some christians have wisely reconciled the existence of evolution AND god, but other christians?

Question

feel the need to try expose that evolution is a grand delusion perpetrated upon society by the godless, despite the fact that 99% of scientist agree that evolution almost certainly is true

It is quite obvious that those who deny that evolutionary biology is earnest inquiry are those who have decided among themselves that the idea that man could have been descended from ape/monkey ancestory is absolutely irreconcilable with a christian god who was to have directly created humans.
Do you have enough faith in god to say that you would believe in god even if evolution was to be proven absolutely real in the future?
I'm sure many of you don't.
In the end it just goes to prove the point, which is that your attack on evolution is, above all other reasons, because you feel that the implications concerning evolution would necessarily mean that god wasn't real.
it is you who are insincere and lack earnestness. You can' t depend on honest answers from dependant hands.

martin S: your are not sincerely approaching the dabate, you provide nothing but sophistry to those in your "choir" and bitter reluctance to admit that you can't believe that purpose can exist in world that was molded by evolution.

Answer 1

Actually compromising Christians who want to receive acceptance from worldly critics have compromised the gospel truth contained in God's Word. Jesus didn't beleive in evolution so why should I?

Matthew 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

As to your claim about scientists here is why so many scientists support the fairy tale of macro-evolution.

The bias of evolutionary leaders
It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves—they are always interpreted according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.
Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc.

Professor D.M.S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day, demonstrated the atheistic bias behind much evolutionary thinking when he wrote:

Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.1

So it’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data. As the anti-creationist science writer Boyce Rensberger admits:

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.2

It’s not really a question of who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias with which to be biased! Actually, Teaching about Evolution admits in the dialogue on pages 22–25 that science isn’t just about facts, and it is tentative, not dogmatic. But the rest of the book is dogmatic that evolution is a fact!

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.3

Many evolutionists chide creationists not because of the facts, but because creationists refuse to play by the current rules of the game that exclude supernatural creation a priori.4 That it is indeed a ‘game’ was proclaimed by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dickerson:

Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule:

Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.5

In practice, the ‘game’ is extended to trying to explain not just the behavior, but the origin of everything without the supernatural.

Actually, evolutionists are often not consistent with their own rules against invoking an intelligent designer. For example, when archaeologists find an arrowhead, they can tell it must have been designed, even though they haven’t seen the designer. And the whole basis of the SETI program is that a signal from outer space carrying specific information must have an intelligent source. Yet the materialistic bias of many evolutionists means that they reject an intelligent source for the literally encyclopedic information carried in every living cell.

Answer 2

The atrocious nature of some of these answers require my response. Some of them are true though.

robtheman - This is absolutely true. I'm catholic and have read and heard about the pope saying exactly this. While I am sure more radical catholics still refute evolution, I have only met one catholic who still believed in the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Earl D - All science has limitations but evolution, as with all sciences, does not test the untestable. Science does not try to confirm or deny the prescence of a creator. To be perfectly honest, your "puppet on a string" analogy makes more sense for a person who is "tied down" by their religious beliefs. I understand what you're trying to say but you have it all backwards.

asawalli - THANK YOU. I COULD NOT AGREE MORE.

TDZ - The majority of the world's population believe in some sort of a God/higher entity. The vast majority of the world's scientific community accepts the theory of evolution. How are these two comparable? They're not. One is based on religion and the supernatural. The other is based on concrete scientific evidence, theories, and laws. The majority of those who attack evolution know either a very abridged or incorrect version of the story or see the theory as a direct attack on their beliefs. To say that you are in the same boat as those who defend evolution is wrong and completely inaccurate.

