are animals. Animals help one another, share resources, and show affection and care towards their offspring just like we do. Of course any means of survival is necessary for animals, and it still is today. And sometimes we cannot fight our innate animal nature which results in things like infidelity because of our sexual appetite which our ancestors shared for reproduction. They seem different but they are one in the same, our understanding of morality in today's world has evolved from that of our ancestors as most believe infidelity is immoral. We would still hold a husband responsible for committing infidelity even though he shares those sexual urges that our ancestors did because the husband is able to manage those urges, and if he cannot then has issues because of his profound understanding of morality or what should be.

And we can't quote the Bible, because we are selecting which passages we choose to accept, and which we do not, as dictated by our culture and sciences. So where does that leave us? Apparently, no better off than the atheist evolutionists. But as I said, the problem is, that it seems many believers are believers simply because of their birth into the Christian religion, or their culture (in the West) mostly endorses Christianity. I shudder to think that Richard Dawkins may actually be right, when he says that if you were born into another culture or time, you would be worshipping Thor, Zeus, Loki or Odin. Those are scary thoughts, aren't they?

Yes they are a little intimidating but do they not seem true? Say for example you were born in the Middle East, wouldn't it be likely you would be a follow of Islam? It seems so to me. And TE's generally accept that evolution is not mentioned in Scripture if that's what you mean by we cannot quote the Bible, but that doesn't mean it's false.

The questions of where morality came from, why God suddenly changed His mind about design versus morality, and other questions about God's existence become murky waters. Waters I would rather not dive into, as a Christian. But that's just me. It's fine if you have had personal experience with God and THAT is how you know God is real. I can accept that myself, on a personal level. But putting that part of it aside, we really have nothing to base our faith upon, since it is merely a gamble or a crapshoot into which religion is correct (if any) or which God is the real one (if any - according to evolution, that is).

It's not like questions of morality or God's existence are not applicable to those who do not believe in evolution.

 

[Mallon]

In science you don't prove anything. You can only disprove something.

Correct.

(although the theory of evolution quite 'nicely' accounts for a universe that exists apart from a divine creator).

In what way? In the sense that evolution doesn't appeal to miracles? I suppose that's the case if you are deist who doesn't believe that God is constantly sustaining His creation. But for a Christian like myself who believes that God is constantly sustaining His creation, the fact that evolution doesn't appeal to miracles in no way discounts the action of God, who is able to work both naturally and miraculously.

 

[er72]

But for a Christian like myself who believes that God is constantly sustaining His creation, the fact that evolution doesn't appeal to miracles in no way discounts the action of God, who is able to work both naturally and miraculously.

But what is that belief supported by?

There is nothing in science or the natural world that says that belief is valid or correct.

The sense I am getting from all this is, basically, just pick whatever you want to believe. If that is so, then why Christianity? (I'm not trying to turn you away from it, just asking an honest question.)

 

[Mallon]

But what is that belief supported by?

There is nothing in science or the natural world that says that belief is valid or correct.

The sense I am getting from all this is, basically, just pick whatever you want to believe. If that is so, then why Christianity? (I'm not trying to turn you away from it, just asking an honest question.)

gluadys already answered that on the first page:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7558028/#post57419201

 

[er72]

Well, personal experience is a questionable thing because people the world over have various spiritual experiences, apart from Christianity. Some are Buddhists, some Muslims, some Jews, some non-religious at all. And of course, this is assuming these experiences are actually real and valid, not hallucinations, delusions, etc. (which I'm not saying they are). I'm just saying many people have contradictory experiences, so that is a weak answer.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Belief in God is an act of faith. Belief that God sustains and pervades all things is an act of faith. Belief that Jesus is the Christ is an act of faith. Belief that He rose from the dead is an act of faith. Belief in the Hypostatic Union is an act of faith.

So let's establish that. Faith is faith. I have faith that God exists. I have faith that God is Holy Trinity. I have faith that Jesus is the Christ, that Jesus is Lord, and Savior.

Now let's establish something else: that what we observe and study of the natural world through the scientific method is science. If I learn how lightning happens and describe it naturally have I denied God?

