First off, I'm a Christian. Undoubtedly my views on various topics diverge greatly to that of many other Christian's beliefs - but I still believe in the Bible. That said... I believe in evolution.
It happened, a while back, that one of my college instructors decided to explain the concept of evolution to to my class and I found that I could no longer, in good conscience, doubt it's legitimacy. Here is how my teacher explained it:
There are two types of butterflies living on an island; one species is white, the other is gray, and they both exist in relatively equal numbers. One day a volcano explodes on a nearby island, sending ash raining down on all the trees. To the predators, those poor white-colored butterflies now stand out like a bunch of Cadillacs at a Ford plant.
The white butterflies begin to die.
Before you know it, the gray butterflies vastly outnumber their white peers. Since there are more gray-colored butterflies than white, it stands to reason that more gray butterflies will live to pass on their genes to the next generation, while the white continue to die in number.
The concept of evolution is simple: all organisms possess genetic defects that cause mutations. When these mutations become beneficial to possess due to environmental factors, they become more common in the next generation. As such I find it hard to understand how Christians think that evolution conflicts with Biblical creationism when evolution has practically nothing to due with how life began -- but merely states that species change over time.
With the revelation of the recent
"missing link" fossil, called Ida, I have been wondering: if evidence continues to affirm the validity of evolution while Christians continue to denounce even the possibility of evolution existing... won't that draw people away from the church? Christians have rejected many ideas over time (a round earth, a heliocentric universe) that have since been proven to be true. And those Christians all looked rather dumb.
If history repeats itself, then the church could easily end up making this mistake again if evolution is proven to be true.
If you are a Christian, do you believe in the theory of evolution? If so, how do you reconcile this belief with your Christian convictions? If not, what are your reasons for not believing in it?
Comments (228)
I belive it ...
I very much look forward to the responses to this post. For what it's worth, when I was a Christian it took me a long time to accept the veracity of evolution. But finally logic won out. And it had no effect on my faith whatsoever (many other things did that).
And (shameless plug) anyone who wishes to debate the theory of evolution is welcome on my site, where I have literally dozens of posts detailing evidence of evolution. I'm always welcoming newcomers to my site.
I believe in Creation as Written in Genesis.
Yes, I believe in evolution and that God created life. The two beliefs can co-exist. God made everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Who is to say how long one of those days was? I do not take everything in the bible literally. Also, I share the same thought as you, that evolution means organisms change over time and that does not mean that God isn't the author of that ability or of life itself.
@lotjiujeurng@xanga - You are throwing Micro and Macro evolution together in your statement and they are two very different things.
Yes.
Here is a Nightline debate over the issue of Evolution. I highly suggest everyone check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgm2cdibdhA&feature=channel
@Kristenmomof3@xanga - But what separates the two? There is no genetic barrier to prevent "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution," as I've pointed out before.
i really don't see how evolution is a threat to christianity.
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - There is a difference. I could explain but it would be a really long comment. So instead I would just suggest you check out Answers in Genesis
They do a really good job
Any questions you may have..they have the answers there :)
@Chinese_Sait0u@xanga - It calls the Biblical account of Genesis a lie.
@Kristenmomof3@xanga - I've checked out AiG before and never found it to be anything but preaching to the choir. I'd welcome the really long comment! If you'd rather, you can leave it on the post I linked you to. I'm looking for the truth, wherever it may lead me. If your comment gives me some truth, or at least takes away one more thing that I think creationism is holding onto as a complete fabrication, it would do some good for my soul (from your point of view), wouldn't it? Or, at the very least, link me to a specific argument on AiG.
You can always take the account of Genesis to be non-literal, and thus not a lie via evolution. For example, Jesus tells the parable of the prodigal son. Even if there were no literal prodigal son, it doesn't make the parable less "true" in the message it is trying to convey.
@Kristenmomof3@xanga - There is a difference. I could explain but it would be a really long comment. So instead I would just suggest you check out Answers in Genesis
AiG is wrong, check out http://www.talkorigins.org!
See how silly url-wars become? Linking rather than explainin explaining is a cop-out. It essentially ends discussion.
Particularily, linking the entire site (rather than relevent articles, or even copy/pasting) is entirely unhelpful. It seems both lazy and condenscending.
@Kristenmomof3@xanga - You are throwing Micro and Macro evolution together in your statement and they are two very different things.
To reiterate Godlessliberal's reply, there is absolutely no mechanistic barrier to macroevolution. Both in the types and degrees of mutation, macroevolution follows logically from microevolution.
Macroevolution is driven by the exactly same genetic and ecological engines as microevolution. If a car is capable of driving several yards, it should certainly be able to drive several miles.
@Kristenmomof3@xanga - so it shouldn't be taught in schools because it's a threat, not because faith in the bible can't stand up for itself against mounds of evidence...
Yes! I just don't see how people can deny it anymore...
I believe because its convenient to ^_^
I do not see how the fact that things change over time disproves anything in the Bible
I do believe in evolution. I believe the creationism found in Genesis is more of a symbolic story than a literal retelling of God's works.
