Why I post, or Yes, you can be a Christian and accept evolution!

[Vance]

I am reposting this for those so that those new to the forums can see where I am coming from.

I am a Christian who believes that God used the process of evolution over billions of years to create the great diversity of life we see on earth. This means I am a Theistic Evolutionist (or TE in the forum lingo). This position happens to be the minority opinion here in the U.S., but the majority opinion among Christians worldwide, so this is not some fringe heretical position.

Now, why do I post here? Why do I debate with Young Earth Creationists (YEC’s) about the scientific evidence and the theological issues regarding our origins? It is not at all to convince any particular YEC that they should become a theistic evolutionist, that should be said right away. I have no problem with anyone believing in a young earth or in special creation without evolution. I love my brothers in Christ and know that we are all heading to Heaven.

The reason why I engage in these discussions is very simple: I want to do what I can to remove the stumbling block that is being taught by YEC’ists. I believe that the recent rise of creationism as a major “ministry” area, beginning in the 1970's in earnest, has created a severe threat to Christianity. Not the belief in a young earth and creation without evolution per se, but the “either/or” teaching that comes with it. More and more people are being taught that evolution and Christianity are wholly inconsistent and that if you believe one, you can not really believe the other. This puts two very distinct groups in crisis and souls are being lost to the Kingdom as a result. People falling into these two categories might (in fact, they DO) come to this site to seek answers to this crisis and it is to THEM that I am speaking. Here are the two groups:

1. There are Christians, especially young people, who were raised in a YEC household or attend a YEC church, and were taught that evolution is evil, it is absolutely contrary to Scripture and that if you believe Scripture, you can not also believe in evolution. Those who do believe both are deluded or compromising Christians not even worthy of the name of Christian. These young people are ingrained with this teaching and accept it fully. Then they come into contact with the real evidence and come to suspect that evolution might actually be true. This creates a severe crisis of faith. They have been taught that if evolution was true, then the atheists are right and the Bible can not be trusted and God did not create everything after all. I have seen this crisis in action and it is very, very dangerous. I have counseled college students who either had abandoned Christianity or were about to because of this teaching of incompatibility, and was able to show them that the conflict was not true and that they could, indeed , believe in both. Most did not even know that there were Christians who accepted evolution, which shows how sheltered their lives had been. Bottom line: souls nearly lost to the Kingdom which are now solidly within the fold of Christianity.

2. There are non-Christians who accept evolution. In fact, almost all of them do. Those who do not know much about it might be able to set aside this acceptance and adopt a YEC belief and go on just fine. But most of those who really understand what evolution says, have studied it and the evidence available, simply will NOT accept YEC teaching. So, if they are told that Christians, by definition, do not believe in evolution and, instead, believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old that all the diversity of life was developed after a flood 4,000 years ago, this will be a MAJOR stumbling block to their acceptance of ANY Christian message. Thus YEC’ism becomes a barrier to the Cross for these non-Christians. I have faced this barrier in my own witnessing. It is distressing that I have to overcome the teachings of fellow Christians to win a soul to the Lord. It is even more frustrating when these non-Christians begin quoting to me the very arguments given to them by YEC’s as to why true Christian belief is diametrically opposed to acceptance of evolution. While I have been able to overcome this barrier with some, others have simply refused to believe any teaching from the Bible because they have been convinced by Young Earth Creationist teachings that the literal reading is the correct reading. I can only hope that these souls are not entirely lost to the Kingdom, but that the seed I planted will take root and eventually allow them to reconsider the issue.

I am sure that many people falling into one of these two categories come to view this forum and I hope to reach them with the message that they need not abandon Christianity or refuse to consider it at all just because they accept an old earth and evolution.

They CAN be Christian. They CAN experience the fullness of Christ.

People can believe in a 10,000 year old earth all they want. They can believe that God did not use evolution as part of His creative process. But I must fight against the additional teaching that these beliefs are the only ones consistent with a sincere reading of Scripture or with Christian belief in general.

Update since I posted this a few months ago: many people on this forum and on the other came forward and confirmed this danger by telling how they had fell into one of these two categories and were not Christians in great part due to the reasons stated above. On the more positive side, many Christians said they had experienced the crisis of faith described, but explained how sites like this one showed them that the two were not incompatible and they are now safely within the Body of Christ.

 

[MLML]

Question for you Vance: In this forum many here don't have a huge influence on what is written or preached. I don't think many PHd's visit this site to gather information to write about, nor do they seem to be here to debate. I understand your position to be that of saying you can believe what science has put forth, the evolutionary theory, and still be a Christian.