The answer is of course not.

Now if I describe how sexual reproduction works have I denied that God is Creator? Of course not; even though you and I came into existence through entirely natural means we still rightly say what? Yes, that God created you and me.

But how can I say God created me if I describe my coming into existence as a purely natural act? If science can perfectly explain and describe the entire process of sexual reproduction without relying on God as an explanation then how can I believe both science and that God created me? Haven't completely dismissed God from the picture? The answer is no.

God created the process in the first place, and God is present and active in all creation. He is sustaining it, upholding it, pervading every bit of it from the subatomic to the galactic.

He is our great big God.

God created me, He fashioned me in my mother's womb. Yes I can describe the process through completely natural means, but in faith I recognize that those natural means are God's handiwork.

It is no different when discussing any other phenomenon in nature.

I can discuss lightning, sexual reproduction, the gravitational forces that keep planets in orbit or evolution; but discussing the natural means of how all these things happen does not neuter nor negate God because I confess in faith that God is the author, framer, architect of all things who sustains all things and upholds all things and pervades all things.

That is a confession, a biblical confession regarding the nature of God.

Additionally, not regarding Genesis 1 as a literal-historic-scientific account does not mean rejecting Genesis 1 or rejecting Scripture. It means trying to take Scripture seriously enough to try and read it for what it is saying. Sometimes our interpretations have to change because we have been wrong; that's what happened five hundred years ago when Copernicus and Galileo demonstrated that the earth and other planets all orbit the sun; instead of all things circling the earth as had been previously believed (and defended from a literal reading of Scripture).

Sometimes our interpretations have to change because we are wrong.

That does not make Scripture untrustworthy. That does not make Scripture wrong. That means we are wrong, we are fallible, we have misunderstood things.

So yes, I can accept evolution and Christ, the former is simply a part of science no different than saying I can accept the sky is blue because light refracts through the upper atmosphere; and the latter is my faith in Jesus Christ who is Lord.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[er72]

Where does our faith come from about the central tenets of Christian faith; what Jesus said, his mission, his existence, his claimed divinity, his death and his return to life? Where do these things come from?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Where does our faith come from about the central tenets of Christian faith; what Jesus said, his mission, his existence, his claimed divinity, his death and his return to life? Where do these things come from?

Scripture and the historic teachings of the Church in the Creeds.

And I'm sure what you're getting at is that these things come from Scripture, so how come I'm "not believing" what Scripture says about creation. Am I right?

The answer is simple, I do believe what Scripture says about creation; I just don't believe it's literal/historical/scientific in Genesis 1.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fencerguy]

I'm surprised to see so many Christians who buy into the evolutionary way of thinking. Most of the believers I know in real life are ardent Creationists, holding to a literal creation - not evolution - of mankind. So it's interesting to see so many Christians hold to a different point of view.

we must be careful what we mean when we say "literal creation."

That said, I have a question. Where does God fit into the entire process then, if man is said to have evolved from primates? If God just allowed man to run its natural course and somehow evolve into an entire new species, then how was this in any way, an act of God? It's not difficult for an atheist to disbelieve in God, seeing how the theory of evolution does not require the existence of a god in order to be true. So it's understandable how so many atheists flock to this theory, in light of that. But it's strange to find so many Christians also believing in evolution.

I am a Christian, and there are parts of evolution that are observable and repeatable, and thus scientifically valid, but there are other parts that are not so scientifically valid; such as the idea that all organisms are descended from a single common ancestor, or that mutations or genetic drift can explain how organisms wind up with new genetic information that they did not have previously...

I have to wonder where God fits into all of this, if at all? For the ardent evolutionists here, how strong is your faith in God? How do you KNOW God is real; or is it just something that you take 'on faith'?

The funny thing is, all of the major events within the Theory of Evolution (ToE) are statements of faith. There remains much debate within the evolution camp about many things....specifically the Cambrian Explosion. Cambrian Explosion
It would be interesting to hear how such an event would be explained without God? or Creation?

 

[gluadys]

If we're going to say that God is involved in the weather and natural events, then we might as well blame Him for the hurricanes and earthquakes that destroy people's homes and lives. I cannot do that. I have never been able to accept such a view and doubtfully ever will be able to.

