Can God and evolution coexist? This debate that has been simmering for years, both publicly and privately, in religious and non-religious circles. Most media coverage would suggest that the answer is a vehement “NO” from both sides. Christians claim that evolution is impossible and that Genesis is a literal description of the beginning of the Universe. Atheists or agnostics claim that there is no scientific proof for God, and therefore he cannot exist (and obviously could not have created anything).
At the center of the debate is the public education system. Should public schools teach both creation/intelligent design and evolution as viable (but competing) “theories” that explain the development of life on earth? Or should they be forced to choose one over the other?
I grew up attending Christian schools, from pre-school through college, and in most of my science classes, creation was the only viewpoint I was taught. I remember being asked to write a paper in an 8th grade science class “proving” that evolution was false using only the Bible as a reference. Even then, that seemed a bit preposterous. I believe that my compelling argument boiled down to “God created the heavens and the earth, so therefore evolution cannot be true.”
In college, however, I had a biology professor who taught that evolution was good science. A Christian professor who believed that evolution was good science? This was far from the experiences I’d had in science classes. This professor had no problem reconciling his Chrisitian faith and scientific belief that evolution is true.
Then, last week, I read an article about a prominent scientist who went public with his Christian faith and his acceptance of evolution. I don’t necessarily agree with everything that he has to say, but I found myself agreeing with the sentiments of this paragraph:Giberson has rejected fundamentalism, but remains a believer as well as a scientist. He has staked out a middle ground when it comes to the battle between Christians and Darwinists,stating that they can be reconciled with one another. He is sympathetic toward the motivations of creationists and scientists alike, though he is fed up with much of intelligent design as well as hard-core atheists.Perhaps the thing that I appreciate most, both from this scientist and from my biology professor, is the notion that there isn’t a hard and fast line separating God and evolution. They both seem to suggest that there is room for science in our Christian faith—that one doesn’t necessarily preclue the other. I hope that someday, media coverage of this debate might more accurately reflect that.
But what do you think? Is it possible to reconcile faith in God with an acceptance of evolution? Have you had any experiences with teachers or professors who have inspired or challenged your thinking about the origins and development of life?
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (52)
My personal belief is to keep an open mind, keeping my faith and the bible close to my heart, while being attentive to empirical science. I find that this keeps me from becoming too dogmatic. I believe that it is most important to remember that it is God that is the Creator and Perfector of this earth, whatever the mechanism and it is not worth becoming a stumbling block to our brothers and sisters in Christ by arguing about what is truly trivial in the long run.
1. God created the world
2. God created man/woman in his own likeness
3. Man was tempted and sin entered the world
The other thing I would always warn them against is any sort of belief system whereby God was not omnipotent.
Either way, it speaks to a genius creator and that's what we believe.
I also grew up in a Christian school, and I had a very similar experience in attending secular college. I had profs who professed a belief in both Christ and evolution, or creavolution (there's many differing ways of melding the two together - including God getting everything started and using evolution as His method from there). But here's the thing, aren't both views so diametrically opposed that there can be no middle ground? I mean, there is a difference between scientific evolution and origin evolution. Scientific evolution has to do with things and organisms evolving within their own genetic code (there's no adding of DNA but only a loss in every case of real scientific evolution). However, origin evolution is not really science, though it is only presented that way (it is neither observable nor repeatable).
My fear is Giberson seems to indicate a yearning and a glee in seeing real scientists successfully come out of the closet and mentioning an idea and method for coming to a middle ground. I've read many Biblical scholars who take the first few verses of Genesis and hermeneutically do the same thing. But Giberson is but a fallible man, and one trying to reconcile his evolutionary viewpoint with Biblical accounts.
The main issue central to the theme of all life and the Bible is that without Adam committing the first sin and bringing death, there would be no need for Christ to come and be the perfect reconciliation sacrifice between us and God. In origin evolution, death and suffering existed long before man came on the scene, and this completely opposes the very nature of the Gospel. Plus, since Christ said He is the truth, and He says He created all things, and He believed in 6 days of creation and Adam and Eve, then I am definitely suspect of anyone who says differently. To me, they are preaching a different gospel and a different Christ than the one He presents of Himself in Scripture. However, I am not one of those that thinks we need to present both Evolution and Creationism side-by-side in the classroom. My only desire is to see origin evolution be listed as a possible belief in the origin of life along with any other religious belief and leave it at that and the discussion around it.
At Answers in Genesis, there are many scientists who have plenty of room for science in their Christian faith. I would agree with their viewpoint and note that while I have plenty of room for science, I have no room for the humanistic naturalistic belief of origin evolution.
Here's a few links I've found very helpful in my journey:
http://www.christian-thinktank...
http://www.creationism.org/boo...
http://www.answersingenesis.or...
Plus, C.S. Lewis's Miracles details these opposing views very well from a philosophical perspective.
I've always believed that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation. And if you're a Christian, you're already half way there: you believe in an almight, loving God who has a plan for everything.
While evolution may accurately describe relationships of species as they change through time, there has never been a credible mechanism (Natural Selection kind of requires a Selector with a goal in mind) that accounts for the un-directed rush towards infinite complexity and the level of sophistication that gives rise to Mozart or Einstein. Let alone the amount of information stored in every cell. Dawkin's Selfish Gene is just silly.
When you are looking at a star that is 35 million miles away, you are looking at the cosmos 35 million years in the past, not a 10,000 year old elaborate hoax as the Answers in Genesis folks believe. God wants His creation to know Him and he reveals Himself reliably in nature (science)..."The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands". And He also reveals Himself reliably in His word. Read Dr. Hugh Ross,a Christian Astrophysicist you can even find in most Christian bookstores.
We should not be afraid of science, it will always take us to the throne. As it has, and as it is now doing. The reason the Big Bang was fought so vehemently when it was first proposed is that it strongly required a first cause, a creator God. The truth of the big bang, a universe created out of nothing at the start of time, has been established beyond any doubt. Credible science is bringing many scientists to faith.
Observations in the last 10 years suggest that the possibility for life to exist requires an incredible degree of fine-tuning for thousands of cosmic variables...like...Atomic nuclei are bound together by the so-called strong force. If that force were slightly more powerful, all the protons in the early universe would have paired off and there would be no hydrogen, which fuels long-lived stars. Water would not exist, nor would any known form of life. There are thousands of these kinds of extreme fine tuning examples that scientists are discovering that strongly imply that the Universe was designed for intelligent life.
Secondly, as many scientists agree, there is not enough time on a 3.5 billion year old earth to account for life or the complexity of life through chance or random mutations. Steven Jay Gould has no explanation for the Cambrian Explosion of life. He simply labels it "punctuated equilibrium", without giving an explanation...finally retreating with other scientists into the unprovable fantasy that seeds of life came from outer space (Panspermia).
Read the latest issue of the science magazine, Discover (http://discovermagazine.com/20.... When forced into a corner by extreme fine tuning and impossible chance coincidences, science is retreating to the myth of infinite Multiverses. This is the idea that given zillions of possible universes, maybe just one might arise where the laws of physics and staggering chance coincidences might allow the creation of life. Here is a brief quote by the proponent of Multiverses: “if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” Isn't that incredible! When all the evidence in science points to a creator, it all comes down to the final issue of not wanting God. Wow. The more we discover, the more excited I get...it really is coming down to the time when "the fool has said in his heart that there is no God".