Is the Bible compatible with the theory of evolution?

[Jordan Kurecki]

How can anyone believe in the bible and evolution if there were animals in the garden of Eden before death came into the world? Remember that there were animals before Adam and Eve's sin because Adam named all the animals and THEN Eve was created. Remember that the theory of evolution requires death to be present: some scriptures to keep in mind:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Death is a consequence of sin...

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

And here we see that sin entered the world through Adam!

Genesis 1:25 And 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.

Would God say it was very good if there was death present?

So Evolution and the Bible cannot both be true because sin was not present and therefore death was not present.

I'll believe God over "science" anyday!
1Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[Scarlett O.]

I'll believe God over "science" anyday!

1Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

I'll take God AND science. All genuine science is testable, provable, and observable in some form or another anyway. And all genuine science dovetails with scripture. And with evolution being a speculation about reality that tries to answer questions without the scientific method - ergo evolution cannot be science - only a metaphysical treatise at best.

That word you have cited in the 1 Timothy passage (γνῶσις - "gnō'-sēsis") is better translated "knowledge". http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1108&t=KJV

[FONT=&quot]I reject evolution for two reasons. [1] I just can't divorce it from abiogenesis. And that's pretty much what evolution states. Life came from non-living material. That's been proven centuries ago to be false.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][2] And I can't make evolution conform to the provable laws of physics. If you take any particular system - a pond for example - what we know about disorder of systems just doesn't match this philosophy of evolution that a creature can somehow gain these changes in genotypes and phenotypes to the degree that it's children, grandchildren, and future descendents fall into a HIGHER branch of taxonomy. That notion is in direct opposition to genuine science and the idea that creatures and organisms are "irreducibly complex". [/FONT]

I love science. I love teaching it. I believe that true science is a good thing - a necessary thing. A necessary way of looking at the universe. I also believe every single word of the Bible - from Genesis to Revelation.

I have no battle in my mind or heart between fact and faith. I have faith in accurate, observable, testable, and true science. And I believe in the factuality (if you'll let me use that word) of the Bible.

 

[prophet]

This is why the phrase " falsely so called" appears in scripture.
1Ti 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
(KJV)
Any one professing evolution, a non science, has erred from the faith.
Evolution is not compatible with faith. It seeks to eliminate unanswered questions, with sight.
It was born in atheism, so confessed its author. ..:"I was simply speculating on 'What if there was no God, how would we have gotten here?'".
It's successive advocates have all built upon false premises, thinking thatft-repeated=fact.
Russian*entomologist*Yuri Filipchenko*first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation".

*Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times *

and the term macroevolution fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist*Richard Goldschmidt(1940) and the paleontologist*Otto Schindewolf*to describe their orthogenetic theories.[7]
(Wikipedia-macroevolution -origin of the term)
The FSCS were forced to divorce themselves from one of their beloved terms, because exposure to its weakness by true science.

 

[quantumfaith]

I'll take God AND science. All genuine science is testable, provable, and observable in some form or another anyway. And all genuine science dovetails with scripture. And with evolution being a speculation about reality that tries to answer questions without the scientific method - ergo evolution cannot be science - only a metaphysical treatise at best.

That word you have cited in the 1 Timothy passage (γνῶσις - "gnō'-sēsis") is better translated "knowledge". http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1108&t=KJV

[FONT=&quot]I reject evolution for two reasons. [1] I just can't divorce it from abiogenesis. And that's pretty much what evolution states. Life came from non-living material. That's been proven centuries ago to be false.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][2] And I can't make evolution conform to the provable laws of physics. If you take any particular system - a pond for example - what we know about disorder of systems just doesn't match this philosophy of evolution that a creature can somehow gain these changes in genotypes and phenotypes to the degree that it's children, grandchildren, and future descendents fall into a HIGHER branch of taxonomy. That notion is in direct opposition to genuine science and the idea that creatures and organisms are "irreducibly complex". [/FONT]

I love science. I love teaching it. I believe that true science is a good thing - a necessary thing. A necessary way of looking at the universe. I also believe every single word of the Bible - from Genesis to Revelation.

I have no battle in my mind or heart between fact and faith. I have faith in accurate, observable, testable, and true science. And I believe in the factuality (if you'll let me use that word) of the Bible.

