Point/Counterpoint

Is evolution compatible with biblical Christianity?

Introduction:

For the majority of human history, there have been very few answers to the origins and mechanisms of life other than the broad but firm assertions of religion. In the 21st century, this is no longer the case. As scientists have continued to unravel the mysteries that once occupied the realm of faith alone, an uneasy tension between the two has arisen, and the resolution or lack thereof will have seri­ous implications. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, has proven to be particularly contentious.

“Is evolution compatible with biblical Christianity?” What follows are the attempts by two Christian UMaine students to answer this monumental question. Regardless of your own stance, we hope you can read their arguments with an open mind.

David Hunter is a senior electrical engineering student from Unity, Maine. He is the president of Campus Crusade for Christ and Eta Kappa Nu and an active member in the Senior Skull Honors Society and Sigma Phi Epsilon. His hobbies include cycling, kayaking, table tennis, photography, and cooking. His interests include Bible study, biomedicine, politics, theology, and semantics.

Peter Fitzgerald is a junior electrical engineering technology student from Bucksport, Maine. He is the vice president of Life Support, on the leadership team for The Navigators, and a member of Campus Crusade for Christ. His hobbies include soccer, racquetball, mountain biking, snowboarding, and just about every other sport. His interests include apologetics, de­fending life, music, political activism, and volunteering.

David Hunter: Yes.

The answer is clear: yes. It is impossible to see how one’s stance on this issue could eliminate the possibility of salvation or weaken his or her faith. If evolution re­quired one to believe we are not sinful and in need of a Savior, evolution would be dangerous. Thankfully, it doesn’t.

Essential to answering this question is a simple formula: Evolution ≠ atheism. Devoted Christian author C.S. Lewis said evolution “is a purely biological theorem. It takes over organic life on this planet as a going concern and tries to explain certain changes within that field. It makes no cosmic statements, no metaphysical statements, no eschatological statements.” Evolu­tion makes no claims about God’s existence.

Furthermore, science is not a foolish pursuit. God reveals himself through creation so that “men are without excuse” (Ro­mans 1:20). The study of God’s creation, known as science, is an excellent way to learn about the qualities of our creator. In our continual pursuit of Christ, we are called to pursue truth, as Jesus is truth. God, having revealed truth in two ways, would not contradict Himself. For this reason we must make every ef­fort to determine the correct meaning of God’s two revelations. This means considering both Scripture and science as we seek a deeper relationship with God.

Proverbs 19:2 says that it is not good to have zeal without knowledge. Too often, people dismiss evolution as foolishness designed to disprove God without informing themselves of the science or the theology. They should look objectively at both the truth of the Bible and the evidence in creation and evaluate their position.

We must remember that Scripture should be interpreted in light of the text. A careful study of Genesis 1 and 2 indi­cates the text should be interpreted figuratively. In chapter one, God creates plants and trees, then animals, then man. In chap­ter two, God creates man before plants and animals. Also, the original Hebrew in Genesis is of a poetic nature. The language rhymes and many words have symbolic meaning. For example, Adam is Hebrew for “man” and sounds like, and many theolo­gians believe is related to, the Hebrew word adamah, meaning “ground.” This suggests a better exegesis yields a symbolic interpretation.

In fact, a historical interpretation of Genesis runs into several problems. If only two people were created, God was re­sponsible for a situation that necessitated incest. This is in clear violation of God’s law (Leviticus 20:11, 17) and since God does not change, we know that, although it had not yet been written, the law still applied.

It is also helpful to consider how Christians have dealt with Genesis historically. Interestingly, Saint Augustine, a profound­ly influential Church father, writing in 408 A.D., saw no theo­logical problems interpreting Genesis symbolically and warned against stubbornly holding to a literal interpretation. Modern theologians like Lewis and Billy Graham have stated there is no theological conflict between Christianity and evolution, em­phasizing that the Bible is a book of redemption, not science.

Many use Romans 5:12, “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned,” to disprove an evolving creation. But death here is clearly a spiritual death and can only occur in spiritual beings. This is easily found from a more accurate exegesis. In Gen­esis 2:17, God says to Adam, “You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die,” but Adam lives hundreds of years after eating from the tree (Genesis 5:5).

Some may argue this understanding of God’s method of creation is an example of the “God of the gaps” – the idea that we only use God to explain things that science has not yet explained. Some Christians worry that denying a historical in­terpretation of Genesis is tantamount to saying God could not have created.