Your posts here are limited in audience of those whom you want to reach. I am curious why you seem to spend alot of time here speaking your mind against those who say otherwise to your beliefs? It seems to me that if you wanted to make an impact you would go to be heard by those who actually write the books, preach the sermons, and such rather then those who don't.

My point is, I would assume the people who visit this forum and participate in it, aren't the ones who you have a problem with. The people here probably aren't writing the books, probably aren't from ICR or AIG, but just everyday church goers.

If I wanted to change something I would go to the source. Just a thought.

 

[Vance]

I am humble enough to work in the corner God has given me. I can not derail the train that YEC'ism has become, I can only help, with the guidance of the Spirit, to counteract some of the damage in my own little way. This means putting out the word here on forums like this, where dozens, if not hundreds, check in to see what people are saying on this issue. Over the long time I have been here, there has been more than a few who have said that this very forum, and hearing the message that evolution/old earth are not in conflict with Scripture, has strengthened their faith and even prevented them from possibly losing that faith.

One soul saved makes a thousand angels sing. In the other forum, there was even a confirmed atheist who has PM'ed me that he is looking into the Christian faith purely because of this message that Christianity is not precluded by a belief in evolution.

There are other, much more effective advocates who are presenting this message in books and in pulpits. I just do what little I can.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

Hi Vance,
I appreciate your stance, and commend your reasons for posting, even if I dissagree with your TE beliefs. I must say that you come across as one of the more reasonable adversaries in these debates.

I agree that there is a great danger in this area, (as posted on one of the threads), however I would suggest that the problem is not YEC's saying "Bible right, science wrong" but more likely Evos saying "Science right, Bible wrong". The net result is souls are lost.

When you look at the debates and who the people are on both sides, does it not concern you that the aetheist, the agnostic, the other religion, groups are the ones that also agree with your side and push the same agenda. Personally it would ring alarm bells for me, if the Agnostic and Aetheist were supporting my arguments.

 

[Vance]

Atheists also agree with me, and you, regarding a number of scientific issues. That in itself is not a problem. But if you think that being aligned with the enemy on an issue is a problem, then YEC's have an even more significant problem, since it is the militant atheists and YEC's who agree that the Bible and evolution are entirely contradictory. Those atheists who are most aggressive and are the ones who have an agenda to damage Christianity (which most atheists don't, I have found) are the ones who attempt to use evolution as a weapon. And how do they do this? By stating that the Bible must be wrong. Among the various possible interpretations of Genesis, they latch on to the one that would, indeed, be wrong if evolution was right and then say, "aha!".

And the YEC's are the ones who have bought right into this, hook, line and sinker. Both the YEC's and the militant atheists are in lock-step preaching that if evolution is true, then the Bible can not be, and vice-versa. Strange bedfellows.

Luckily, most Christians refuse to believe the atheists when they say this, and realize that Scripture is true and is God's Holy Word even if God created over billions of years and used evolution. Actually, I am wondering whether it IS still most, since YEC'ism has been growing in the last decade. It used to be uniquely American phenomenon, but now we see groups in England and Australia as well.

So, personally, I would rather disagree with the atheists that attempt to disprove the Bible in this way.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

"Science right, Bible wrong"


i think if you look at TE's carefully you will find that the motif is how we are to read the two books of God both Scripture and nature in concordance. How to do justice to the full knowledge of God that we have in both. Now natural theology is greatly depreciated in the Protestant churches, unfortunately so, mostly as a reaction to Roman theology than as a reasoned Biblical doctrine. But even with the NT available we ought to be able to see God as Creator in the universe, mindful that mechanism is not as important as either Whom or Why or towards What. All 3 are theological questions, not scientific.

...

 

[grmorton]

When you look at the debates and who the people are on both sides, does it not concern you that the aetheist, the agnostic, the other religion, groups are the ones that also agree with your side and push the same agenda. Personally it would ring alarm bells for me, if the Agnostic and Aetheist were supporting my arguments.

Like VAnce, I am a Christian who is now a theistic evolutionist. Like Vance, I have been saved through grace, by faith in Jesus Christ. Your question bothers me. Wasn't it the religious leaders of Christ's day who thought, theologically that the conquoring messiah was just around the corner? If someone dissented from that during Christ's time, I am sure that someone would say, "Doesn't it bother you that the despicable Romans agree with you?"

Who agrees or disagrees is not the important thing. It is what the truth is.

As a former publishing Young-earth creationist (30 items) I finally had to acknowledge that I was kicking against the goads which God was showing me each and every day at work. To be honest with myself, I had to change. I knew that the scientific/observational data simply didn't support what I was teaching and to continue teaching that would make my a hypocrite.

