Does Creation and Evolution Fit Together?

[Neil Spargo]

For many unbelievers, evolution is an obstacle to faith. They assume that evolution disproves creation, thus demonstrating that the Bible is in error. But evolution doesn’t have to be an obstacle to Christianity. One can believe in evolution and still receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Romans 10:9 says, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” It doesn’t say, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and also believe in seven-day creation, you will be saved.”

Obviously, if one rejects creation in favor of naturalistic evolution, one is an atheist. Nevertheless, we don’t have to convince an unbeliever that it’s seven-day creation or nothing, that if “you don’t renounce evolution entirely you can’t be a Christian!” Instead, we should as believers point out that theistic evolution (the belief that evolution is true but that God initiated it) is acceptable to many Christians and need not interfere with someone receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

In fact, there are many scholarly, evangelical Christians who love the Lord and who believe in the authority of Scriptures but who hold to theistic evolution. This alone proves that evolution does not have to be an obstacle to Christianity. Otherwise, these people would not be Christians.

Now, all of us may not personally agree with this position but it does represent a rational argument that can be sustained on biblical grounds— assuming one views the creation account as a poetic narrative rather than a historical description. But I like discussion on creation versus evolution and move on to “Who is Jesus Christ?”—the goal of all apologetics.

Now, it may be that the unbeliever will want to push this issue anyway. But if he insists that any kind of evolution disproves the existence of God, we must respond. This means providing apologetic evidence for creation.

 

[JoshebB]

Macro-evolution is certainly compatible with Christian theology. The fundamentals of evolution as a philosophy and Christian theology are not. Spontaneous generation propagating ordered and sophisticated development by its own "forces" is incompatible with a single-sourced generation ordered by (intelligent) design. Ultimately, however, I will suggest there are frequent and significant red herrings common in the debate between Christian theology and the science of evolution. Theology (as a science) is not a tool intended or concerned with the discovering/uncovering* or explaining the natural world in objective terms. Likewise, evolution (as a science) is not the tool intended or concerned with discovering/uncovering* or explaining anything beyond what can be objectively observed and quantified in the natural world. When parties couched in either arena attempt to depart from those limits, they instantly become part of the problem, not the solution. The problem is exacerbated because there are those on the side of science who believe facts are amoral, a sort of inherent sterility exists and any and all attempt at giving meaning is biased, and there are those on the side of theology that believe everything inherently has meaning beyond mere existence and they get to assign that meaning when the reality there is an overlap, but it's not very big.


Have you read Francis Schaeffer or Nancy Pearcey, @Neil Spargo?




*Technically, humans do not "discover" anything new. We simply uncover that which has always existed, or existed long before we ever happened upon the thing uncovered.
.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Macro-evolution is certainly compatible with Christian theology. The fundamentals of evolution as a philosophy and Christian theology are not. Spontaneous generation propagating ordered and sophisticated development by its own "forces" is incompatible with a single-sourced generation ordered by (intelligent) design.

Hi JoshebB

Thanks for the very interesting reflection.
I still don't find the fundamental philosophical incompatibility.
I guess it stems from the fact that we can't imagine an Intelligence to choose letting things develop following a random course within a set of physical laws established by that Intelligence.
However, I do think we are able to imagine that.

Today, human intelligence does that deliberately in programming. We set a series of variables or "laws", within which things develop "organically" (meaning, without direct direction). We do it because we are interested in observing and getting better results from this "organic" development.

If reality is an endless ramification of probabilities, and God created such reality that way, there is no reason to think that God is deliberately directing the movement of every single electron at any given time.
Certainly, I start from the premise of the existence of a Personal God.
For our pantheist friends, any given position or speed of an electron is embedded within God and is a result of God.

 

[JoshebB]

Hi JoshebB

Thanks for the very interesting reflection.
I still don't find the fundamental philosophical incompatibility.
I guess it stems from the fact that we can't imagine an Intelligence to choose letting things develop following a random course within a set of physical laws established by that Intelligence.
However, I do think we are able to imagine that.

Hmmm.... re-read that.

First, there's a contradiction in there: "...we can't imagine an..... we are able to imagine that." Perhaps you misspoke. If not, then those two sentences contradict one another, and the post is not correct.

Second, from both the biblical theological point of view and the secular physics point of view nothing is actually "random." If you're familiar with the paradoxically named Chaos Theory then you know "chaos," or randomness, is perceptual, not factual. There is, therefore, reason to think the secular worldview is much more deterministic than any Christian worldview (except for the radical Calvinistic determinist).