Scarlett, thanks so much for sharing these thoughts. "Neo-Darwinism" (Naturalism) does in fact have a shared position with abiogenesis, but not the concept of evolution in general. Peruse the websites, for information, of Biologos and also the Discovery Institute. (There are others) Recall, from the Genesis narrative that God created the earth with the properties to bring forth life on the basis of His command. Based on that, I do not believe abiogenesis to be accurate. I completely agree with you that "absolute abiogenesis is a false construct of the naturalist mind seeking ways to eliminate the need of a creative force outside of nature itself. That "aspect" or position of abiogenesis should in my mind be rejected by christians and theists in general.

I "suspect" you have read some of Michael Behe. Wonderful biochemist, love his work and his conclusions as to parameters "edges" of evolution is awesome.

 

[Aaron]

Is the Bible compatible with the theory of evolution?

No. They are two, competing creation stories.

 

[Aaron]

Scarlett, thanks so much for sharing these thoughts. "Neo-Darwinism" (Naturalism) does in fact have a shared position with abiogenesis, but not the concept of evolution in general. Peruse the websites, for information, of Biologos and also the Discovery Institute. (There are others) Recall, from the Genesis narrative that God created the earth with the properties to bring forth life on the basis of His command. Based on that, I do not believe abiogenesis to be accurate. I completely agree with you that "absolute abiogenesis is a false construct of the naturalist mind seeking ways to eliminate the need of a creative force outside of nature itself. That "aspect" or position of abiogenesis should in my mind be rejected by christians and theists in general.

I "suspect" you have read some of Michael Behe. Wonderful biochemist, love his work and his conclusions as to parameters "edges" of evolution is awesome.

Creation Ministries International ( www.creation.com ) an easily searchable and well cross-referenced source of information on multiple subjects supplying the data strategically omitted by mainstream, evolutionary "scientists," and illuminating the arbitrary assumptions upon which their conclusions are based.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Thanks, QF, for the post.

I feel that abiogenesis is a part of the concept of evolution because of people like Dr. Jeff Miller. I agree with him that evolutionists try to convince everyone that they don't believe in abiogenesis, but as Dr. Miller says, ...

"The reality is that abiogenesis stands alongside evolutionary theory as a fundamental plank of atheism and will remain there. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together. It is time for the naturalist to forthrightly admit that his religious belief in evolution is based on a blind acceptance of an unscientific pheonomenon." From the link: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1631

He could be wrong ... I could be wrong. But I don't see how those who embrace atheistic evolution deny abiogenesis as part of their belief system.

I haven't read Michael Behe, but I will look him up at your recommendation.

 

[quantumfaith]

Thanks, QF, for the post.

I feel that abiogenesis is a part of the concept of evolution because of people like Dr. Jeff Miller. I agree with him that evolutionists try to convince everyone that they don't believe in abiogenesis, but as Dr. Miller says, ...



He could be wrong ... I could be wrong. But I don't see how those who embrace atheistic evolution deny abiogenesis as part of their belief system.

I haven't read Michael Behe, but I will look him up at your recommendation.

As I see it, and I could be wrong, abiogenesis, when tied to evolutionary models is to describe the emergence of life from purely natural elements and a natural (godless) input. Many theists (christians) view that the formation of earth, by the commands of God, were such that earth was designed and engineered to bring forth life, so for any theist, abiogenesis has a totallly different "ring" to it, than to the naruralist.

I like to point to the phrase in the creation narrative....."and God said, let the earth bring forth"...... perhaps a hint that earth was created by Him to respond to His command to bring forth.

I appreciate greatly your courage to espouse some interest, without "whole scale" denial of the domain of science and whatever contributions in understanding creation it brings to the table, particularly in the face of much criticism on a board such as this. God granted us curiosity, intelligence and rational thought, He certainly expects us and is honored by our use of such. There is much we do not know, much to be learned and discovered. Even much we are incorrect ab,ut, but "real science" always leaves itself open for new discoveries, theorems and investigations. To the naturalist, "he" is seeking ways to explain the natural order without any need of a creative god, for the theist, it is a wondrous examination of an immensely creative and imaginative Creator.

 

[quantumfaith]

Creation Ministries International ( www.creation.com ) an easily searchable and well cross-referenced source of information on multiple subjects supplying the data strategically omitted by mainstream, evolutionary "scientists," and illuminating the arbitrary assumptions upon which their conclusions are based.

biologos.org
http://network.asa3.org/donations/
discovery.org
magisreasonfaith.org

 

[Scarlett O.]