Tina GoodyTwo-Shoes - First of all, we do not date primitive rocks using carbon dating. Carbon dating only goes back several thousand years. Potassium, phosphorous and other elements are used to date back 100,000 to millions of years ago. The system is based on half-lives of these molecules. If he still has any doubts, have him take a nuclear chemistry course.

vicsikix - When you get a chance, view this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&mode=related&search=

Martin S - Helio462 got it right. You're not looking at this the right way. First of all, when did Jesus tell you he did not believe in evolution??? Did he just appear one day and be like "Yo Martin, that whole evolution theory is a bunch of bull." Actually, I think it's slightly sacreligious to make assumptions of the actual opinion of Jesus Christ. I have a bachelors in biochemistry and I can tell you that the motivation behind evolution is not to deny or confirm the existance of a creator. If believing that God exists requires the belief that the Earth was created roughly 10,000 years ago and within the span of 7 days, then no, I do not believe in God. However, that is not due to evolution. Nuclear chemistry and half lives had already proven that wrong, not evolution. As the pope has said, the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally, which makes sense to me, and still allows for one to believe in the existance of God. Your ending response is an example of how much you are willing to stretch the context of one person's opinion (and an untrue opinion at that).

howdigethere - Your answer kinda confused me but I think I get what you're saying. Your belief of God and the bible can exist around the parameters of evolution, and vice versa. Just as long as one understands the overall meaning of the bible's teachings and don't take everything word-for-word as fact.

pdman1974 - I thought what you were saying was ok until you got to the part about man not being evolved from apes. There is proof of that. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, chimpanzees have 24. Scientists hypothesized that 2 chromosomes from the chimpanzees somewhere down the evolutionary line fused together to create a single chromosome in humans. Genetic testing found that chromosome 2 in humans was exactly this. They even found the exact base number where this occurred. That does not mean that your idea of trial and error isn't correct because you don't have to put boundaries on your beliefs. And I think that is the main point in the evolutionary debate.


Free will does not exist in those who believe that evolution denys the existance of God. They have instead put a boundary on their belief and what is plausible and what is not. Free will in religion is having the ability to take what life gives you and see how God can fit into it at the same time (This applies to accepting evolution and science. This does not apply to committing immoral actions). Those who slave themselves to believe within a certain context, have no free will, and instead are contradicting the basic point of life.

Answer 3

The Creator created all things. How He created each thing is not known. Evolution, if it is as science believes, happened after God's original creation. So, I find no problem with evolution.
To answer your question - would I still believe - my answer is yes. I don't think Gods Word is accurate; I don't believe His Word is accurate; I know His word IS accurate. The problem is how one interprets His Word. But, the real problem with the question of truth, is that some have not experienced His presence. That cannot be misinterpreted.
Once one has, indeed, experienced it, there is nothing that can be said or done that changes the "fact" of His existence.

Shortstuff7: you have misunderstood, or I have not made myself clear. I believe that some things MIGHT have evolved, but not without the original creation of some form of life, whether it be grasses or species. Thus, God created everything. Time may have altered His creation - as He allowed. Do I believe I/we evolved? Of course not.

Answer 4

I'm a Christian. I accept that evolution and creationism co-exist very well. I don't ask you for proof. I don't expect to have to give proof. But no, I don't think that the assertion you make as right has any proof of anything. And I don't think Christians attack evolution as their first argument either. I am thankful for your interest and concern in how we feel.

Answer 5

as a christian i have no problem reconciling the two...if you have a creator that created the universe( but lives outside it) ..meaning time (a man made concept) has no meaning at all would create life from "scratch" ...why would he not begin with the basic concept and see what happens?? my Father is not a creator of chaos... I believe He would sit back and see what develops...i do not agree that man evolved from apes.. there is no actual proof of that ..no missing link that binds us... i believe man is seperate ..but even he may have had a trial and error period ... as with neanderthal vs modern man... i do not put boundries on my Father ..He can do whatever He wishes because of who He is ...

Answer 6

The Pope also referred to evolution as truth. It's strange that some Catholics still deny evolution.

Answer 7

Unless you're a member of a fundamentalist Christian sect, there is no reason why the Theory of Evolution would be incompatible with a belief in God.

Answer 8

Wow...I obviously hit a nerve...but why so touchy? People who believe in God get attacked all the time too, so aren't we in the same "boat" so to speak?

Answer 9

When you get some time, you REALLY ought to view this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6814048597272982882&q=100+reasons+why+evolution+is+so+stupid

Answer 10

My brother feels that there is something inherently wrong with the carbon dating system. (Just thought I'd throw that in....)