Well, the writers of scripture had no problem with that perspective. Are you wiser than they?

The reason I posit that evolution does not need God to exist is because as far as the scientific community is concerned; it doesn't. If you feel it necessary or important to insert God (or a god) into the theory in order to synergize it with your faith, then by all means go ahead and do so.

Oh, absolutely not. Inserting God into a theory as if he were a chemical or a wire would be sacrilege. It would mean God is subject to experimentation with scientists passing judgment on how well God works. God is not part of any scientific theory about nature. But that doesn't mean God is not always active in nature, assuring, among other things, that nature is so ordered that scientists can do experiments and make reliable observations.

The problem, though, is that Christianity teaches certain assumptions and beliefs, like the existence of sin and the origins from which that sin came from. By saying man evolved, then his 'sin' is nothing more than a natural outgrowth of his natural design. For instance, many animals kill one another for food, territory, a mate, etc. Yet humans are told not to do these things because they are "sins." But if evolution is true, why is a natural behavior suddenly deemed to be wrong? At what point did such behavior go from "survival of the fittest" to "altruism over all else?" That doesn't make much sense. It is as though God suddenly appeared on the scene and changed the rules.

Evolution is not a theory about morality. It has no answers to questions like these. After all, humanity had already evolved biologically before humans sinned.

Animals kill, but they don't murder or plan murder. And as far as I know, humans are not forbidden to kill e.g. in self-defence or in war. Only murder is forbidden. In fact, if humans restricted their own killing to the sort exemplified by animals (who fight, but rarely kill over territory or mates) we would have a good deal less death by violence in human society.

It is mere presumption to say that God guides child birth (and therefore must guide child death as well; a scary thought), the weather or natural selection. Where do you obtain such information from?

Again, I can only say you are disagreeing with the authors of scripture who do say these things. (Except natural selection which they did not know about.)

If man evolved, then science is clear - there is no need for the existence of a god or God.

Well, that is not clear to me. I have seen nothing in science that makes God unnecessary.

Evolution was not founded by Christians

So what? Neither was algebra or geometry. Nor democracy for that matter. Christian faith does not involve denying wisdom discovered or invented by non-Christians. Ultimately all truth is God's truth, no matter what the beliefs of those who discover it first. Wasn't Moses schooled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians?

And assuming that evolution is true, then you are choosing which portions of the Bible you choose to believe and which to dismiss.

Not at all. I have never found any reason to dismiss any part of the Bible.

The fact is, morality has little place within evolution.

True, but it is not a fault of a theory if it says nothing about issues it is not intended to deal with. One might just as well blame evolution because it tells us nothing about music.

Within the framework of evolution, man is just another animal, one who exists merely to propagate the next generation; nothing more.

Who says? This is metaphysics, not science. It is taking a scientific observation and adding an appendix of philosophy to it. What humanity is in a framework of evolution depends on whose philosophical appendix you add to it. I see no reason in evolution to say humans are nothing more than other animals.

To whatever accomplishes that end (be it killing, destroying or stepping over another) is entirely permissible - heck, it is encouraged, as far as evolution is concerned.

Again, who says? Nietzsche maybe? Are we compelled by science to agree with him? I don't think so.

After all, all animals do this and it was (apparently) designed by God to be that way. So why would man try to fight his "God-given" programming? Why would God issue two different edicts; one, a natural, evolutionary "survival of the fittest" program, the other; a moral, contradictory, altruistic edict? How can we even condemn people for "giving in to" or following their animal urges, when God supposedly put them there in the first place?

Why not? After all, God DID put our animal urges (hunger, thirst, sexual desire, parent-child bonds, etc.) there in the first place, yet we still condemn people for following those urges. How does evolution make any difference? After all, we also evolved brains, which give us the capacity to comprehend the results of following our urges and the ability to control how we do so.

The questions of where morality came from, why God suddenly changed His mind about design versus morality, and other questions about God's existence become murky waters. Waters I would rather not dive into, as a Christian. But that's just me.