Third, the law of non-contradiction makes the biblical/theological/Christian point of view incompatible with the secular point of view because the impetus for the ex-nihilo creation is God in Christianity and secular science atheistic, an impetus that does not and cannot have any impetus. The Uncaused Case in Christianity, or Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology (or theism in general) is God. The uncaused cause in secular cosmology is.

 

[JoshebB]

Today, human intelligence does that deliberately in programming.

And in every single instance there is a programmer taking the place of the Programmer in the experiment. Secular expositions rarely mention that, much less acknowledge and elaborate. Every single experiment ever performed has a "lord" overseeing the experiment, and they are always working from exiting materials and conditions, not an ex-nihilo beginning. Evolution-wise, what happens among animals at the macro level can be observed (and measured objectively by multiple measurers) but any changes that occur due to adaptation always revert to the original or earlier state when the conditions change back to their earlier state. The thicker-beaked birds' beaks thin and return to the earlier thinner state when the conditions no longer warrant the thickened beak. What we do not observe, and cannot observe due to the exceedingly long amount of time it supposedly takes, is the fish becoming an alligator or the chimpanzee becoming a human. That "hole" in evolution has always existed. I recall when the discoverers of Ardi were interviewed they noted how primate development is a "bush" and not a tree and they still have no idea, no empirical evidence, how they get to humans.

We set a series of variables or "laws", within which things develop "organically" (meaning, without direct direction). We do it because we are interested in observing and getting better results from this "organic" development.

No, the laws exist whether we set them or not. We don't actually "discover" anything. We simply uncover that which has always existed.

Some of the fundamentals of reality that secular science does not and cannot explain (at least not without begging the question) are the fact...

• The universe is knowable.
• There are creatures with the capacity to know the knowable.
• Many of the creatures that know the knowable are not human.
• There is inherent information in the universe, not just attributed information. *
• That inherent information exists whether a single human ever exists to know the knowable inherently existing information or not.
• In every single example we have ever encountered the existence of information necessarily implies an intelligent source preceding that information.

The interactions we observe we call "laws," but those cause-and-effect relationships exist external to both our observing them and our labeling them. We did not invent them.

If reality is an endless ramification of probabilities, and God created such reality that way, there is no reason to think that God is deliberately directing the movement of every single electron at any given time.

Who says He does? Theologically speaking, what you've described would come under the umbrella of strict Calvinistic determinism, but that kind of determinism is not representative of Calvin or Calvinism. Theologically speaking, that would not be representative of any mainstream, orthodox Christian theology and any appeal to the deterministic form of Calvinism would at best be a straw man, and at worst it would be an appeal to the extremes, otherwise known in logic as argumentum ad absurdum.

Certainly, I start from the premise of the existence of a Personal God.

I assumed that, but thank you for the clarification.

For our pantheist friends, any given position or speed of an electron is embedded within God and is a result of God.

Ummm.... okay (?)


I thought we were talking about evolution, not cosmology. To be sure, there can be no sound theory of evolution without a sound cosmology, but this op specifies evolution, "naturalistic evolution." The conversational water muddies very quickly when cosmology creeps in.


I'm guessing you've read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box," Stephen Meyers' "Signature in the Cell," and/or Michael Denton's or Jonathon Wells' books. Have you read, "Total Truth" by Nancy Pearcey? She's not a professional of the natural sciences but she did a good job surveying the dilemmas of evolution from a Christian pov. For the cosmology end of things, I recommend Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind," Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace," and James Tefil's "The Dark Side of the Universe." Trefil is an atheist and Penrose and Kaku are, I think, deist or agnostic. They're not writing from a biblical or Christian worldview but what they write fits very well with what scripture teaches. When I read secular sources, I often wonder if they've ever read the Bible because if they have then they could see that there's nothing new here. I have that thought even when I hear Lawrence Krauss lecture ! It was all described thousands of years ago by a bunch of wandering nomads. I confess those books are somewhat dated and I haven't kept up on all the latest discoveries, but these are easily sufficient for understanding the ongoing debate between theist and atheist (not to be confused with antitheist) views of science.

At any rate, back to the fray!