 

[raphael_aa]

Like VAnce, I am a Christian who is now a theistic evolutionist. Like Vance, I have been saved through grace, by faith in Jesus Christ. Your question bothers me. Wasn't it the religious leaders of Christ's day who thought, theologically that the conquoring messiah was just around the corner? If someone dissented from that during Christ's time, I am sure that someone would say, "Doesn't it bother you that the despicable Romans agree with you?"

Who agrees or disagrees is not the important thing. It is what the truth is.

As a former publishing Young-earth creationist (30 items) I finally had to acknowledge that I was kicking against the goads which God was showing me each and every day at work. To be honest with myself, I had to change. I knew that the scientific/observational data simply didn't support what I was teaching and to continue teaching that would make my a hypocrite.

I know how difficult such decisions can be and I must commend you on your courage to be committed to the truth where ever it may lead you.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

As a former publishing Young-earth creationist (30 items) I finally had to acknowledge that I was kicking against the goads which God was showing me each and every day at work. To be honest with myself, I had to change. I knew that the scientific/observational data simply didn't support what I was teaching and to continue teaching that would make my a hypocrite.

I am not closed minded to this issue, but in the absence of credible 'evidence', I believe it safer to stay with a literal interpretation of a biblical passage, especially one that is in a historical narrative book. To me the issue is not so much about the observable evidence, but rather about the hypotheses made to explain that evidence. Science has elevated to these theory status, but to the layman, I have serious doubts about the validity of that status.

In a court system there are two levels of evidence to prove a case. (at least in Australia). In civil matters it is balance-of-probability, but in criminal it is beyond-reasonable doubt. While it could be argued and their is some historical legal precedent to conclude that evolutionary theory, could meet the challenge of the civil standard. However, I seriously doubt it could consistently meet the criminal standard.

Now my point, why should a believer modify their interpretation of Scripture, because of information that is not yet 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It seems to me that a very poor standard is being superimposed over the Bible.

I would be interested in hearing what the significant evidence was that caused you to change your position, or was it rather the wearing down by peer group pressure of fellow scientists?

 

[gluadys]

In a court system there are two levels of evidence to prove a case. (at least in Australia). In civil matters it is balance-of-probability, but in criminal it is beyond-reasonable doubt. While it could be argued and their is some historical legal precedent to conclude that evolutionary theory, could meet the challenge of the civil standard. However, I seriously doubt it could consistently meet the criminal standard.

A thorough and open-minded exploration of the evidence for evolution would probably dissolve your doubt about its ability to meet the higher standard. Biologists consistently refer to the evidence in favour of evolution as "overwhelming". I would say that goes well past "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

[Vance]

I think part of the problem is with the starting point that it is meant to be an historical narrative, and thus a literal reading is the best starting point. If that were true, then it would require a LOT of evidence to overcome the text. But a very large number of Christians do not start there at all, they read it and do not see "historical" in the least. So, the questions of how and when are fairly open.

In the absence of an insistence on a literal reading, evolution is easy to accept as any theory in science, which is evidenced by the simple fact of how broadly it is accepted in a very skeptical and critical scientific community, and among Bible-believing Christian scientists as well.

 

[TwinCrier]

A thorough and open-minded exploration of the evidence for evolution would probably dissolve your doubt about its ability to meet the higher standard. Biologists consistently refer to the evidence in favour of evolution as "overwhelming". I would say that goes well past "beyond a reasonable doubt".

But it's not about what 'biologists say,' but how credible and convincing the evidence is. It's quite arrogant to expect others to accept that you're right without question. All I get from science is a bunch of "may have" Probably" and "might haves" I think the obstacle is pride more than unbelief.

 

[Vance]

All she was calling for was an honest review of the evidence, without a presumption that it is not true. I agree with her, I have never seen anyone review the evidence objectively and NOT conclude that it evolution is the way God created the diversity of life we see on this planet, or that the earth is definitely billions of years old.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

All I get from science is a bunch of "may have" Probably" and "might haves"

and that is all you will get from genuine science.
provisional, contingent, probabilistic, fundamentally and deeply skeptical

it is the nature of the epistemology involved.
there is an interesting essay at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-naturalized/

the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a nice place just to lose yourself for a few hours. follow the internal links to places like:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/

 

[Vance]

Yes, everything we know about this earth and universe is based on a degree of certainty, never absolute. The question is always HOW likely is a given explanation likely to be correct. 99.95 % of scientists in the relevent fields accept evolution because it is very simply THAT likely to be the correct explanation for the evidence we have. It is as well-accepted as any theory in science, and more so that most.