Well, I think you are setting up false dilemmas that would disappear if you gave yourself more of a chance to think about evolution apart from atheism. You have made a lot of false assumptions about what we must think if evolution is true.

It's fine if you have had personal experience with God and THAT is how you know God is real. I can accept that myself, on a personal level. But putting that part of it aside, we really have nothing to base our faith upon,

What else do we need? The fact is that no matter what else you may have, you have nothing. As scripture says, no other foundation can be laid but Christ himself. If you know Christ you need nothing else. If you do not know Christ, all other knowledge is worthless.

 

[granpa]

religion deals with questions of 'why'.
evolution is the answer to 'how'.

the question becomes 'why' did we evolve to the form that we have and where are we evolving to?

'God' is the answer to 'why'.

 

[Dragons87]

Before I used to be staunch literal creationist, but I do now find it quite an ignorant theory. The beginning of my doubts came quite late, in my late teens. I spoke to a friend who had studied geology, and who was a faithful Christian. I asked her how she reconciled her faith with what she had studied. She said that as a result of her studies she rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis. It occurred to me how arrogant I would be if I had then pointed her to Genesis and asked, "You don't believe in what the Bible says?" After all, to be fair all that I had to go on was a short few chapters in a book; she (and other scientists who rely on the assumption that the universe is quite old) had years of rigorous studying. Who on earth did I think I was, that I knew everything that needed to be known scientifically from a book?

Then the doubts multiplied. We always hear people say, "God created the entire universe in six days". Well, six days is 144 hours. So God created the entire universe in 144 hours? That sounds a far fetched to me - and perhaps a bit "unGodlike". I don't know. From the later records of God's actions it seems that he is a very, very patient character. Rushing to create the whole shebang in less than a week doesn't seem like what God would do. After all, he waited 3,000 years from giving the law to Israel to giving his Son to mankind. We have now waited 2,000 years for the second coming and he still hasn't come!!

God is far more patient than we are. Why would he have seen a need to rush the creation of the whole universe in just 144 hours? I'm not saying that he can't, but I'm wondering whether God felt the need to rush. If I was going to create a masterpiece, I'd take every care, and every minute available, to make sure the outcome was good.

I haven't got a problem with the idea that we are biologically descended from apes. What? What's wrong with apes? Are apes not God's creation too? God can only make humans out of dust and someone else's rib bone, but cannot direct them to descend from apes? Come on!

As to where morality comes into this, it's quite obvious that God takes an active interest in the affairs of his creation, and intervenes from time to time. I believe that humans evolved to a certain stage, and then God intervened and set our hearts upon him - or at least placed a longing inside us for something bigger than us. As Ecclesiastes 3:11 says,

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

All in all, I now find no conflict between evolution and faith in God. In fact, by no longer being scared of reading about the theory of evolution, I find that I can appreciate his creation even more. Just because an explanation doesn't explicitly require us to include the word "God" doesn't mean that God has to be written out of the explanation.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

For what it's worth, throwing it out there, Christians (specifically clergy) were among some of the earliest supporters of Darwin's theories, Charles Kingsley, Asa Gray and Charles Babbage to name three. Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky, both Christians, were responsible in the modern evolutionary synthesis. In modern times there's Francis Collins, a dedicated Christian and was head of the Human Genome Project.

Christianity and evolution are not enemies, because Christianity and science are not enemies and evolution is science. The only Christians who have trouble with evolution are those who have bought into the lie that there's a problem, that one has to take Genesis 1 absolutely literally (despite the fact that the Christian Church has long understood Genesis 1 non-literally) and to read it or understand it any other way is to somehow deny the truth of Scripture. That is a lie, it's a lie that's been told for over a hundred years and the fact that Christians buy into that lie is a discredit to the Christian faith. Because as Christians, who believe in the God who created all things we should rejoice and celebrate God's creation and creativity and science let's us do that. We can rejoice in God when we study and marvel at the genius of evolution, general relativity and every other aspect of the natural universe. It's God's creation, it's good and wonderful.

Denying the truth doesn't glorify God, celebrating the truth glorifies God, because He is a God of Truth.

-CryptoLutheran