There's a fundamental irreconcilable difference between the two views' view of the uncaused cause, there's nothing that is actually random aside from volitional agency (which non-sentient materials lack), inherent information exists and science has yet to explain how, programmers are surrogate deities in the experimental model, and, lastly, there is a fundamental difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, the former being observable and limited/temporary, the latter being hypothetical and very problematic when it comes to proving humans originated from pre-organic materials randomly ex-nihilo.
*Data is raw. Information is data that is organized and/or assigned meaning. When we humans assign meaning that is called "attributed" information. The meaning is assigned by us external to the data. When the data already has meaning, when the data is already organized with already existing utility and meaning that is called "inherent" meaning or inherent information.
.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Hmmm.... re-read that.

First, there's a contradiction in there: "...we can't imagine an..... we are able to imagine that." Perhaps you misspoke. If not, then those two sentences contradict one another, and the post is not correct.

Thanks for pointing out to this mistake. I should have said “some people can’t imagine” instead of “we”.

Second, from both the biblical theological point of view and the secular physics point of view nothing is actually "random." If you're familiar with the paradoxically named Chaos Theory then you know "chaos," or randomness, is perceptual, not factual. There is, therefore, reason to think the secular worldview is much more deterministic than any Christian worldview (except for the radical Calvinistic determinist).

You’re right. I misused the term “random”
I was not referring to undetermined events but to events not deliberately and directly caused by God.
I agree with you that secular viewpoint is much more deterministic that the view from abrahamic religions.

Third, the law of non-contradiction makes the biblical/theological/Christian point of view incompatible with the secular point of view because the impetus for the ex-nihilo creation is God in Christianity and secular science atheistic, an impetus that does not and cannot have any impetus. The Uncaused Case in Christianity, or Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology (or theism in general) is God. The uncaused cause in secular cosmology

It’s stimulating to read you, JoshebB. Thanks for sharing this insight.
I don’t know in what exact sense we could speak about ex-nihilo creation, since God Himself prevents whatever type of “existence” that “nothingness” could have.
***
I take the opportunity to share with you a little bit about me.
I am a Baha’i, member of the the most recent of abrahamic religions. In my religious tradition, God is perpetually creating things. We do not see creation as a completed event. God’s creations continually proceed from his Word (Logos).

 

[JoshebB]

Thanks for pointing out to this mistake. I should have said “some people can’t imagine” instead of “we”.

You’re right. I misused the term “random”
I was not referring to undetermined events but to events not deliberately and directly caused by God.
I agree with you that secular viewpoint is much more deterministic that the view from abrahamic religions.



It’s stimulating to read you, JoshebB. Thanks for sharing this insight.
I don’t know in what exact sense we could speak about ex-nihilo creation, since God Himself prevents whatever type of “existence” that “nothingness” could have.
***
I take the opportunity to share with you a little bit about me.
I am a Baha’i, member of the the most recent of abrahamic religions. In my religious tradition, God is perpetually creating things. We do not see creation as a completed event. God’s creations continually proceed from his Word (Logos).

I appreciate two things in that post: 1) the acknowledgment of mistake and the openness and willing from which it came, and 2) the disclosure of your particular religious affiliation. I have not found many id internet discussion boards who will acknowledge errors when committed. Well done. I studied Baha'i many years ago before I became a Christian. I was not a Christian at the time and shortly thereafter became a practicing Buddhist. I found Baha'i neat, or appealing, in its view there have been many expressions of God's truths throughout human history, but I reject the religion in face of the exclusivity claims of Jesus and my personal conversion experience. I read the SAQ after my conversion and recall some valid and wonderful insights, taking some humor in the rhetorical assertion Adam was better than the fatherless Jesus because Adam lack both father and mother !

We're likely to disagree on other topics in other threads and I may not be as kind as I was here. Theists can have lots of common ground but at some point, our specific theism divides.

1 Corinthians 11:17-19
But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

If that is true within Christendom, then it is certainly also true in the interactions with those outside Christianity. So, thank you for having this conversation with me and doing such an excellent job. A fine example was set for others.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Theists can have lots of common ground but at some point, our specific theism divides.

Which is a pity... I mean, if our particular theisms lead to an actual division that translates in a different behavior towards those who think differently.
One of my favorite exercises in this and other Forums is to ask people what the difference it makes on our daily life to adhere to doctrine X vs doctrine Y. I think there are few doctrines that have proven to make a difference. Very, very few.
However, accepting that would have profound emotional implications to those who build their self-confidence on the orthodoxy of their creeds.

I also thank you very much for your post and words.

If you believe we could set an example on how to debate honestly and respectfully, even if passionately, we could start a new thread on a new subject. For example, on the exclusivity of Jesus claims that you have mentioned... but it could be any other.