While God absolutely could have created the world in six days, seconds, or even instantaneously, the evidence He has re­vealed to us does not support it. This does not negate the ex­istence nor the power of God but recognizes that God is not like us. His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8).

It was once thought that God physically moved the sun to make it rise and set each day and when we discovered that it was a natural phenomenon, God was seemingly pushed further to the “gaps.” What is actually happening is this: God is becoming less human and more God. There is a lot more that can be writ­ten about the relationship between evolution and Christianity, but further analysis only illustrates that, far from being incon­sistent with Christianity, evolution enhances Christian theol­ogy and our understanding and awe of our Creator.

Peter Fitzgerald: No.

Evolution is not compatible with biblical Christianity for two main reasons. First, evolution doesn’t line up with the Bible’s account of Creation and its purpose. Also, evolution isn’t scientific, like it claims to be, so there is no logical reason to believe it.

Evolution says we are descended from animals, and therefore we are animals. However, Genesis 2:7 says, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man be­came a living soul.” The fact that humans have a soul sepa­rates us from the animals. Earlier in Genesis, it says that we were formed in the image of God. It doesn’t say this about any of the animals.

In Genesis 1:24, God tells His creation to bring forth living creatures “after their kind.” They are supposed to re­produce and remain the kinds of animals God made them, not evolve into new creatures. At the end of each of the days of Creation, God said that His creation was good. Why would He cause evolution to take place after He said that His creation was good? God created everything how He wanted it, so it doesn’t need to change.

Some argue there weren’t six literal days of Creation: The days simply represent periods of time that could have been millions or bil­lions of years. But if they were millions of years, why would God call them days, knowing that we see a day as a 24-hour period? It doesn’t make any sense! God wouldn’t try to con­fuse us when He could plainly state how long He chose to take. He is powerful enough to create the world in six days, and that is what He says He did, so I believe Him.

Furthermore, Genesis 1:23 says, “There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.” It basically says it got dark, then became light again. This happens every 24 hours, so it makes sense that the “day” is a 24-hour period. It would be ludicrous to say it was dark for millions of years in between the “days,” because everything on earth would have died.

Evolution isn’t supported by science, so there is no rea­son to believe it is true. It is supported by people with the title of scientist, but that doesn’t make it science. In order for something to be scientific, it must be tested and ob­served. Evolution has never been observed or recreated in the lab, so it is not scientific – it is simply a theory.

Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, taught his ideas as theories. He hoped people would one day prove them to be correct. In On the Origin of Species, he wrote, “For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often ap­parently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.” His arguments were obviously weak if they could also be used to support the opposite of what he said.

The fossil record doesn’t support evolution either. There should be millions, or at least thousands, of animals that died between stages of evolution; yet Darwin says, “Geological research … does not yield the infinitely many fine graduations between past and present species required on the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many ob­jections which may be urged against it.” Darwin admitted that geological research opposed evolution. Even now, after so many new fossils have been found, very few are suggested as “missing links.”

Another barrier to evolution is entropy, the amount of randomness in a system. It is a quantity that can never decrease – it increases every day through things like wood burning, glass shattering, or a bomb exploding. The mole­cules and parts of the objects are less ordered than they were before. In order for evolution to take place, the entropy of an organism must decrease. Entropy cannot decrease unless the system is acted on by an external force. According to Sir Fredrick Hoyle, founder of the Cambridge Institute of Theoretical Astronomy, the probability of evolution creat­ing the species we now have is about the same as the prob­ability that a tornado tearing through a junkyard will create a Boeing 747. Boeing, an outside force, can build a 747, but chance cannot. Similarly, God can create a complicated liv­ing being, but chance cannot – due to entropy.

Unlike animals, people have souls and were created in the image of God. The Bible says Creation took six days, mornings, and nights, not millions of years. Also, God com­manded animals to reproduce after their “kind,” not other kinds. Lastly, evolution is not scientific nor is it supported by the fossil record and the law of entropy. Therefore, evo­lution isn’t compatible with biblical Christianity.

Rebuttal – David Hunter

While Mr. Fitzgerald is correct that evolution does not “line up” with his interpretation of the biblical Creation account, he errs by restricting himself to a historical interpretation. The Church traditionally has correctly interpreted Genesis allegorically, rendering evolution not only acceptable, but providing us with a more complete and vibrant understanding of our Creator.

Concerning the days of Creation, the Hebrew word yom is ambiguous but is most likely referring to a 24-hour period. How­ever, this is irrelevant when interpreting the text properly. The im­portance is what it reveals about God, not history. Again, we see that accepting evolution does not conflict with biblical truth.