The theory of evolution has less proof than the Biblical account of creation. A lot of the so-called proof is based on very few fossils and a lot of imagination. I too was brain washed by public schools into believing this hokey and it's taken a lot of time and study to see the truth. Evolution does not exist, in any form. So-called micro evolution is simply survival of the fittest, the fittest of each species survives to breed, the not so fit die off. But the mutations do not cross species lines. A fish can not mutate into a frog - that would require the fish to mutate into a more complicated species, which defies the law of entropy - law trumps theory. Bacteria mutating to become resistant lose the ability to metabolize certain substances in the anti-biotics. Toy Poodles have lost a lot since they "evolved" from wolves - without man's protection they'd never have survived. There have been a lot of fossils found, but none give conclusive proof of one species becoming another.
The increasing incidence of genetically related diseases is another nail in the coffin of evolution, giving further proof that mutations decrease complexity, rather than increase complexity.
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - If microevolution + time + X = macroevolution, then what is X?
I find it incredibly troubling that someone can say that they believe the biblical account of creation and in the very same breath attribute that creation to an impersonal, completely random occurence.
I understand that sometimes the arguments against Creation can seem convincing, but my only question to the post's author alone is this - will you be trusting in your teacher and trying to find some other than Godly reason for explaining what can only be explained through understanding the attributes of God, or will you trust that not only is your Creator able to speak things into existence, but that He has also chosen, lovingly, to reveal parts of Himself through His creation. Through Creation, we know that God is
Loving - He has given us multitudes of natural beauty to adore, to be comforted by, etc
Creative - The stripes on a Zebra, the funny way a cat pounces on a ball of yarn, the majestic height of a Sequoia, the mysteries of the deepest oceans...
Wise - Have you examined the complexity of a single strand of DNA, or wondered at the human pupil? It's upside down, actually. He knew that was the best way of providing sight for us to enjoy the above...
We learn so much from the fact that God alone, in His abilities, created the earth. To rob Him of His total, and singular involvement is to try to rob Him of some of His attributes. That's a playground I won't be playing on...
Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Everything we see, everything we have, everything that makes up life is right here and attributed to God and God alone.
He said... and it was so.
Argue against scripture if you like. I would suggest you not though.
The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
@James3_1@xanga - Amen
@redshad@xanga - wonderful comment
@LifeNeedsProtection@xanga - Why must there be an "X"? Again, Charlotte, I refer you to a post I did on this subject.
@redshad@xanga - The law of entropy only applies to closed systems. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to see an embryo become a full-grown person, because that would require the single cell to change "into a more complicated" organism.
@redshad@xanga - The theory of evolution has less proof than the Biblical account of creation. A lot of the so-called proof is based on very few fossils and a lot of imagination.
You seem to have a very narrow realization of Evolution's warrents.
Beyond transitional fossils, support for Evolution includes:
(i) Genetic evidence
(ii) Double nested phylogenetic trees
(iii) Geographic distribution of fossils and oragnisms
Beyond all of this, the working engine behind Evolution has been worked out and is well understood (the mutation and inhertibility of traits, natural selection).
But the mutations do not cross species lines. A fish can not mutate into a frog - that would require the fish to mutate into a more complicated species
A fish can mutate such that it can't breed with other fish. And slowly, these two species of fish will undergo entirely different microevolutionary lineages. Over a long period of time, so many small differences will accumulate that these two species of fish look very different.
Don't give this bullshit of a "fish" mutating into a "frog." Such phenomena isn't predicted nor expected under Evolution. The theory of evolution only provide for stepwise changes.
A fish can not mutate into a frog - that would require the fish to mutate into a more complicated species which defies the law of entropy - law trumps theory.
A fetus is more complicated than a zygote. An adult is more complicated than a fetus. Yet, it is fairly common occurance for a fertilized egg to have little trouble to develop an fully grown human beings?
Violation of "entropy?" Absolutely not. In this growth and accumulation of "order," energy is expended.
The stuff needed for evolution (genes, sexual selection, natural selection) is no different from the regular stuff of life.
The increasing incidence of genetically related diseases is another nail in the coffin of evolution, giving further proof that mutations decrease complexity, rather than increase complexity.
I'm sorry, but this is a stupid claim.
Firstly, the negative effects of a genetic allele has nothign to do with its complexity.
Seconldy, while negative mutations are more common, their frequency doesn't mean that positive alleles are impossible-- they're simply rarer. But we see and we know that they happen frequently enough to be able to drive Evolution.
Thirdly, you never actually explain how mutations "decrase complexity." Mutations, in their nature, scramble and rearrange genetic base pairs. Simply scrambling usually lead to gibberish, but they can also lead to useful rearrangements.
Take five random letters from the English alphabet. Rearrange them often enough, you'd get a meaningful word.
@James3_1@xanga - [will you be trusting in your teacher and
trying to find some other than Godly reason for explaining what can
only be explained through understanding the attributes of God, or will
you trust that not only is your Creator able to speak things into
existence, but that He has also chosen, lovingly, to reveal parts of
Himself through His creation.]
Is a rainbow any less beautiful for knowing that it is not the direct image cast down from on high, but instead falls under natural laws of light refracting through water? Is the solar system any less majestic knowing that the planets orbit not by divine power but by gravity?