To the naturalist, "he" is seeking ways to explain the natural order without any need of a creative god, for the theist, it is a wondrous examination of an immensely creative and imaginative Creator.

That's what I believe. I taught science for many years. I am now teaching only math. I like math a great deal, but I really miss the science - especially when I look out my window and see our science teacher outside with the students using their new found understanding of physical science to test their designs for building a contraption from which you can drop an egg and it not break.

I have literally had well meaning Christian friends over the years ask me, "How can you be a Christian and teach science?" My response is always, "How can one be a science teacher and not know God?"

 

[quantumfaith]

That's what I believe. I taught science for many years. I am now teaching only math. I like math a great deal, but I really miss the science - especially when I look out my window and see our science teacher outside with the students using their new found understanding of physical science to test their designs for building a contraption from which you can drop an egg and it not break.

I have literally had well meaning Christian friends over the years ask me, "How can you be a Christian and teach science?" My response is always, "How can one be a science teacher and not know God?"

Math is our friend.

I too, am a teacher of mathematics at our local community college. I have taught all levels from Basic Math through the Calculus and DE. For the past several years, I have taken a position to help deal with the large numbers of students who come to college unprepared mathematically. More than 80% of the students who come to our institution are not prepared for a college level mathematics course, many are required to invest more than a year in Transitional courses prior to even Intermediate College Algebra. I thoroughly enjoy assisting these students experience success in academics, many for the first time in their academic life.

 

[quantumfaith]

That's what I believe. I taught science for many years. I am now teaching only math. I like math a great deal, but I really miss the science - especially when I look out my window and see our science teacher outside with the students using their new found understanding of physical science to test their designs for building a contraption from which you can drop an egg and it not break.

I have literally had well meaning Christian friends over the years ask me, "How can you be a Christian and teach science?" My response is always, "How can one be a science teacher and not know God?"[/QUOTE]

Such commentary suggests a very low-level comprehension, intellectual acuity and limited view of our God. It is a shallow understanding both of science and our Creator. Unfortunately, it is too often encountered within our subculture of faith.

 

[agedman]

A problem which this thread may address is the difference between "evolution" and those creationists who consider that this present world was "reformed" from a prior one.

That thinking is NOT evolutionary, but often considered as such by some.

One can hold to a literal seven day creation story, and also understand that part of the very nature of God is as a creator.

God did not just start creating a few millennia ago.

Often folks consider that this earth was God's first rodeo, and, that He wasn't very successful riding the bronco, so He's been playing the clown. Distracting the bull that throws the rider. (one can take a picture too extreme, I suppose)

Point being that just because God started our clock does not mean he did not have other clocks in which we know little or nothing about. However, in the typical myopically way, some assume the center of the universe.

 

[quantumfaith]

A problem which this thread may address is the difference between "evolution" and those creationists who consider that this present world was "reformed" from a prior one.

That thinking is NOT evolutionary, but often considered as such by some.

One can hold to a literal seven day creation story, and also understand that part of the very nature of God is as a creator.

God did not just start creating a few millennia ago.

Often folks consider that this earth was God's first rodeo, and, that He wasn't very successful riding the bronco, so He's been playing the clown. Distracting the bull that throws the rider. (one can take a picture too extreme, I suppose)

Point being that just because God started our clock does not mean he did not have other clocks in which we know little or nothing about. However, in the typical myopically way, some assume the center of the universe.

Agedman, are referencing the "Gap Theory"? Is so, it is not something I would propose, but neither would I reject it outright.

There are some scientific propositions that show 7 days are mathematically equivalent to the current science statement of 13.5 billion year age for the universe.

 

[Havensdad]

Scarlett, thanks so much for sharing these thoughts. "Neo-Darwinism" (Naturalism) does in fact have a shared position with abiogenesis, but not the concept of evolution in general. Peruse the websites, for information, of Biologos and also the Discovery Institute. (There are others) Recall, from the Genesis narrative that God created the earth with the properties to bring forth life on the basis of His command. Based on that, I do not believe abiogenesis to be accurate. I completely agree with you that "absolute abiogenesis is a false construct of the naturalist mind seeking ways to eliminate the need of a creative force outside of nature itself. That "aspect" or position of abiogenesis should in my mind be rejected by christians and theists in general.