 

[California Tim]

A thorough and open-minded exploration of the evidence for evolution would probably dissolve your doubt about its ability to meet the higher standard. Biologists consistently refer to the evidence in favour of evolution as "overwhelming". I would say that goes well past "beyond a reasonable doubt".

"Faith, Hope, Love". These three ideals are presented as the cornerstone of the Christian life. All three are intangible yet few would argue their existence nor contest their profound effect on the relationship of the believer with Christ. Christ even went so far as to denounce the crowd as an "evil generation" that demanded a sign (tangible manisfestation) for proof of His divinity. Yet here we are today, brothers and sisters in Christ consistently arguing over whether or not there is "proof" that God's word can be accepted plainly and reliably. Without "proof" that the Genesis creation account is literal, the secular scientific critique of the human origins takes precedence over "faith".

As incomplete as the secular alternative to the majestic creative power of God may be, it is accepted as factual and compelling to the point it dictates to many in the church how to interpret God's word. The travesty and irony is that this approach to defining Biblical interpretation is the exact opposite of the mandate within scripture which clearly places the Word as the standard by which all physical evidence must be interpreted. I find it further ironic that a vast majority of those who claim a "higher" level of education and perhaps even "intelligence" are, as a group, far more skeptical of the existence of the God of the Bible and consistently challenge the historicity of virtually every account in the Bible. Just consider the bias of virtually every secular university. They (the intellectual elite) further dedicate an inordinant amount of time in active opposition and in the vain effort to disprove the Bible as the only inspired Word of the Almighty. So I find little weight in consideration of the validity of their claims based solely on the "numbers" of believers in the lies of evolution. In fact it supports the Biblical stance even more profoundly.

So at the risk of sounding "naive" and shallow: Even if all I did was consider the adage, "the enemy of my friend is my enemy..." in the absence of any other "evidence" compelling or not- I can rest assured that by opposing the intellecual elite's conclusions regarding the existence of God and development of mankind, I am more likely right than not. The beauty of it though is that God was kind enough to provide enough evidence in favor of YEC'ism that even some skeptics would clearly see it, once the intellectual bias is overcome.

 

[1denomination]

"Faith, Hope, Love". These three ideals are presented as the cornerstone of the Christian life. All three are intangible yet few would argue their existence nor contest their profound effect on the relationship of the believer with Christ. Christ even went so far as to denounce the crowd as an "evil generation" that demanded a sign (tangible manisfestation) for proof of His divinity. Yet here we are today, brothers and sisters in Christ consistently arguing over whether or not there is "proof" that God's word can be accepted plainly and reliably. Without "proof" that the Genesis creation account is literal, the secular scientific critique of the human origins takes precedence over "faith".

As incomplete as the secular alternative to the majestic creative power of God may be, it is accepted as factual and compelling to the point it dictates to many in the church how to interpret God's word. The travesty and irony is that this approach to defining Biblical interpretation is the exact opposite of the mandate within scripture which clearly places the Word as the standard by which all physical evidence must be interpreted. I find it further ironic that a vast majority of those who claim a "higher" level of education and perhaps even "intelligence" are, as a group, far more skeptical of the existence of the God of the Bible and consistently challenge the historicity of virtually every account in the Bible. Just consider the bias of virtually every secular university. They (the intellectual elite) further dedicate an inordinant amount of time in active opposition and in the vain effort to disprove the Bible as the only inspired Word of the Almighty. So I find little weight in consideration of the validity of their claims based solely on the "numbers" of believers in the lies of evolution. In fact it supports the Biblical stance even more profoundly.

So at the risk of sounding "naive" and shallow: Even if all I did was consider the adage, "the enemy of my friend is my enemy..." in the absence of any other "evidence" compelling or not- I can rest assured that by opposing the intellecual elite's conclusions regarding the existence of God and development of mankind, I am more likely right than not. The beauty of it though is that God was kind enough to provide enough evidence in favor of YEC'ism that even some skeptics would clearly see it, once the intellectual bias is overcome.

And all God's people said............

 

[Vance]

"Faith, Hope, Love". These three ideals are presented as the cornerstone of the Christian life. All three are intangible yet few would argue their existence nor contest their profound effect on the relationship of the believer with Christ. Christ even went so far as to denounce the crowd as an "evil generation" that demanded a sign (tangible manisfestation) for proof of His divinity. Yet here we are today, brothers and sisters in Christ consistently arguing over whether or not there is "proof" that God's word can be accepted plainly and reliably. Without "proof" that the Genesis creation account is literal, the secular scientific critique of the human origins takes precedence over "faith". .