The unsupported claim that evolution is not scientific falls flat even under superficial examination. Mr. Fitzgerald claims “evolu­tion has never been observed or recreated it the lab.” Not true. This relies on a false distinction between “microevolution” and “macro­evolution,” claiming we observe the former but not the latter. The only difference between them is time. Microevolution over time is macroevolution. We observe this daily. The flu virus and HIV mu­tate to react to new treatments – examples of evolution through natural selection that are continually observed and replicated.

Evolution is a theory, however Mr. Fitzgerald fails to under­stand the scientific definition of “theory.” Theories don’t “grow up” and become laws. Theories are explanations of many observations and repeated experiments. Circuit theory includes Ohm’s law but will never become “circuit law.”  The terms don’t work that way.

In a 100-level science classroom entropy may equal disorder, but the actual concept is more complex and in no way contradicts evolution. Entropy concerns energy and not physical patterns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy in an isolated system, not in equilibrium, will tend to increase over time. Entropy is a measure of energy dispersal at a specific temperature, meaning that concentrated energy will tend to diffuse. This diffusion often results in a random arrangement sometimes referred to as “disorder.”  Mr. Fitzgerald speaks of random arrangement of molecules. This is a misapplication of the second law since these molecules themselves are favorable energy states and are ordered arrangements of atoms. He got it backwards. Entropy does not conflict with any evolution­ary process, especially since mutations occur randomly.

Evolution is not religion and should not be argued as though it were. Likewise, scientists are not God and should not be thought of as such. Even if Mr. Fitzgerald’s claims about Darwin were true, that is not evidence that evolution is incorrect, merely proof that sci­ence changes. What a concept! Furthermore, the “evidence” used is incorrect. The following is Darwin’s actual quote. Mr. Fitzgerald cleverly omitted the italicized portions:

“Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine graduations between past and present species required on the theory; and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against it.”

Darwin said there were links between species, just not “infi­nitely many” of them. Pretty mundane, given that that because of the high number of intermediate forms it is often difficult to deter­mine, categorically, when specific changes occur.

Rebuttal – Peter Fitzgerald

I agree with Mr. Hunter: One’s stance on evolution does not affect their standing before God regarding salva­tion. Belief in evolution does not equal atheism. Science is a worthwhile pursuit, and should be pursued in some way by everyone. The study of science helps us know God bet­ter, and the studies of creation and the Bible will lead to the same conclusions.

It is also true that many people reject evolution without studying it, but I would say more people reject creationism in the same way. Of course this is no excuse for not looking at both sides. After looking at the Creation account in Genesis and evo­lution, I do not see any way that they can fit together.

Mr. Hunter said that Genesis should be interpreted figuratively since chapters one and two contradict each other. However, they do not contradict – they simply ap­proach Creation from different angles. The first chapter is in chronological order, specifically stating which day each thing was created.

The second chapter emphasizes the role of creation to benefit man – the highest creation, who was created in the image of God. It isn’t meant to be in order of events. Verse four starts out talking about how God created the earth, then verse seven says how He created man. The verses that follow outline how God created plants and animals with the purpose of aiding man. It wouldn’t make sense to talk about how the plants and animals were going to help man without first ex­plaining what man is.

The first man created was named Adam, meaning “ground.” Mr. Hunter suggested that this must mean the entire story of Creation is symbolic. Saying a symbolic name in a story makes the entire story symbolic is an enormous jump of reasoning. Jesus’ name is symbolic; is His story symbolic too?

It was very common for people of Moses’ day (Moses was the scribe for God’s words in Genesis) to write in poetic form. They didn’t have books, and there were very few scrolls. There were only a few copies of Genesis, which the priests had, and the common people could only pass down the stories orally. Poetic verse is much easier to memorize than prose because of its rhyme and meter.

Mr. Hunter said God couldn’t have created only two peo­ple because that would have required incest, which is against God’s law; and since God doesn’t change, His law can’t change either. God’s law was not in place at this time. This doesn’t mean that He has changed. Just like He didn’t change after Je­sus came, when He said we no longer have to sacrifice animals or avoid eating pork.

I also want to briefly point out that what the Church fa­thers believed does not necessarily correspond with what we should believe. They aren’t perfect: Only God’s Word is.

I believe that when science and the Bible are studied with an open mind, it will be seen that they are in perfect agreement. Therefore, it is not necessary to plug God into the “gaps.” He fits everywhere, as Mr. Hunter agreed. I think science points to creationism and not to evolution and evolution contradicts the Bible, and creationism does not.