I "suspect" you have read some of Michael Behe. Wonderful biochemist, love his work and his conclusions as to parameters "edges" of evolution is awesome.

Biologos is heretical. Evolution is based on a naturalistic worldview.

Bro, you need to read Van Til. I think you fail to see the way that you are reasoning, is not a biblical way of reasoning.

 

[Van]

Returning to the OP and the issue of when did death enter the world, we must first define "death." Are we speaking of physical death or spiritual death. When the spirit departs, the body dies. If the "death" in view is spiritual death, then physical death could have existed before the fall. For example, did Adam and Eve eat plant food. Did the plants consumed "die" physically but not spiritually?

Could physical pain, suffering and death be part of the "very good" creation of God? Were they "the first things."

Some say science is the enemy of God, but I believe science is the friend of God. Like peeling an onion, science is working at getting to the truth, but when evaluated historically, science accepts then learns, then rejects, and then exposes a new view, built in part on whatever is still considered valid.

 

[InTheLight]

How can anyone believe in the bible and evolution if there were animals in the garden of Eden before death came into the world? Remember that there were animals before Adam and Eve's sin because Adam named all the animals and THEN Eve was created. Remember that the theory of evolution requires death to be present

Because the Bible says that because man sinned death came to MAN. Nothing about animals is mentioned.

Death is a consequence of sin...

Yes, and animals are not sinners.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

And here we see that sin entered the world through Adam!

Yep, sin entered the world through Adam and death came to humans. In fact, if you look at the verse, it says that death "passed upon all men" [KJV]. Look at other translations and it appears that death was already present and was extended to men because of Adam's sin:

"and thus death spread to all men [NKJV] [ESV] [NASB]

Would God say it was very good if there was death present?

I don't know. Maybe. God was certainly well pleased with death in Phillipians 2:

8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,

So Evolution and the Bible cannot both be true because sin was not present and therefore death was not present.

The only conclusion you can reach from the passages cited was that HUMAN death was not present until Adam sinned. Nothing is said about animal death.

Note: I am not an evolutionist. I'm simply pointing out that an honest reading of the scriptures does not preclude death for animals before the Fall.

 

[agedman]

Agedman, are referencing the "Gap Theory"? Is so, it is not something I would propose, but neither would I reject it outright.

There are some scientific propositions that show 7 days are mathematically equivalent to the current science statement of 13.5 billion year age for the universe.

My problem with much of those who hold to a "gap" theory is what seems to be some elongation of the 7 days into ages.

I hold to the literal 24 hour days starting in verse 4 where the time was actually begun by what we humankind can reckon by looking at the movement of the earth and stars. Pre day 4, there didn't seem to be a "physical sun" established as we would recognize.

How long a day was before day 4 is not given, but assumed by many to be 24 hours, but that is as much of an assumption as those who desire it to be an age.


I suppose, what I take from the "gap" theory, is just the "gap."

The only reason I do is the "tohuw, bohuw" of verse two. Such a state is totally out of the creative order of God, nor does God create darkness. Rather darkness is as a result of no light. "In Him is no darkness."

 

[quantumfaith]

Biologos is heretical. Evolution is based on a naturalistic worldview.

Bro, you need to read Van Til. I think you fail to see the way that you are reasoning, is not a biblical way of reasoning.

I appreciate your genuine concern, but I do not agree with you.

 

[agedman]

Biologos is heretical. Evolution is based on a naturalistic worldview.

Bro, you need to read Van Til. I think you fail to see the way that you are reasoning, is not a biblical way of reasoning.

If the "Biologos" folks desire the believers to move away from Biblical inerrancy, it would generally place them as a group as presenting a faulty view.

Heretical isn't a word that I would use at this time.

There are many who hold that certain documents or even copies of the original are not complete or have problems - such is a discussion for a different part of the BB forums.

I mention it here just to show that disagreement as far as what is valid or not in relation to Scripture rendering is far from heretical. Unfortunately, there are few who are true scientists and at the same time theologians. Often the strength of one is not the strength of the other, and one must rely upon the findings of the other.

In my opinion, it is important that folks not think that the whole of the "Biologos" movement is something that should be embraced. There are issues within it that may or may not be true to Scriptures.

Discernment is ever the watchword with any matter concerning the believer.