Have a great rest of your day, my brother.

 

[praise_yeshua]

For many unbelievers, evolution is an obstacle to faith. They assume that evolution disproves creation, thus demonstrating that the Bible is in error. But evolution doesn’t have to be an obstacle to Christianity. One can believe in evolution and still receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Romans 10:9 says, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” It doesn’t say, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and also believe in seven-day creation, you will be saved.”

Obviously, if one rejects creation in favor of naturalistic evolution, one is an atheist. Nevertheless, we don’t have to convince an unbeliever that it’s seven-day creation or nothing, that if “you don’t renounce evolution entirely you can’t be a Christian!” Instead, we should as believers point out that theistic evolution (the belief that evolution is true but that God initiated it) is acceptable to many Christians and need not interfere with someone receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

In fact, there are many scholarly, evangelical Christians who love the Lord and who believe in the authority of Scriptures but who hold to theistic evolution. This alone proves that evolution does not have to be an obstacle to Christianity. Otherwise, these people would not be Christians.

Now, all of us may not personally agree with this position but it does represent a rational argument that can be sustained on biblical grounds— assuming one views the creation account as a poetic narrative rather than a historical description. But I like discussion on creation versus evolution and move on to “Who is Jesus Christ?”—the goal of all apologetics.

Now, it may be that the unbeliever will want to push this issue anyway. But if he insists that any kind of evolution disproves the existence of God, we must respond. This means providing apologetic evidence for creation.

All thing change. The idea that change involves "evolution" is the problem all "evolutions" have. Not all change is for the better.

Evolutionist's find origins where there is no power to begin anything. Evolutionism is mostly just conjecture.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Macro-evolution is certainly compatible with Christian theology. The fundamentals of evolution as a philosophy and Christian theology are not. Spontaneous generation propagating ordered and sophisticated development by its own "forces" is incompatible with a single-sourced generation ordered by (intelligent) design. Ultimately, however, I will suggest there are frequent and significant red herrings common in the debate between Christian theology and the science of evolution. Theology (as a science) is not a tool intended or concerned with the discovering/uncovering* or explaining the natural world in objective terms. Likewise, evolution (as a science) is not the tool intended or concerned with discovering/uncovering* or explaining anything beyond what can be objectively observed and quantified in the natural world. When parties couched in either arena attempt to depart from those limits, they instantly become part of the problem, not the solution. The problem is exacerbated because there are those on the side of science who believe facts are amoral, a sort of inherent sterility exists and any and all attempt at giving meaning is biased, and there are those on the side of theology that believe everything inherently has meaning beyond mere existence and they get to assign that meaning when the reality there is an overlap, but it's not very big.


Have you read Francis Schaeffer or Nancy Pearcey, @Neil Spargo?




*Technically, humans do not "discover" anything new. We simply uncover that which has always existed, or existed long before we ever happened upon the thing uncovered.
.

I believe you're referencing micro-evolution. I don't see macro-evolution as being compatible with Christianity.

"New" is relative. There are certainly many "new things" within the technological landscape of society. One thing is for certain, there isn't anything new relative to "substances". We fabricate. We don't create anything. We combine, mold, and pretend.

 

[JoshebB]

Which is a pity... I mean, if our particular theisms lead to an actual division that translates in a different behavior towards those who think differently.
One of my favorite exercises in this and other Forums is to ask people what the difference it makes on our daily life to adhere to doctrine X vs doctrine Y. I think there are few doctrines that have proven to make a difference. Very, very few.
However, accepting that would have profound emotional implications to those who build their self-confidence on the orthodoxy of their creeds.

I also thank you very much for your post and words.

It is the self-contradictory nature of exclusive claims that divides, or correctly divides

If you believe we could set an example on how to debate honestly and respectfully, even if passionately, we could start a new thread on a new subject. For example, on the exclusivity of Jesus claims that you have mentioned... but it could be any other.

lol! You post it and either PM me or @ me in the op and I'll read it and reply accordingly.

However, the Trinity and Soteriology boards in most forums tend to be very heady. Ad hominem is common in both and threads frequently border on the vitriolic. Those are the two boards I recommend anytime anyone is looking to set an example of manners, respect, and reason .

Have a great rest of your day, my brother.

Thx, U2

 

[JoshebB]

I believe you're referencing micro-evolution. I don't see macro-evolution as being compatible with Christianity.

Yes, of course. I stand corrected. Thank you.