No, that is not it at all. No one is asking for proof that God's Word can be accepted plainly and reliably. Your choice of those two words together shows where the problem lies. You continue to think that the Bible is only reliable when it can be read literally. We ALL think the Bible is reliable, so that is not an issue. Since we find it entirely true and reliable when read not as literal history, we seek no proof whatsoever. We are content with God speaking His message to us in this way.

As incomplete as the secular alternative to the majestic creative power of God may be, it is accepted as factual and compelling to the point it dictates to many in the church how to interpret God's word.

But why do you refer to it as the "secular" alternative? Christians believe in both, in at least equal numbers. How is it secular if a Christian believes God created through evolution? Do you think it is secular to belief that God allows a tree to grow through photosynthesis?

The travesty and irony is that this approach to defining Biblical interpretation is the exact opposite of the mandate within scripture which clearly places the Word as the standard by which all physical evidence must be interpreted.

Where does Scripture say we should discover the truths about nature from Scripture?

I find it further ironic that a vast majority of those who claim a "higher" level of education and perhaps even "intelligence" are, as a group, far more skeptical of the existence of the God of the Bible and consistently challenge the historicity of virtually every account in the Bible. Just consider the bias of virtually every secular university. They (the intellectual elite) further dedicate an inordinant amount of time in active opposition and in the vain effort to disprove the Bible as the only inspired Word of the Almighty. So I find little weight in consideration of the validity of their claims based solely on the "numbers" of believers in the lies of evolution. In fact it supports the Biblical stance even more profoundly..

Again, begging the question about what the "Biblical stance" really is. And what exactly supports the stance you are referring to?

While I do not find numbers generally compelling, the fact that 99.95% of scientists accept evolution does away with one Creationist argument: that evolution is a theory being abandoned by scientists. It also points to the fact that the vast majority of Christian scientists accept evolution as the method by which God creates, and this I do find relevant.

So at the risk of sounding "naive" and shallow: Even if all I did was consider the adage, "the enemy of my friend is my enemy..." in the absence of any other "evidence" compelling or not- I can rest assured that by opposing the intellecual elite's conclusions regarding the existence of God and development of mankind, I am more likely right than not. The beauty of it though is that God was kind enough to provide enough evidence in favor of YEC'ism that even some skeptics would clearly see it, once the intellectual bias is overcome.

By that logic, you would have to oppose everything they stand for, which would include 90% of the things you agree with and accept. Open up any science book and start at page one and begin opposing every conclusion the scientists present. You are also forgetting that the vast majority of Christian scientists accept evolution, so it is not the enemy of friend, but the friend of your friend who you are also disputing with.

And, again, we welcome any presentation of a sound scientific model in favor of a young earth or a special creation less than 10,000 years ago. Remember, though, that such a model must the evidence we have, not just pot shots against evolution as a theory, but a positive presentation that fits the data.

 

[California Tim]

But why do you refer to it as the "secular" alternative? Christians believe in both, in at least equal numbers.

Vance,

First, I love you as a brother in Christ. We differ profoundly on this one issue which, thankfully is not an essential doctrine as far as salvation is concerned. I look forward to the day we meet in Heaven where the relative importance even of this issue will likely "fade in the light of His glory". Nonetheless, we are caught up in the here and now, giving us pause for debate. One of the most overused and least meaningful statistics I've ever witnessed is this idea that a "number of Christians" believe one way or another. Let me demonstrate:

According to the Barna Group polls http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=8 :

• Half of born again Christians (50%) agree that Satan is “not a living being but is a symbol of evil.” (2004)

• About one-third of born agains (38%) believe that if a person is good enough they can earn a place in Heaven. (2004)

• 31% of born agains agree that “while he lived on earth, Jesus committed sins, like other people,” compared to 44% of all adults. (2004)

• About one out of four (26%) born again Christians believe that it doesn’t matter what faith you follow because they all teach the same lessons; a belief held by 56% of non-Christians. (2000)

• 32% of born agains said they believe in moral absolutes, compared to just half as many (15%) among non-born agains. (2002)

So as you can see, just claiming "Christians" believe in one thing or another is not really telling me anything - except that there might be a lot of wolves among the sheep.

 

[Vance]

Oh, I agree that numbers do not prove any position correct. I was objecting to your use of the term "secular", since you seem to be implying by this a position held by those who don't know Christ. My point is that evolution is no more secular in that sense than any other scientific theory. I don't think you would refer to "germ theory" or the "theory of gravitation" or the "theory of relativity" as "secular". Evolution is just another scientific theory about God's Creation, and is not "religious" or "secular".