Do Christians believe in evolution?

Question

I don't mean human evolution.
I meant the evolution of species in general. I don't know how you can ignore it when it's happened during the past 200 years. For example the evolution of many dog breeds since the industrial revolution.

So, do you believe that evolution occurs, just not with humans? or that "god" made the species evolve?or do you completely denounce the idea altogether?

It's not just about dog breeds, another example could be the birds off of the coast of Brazil(correct me if i'm wrong about the location) that created many different species on every island. I'm sure that wasn't crossbreeding

Answer 1

Let me give you the perspective from a Christian.

What about natural selection? As the Dutch botanist, Hugo de Vries, said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”

Natural selection is a logical process that anyone can observe (and it was actually a creationist named Edward Blyth who seems to have first wrote about it in 1835–37, before Darwin). We can look at the great variation in an animal kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the dog kind.

But natural selection can only operate on the information already contained in the genes; it doesn’t produce new information. There are limits. For instance, you can’t breed a dog to the size of an elephant, much less turn it into an elephant.

The different dogs we see today have resulted from a rearrangement or loss of information from the original dog kind; no new information was produced. That is why you can breed wolves to get to chihuahuas, but you can’t breed chihuahuas to get wolves.

And the thing is, what are they? Dogs. What were they? Dogs. What will they be? Dogs. The same could be said for Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, and so forth. There is a big difference between subspeciation (variation within a kind) and transspeciation (change from one kind to another).

To go from that first single celled organism to a human means finding a way to generate enormous amounts of new information. You need the recipes to build eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscles, blood, etc. Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists now agree with this and so they point to mutations (copying errors in the genetic code) to provide the new information for natural selection to act upon. This is called “neo-Darwinian evolution.” So, the question is, can random mutations produce new creative information?

Dr. Lee Spetner (a biophysicist who taught at John Hopkins University) in his book Not By Chance analyzes examples of mutations that evolutionists have claimed to have been increases in information, and shows that they are actually examples of loss of specificity, which means they involved loss of information. He concluded, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.” He also said, “The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [Neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume.”

Dr. Warner Gitt (an information scientist who was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology), in answering the question (Can new information originate through mutations?) said, “...this idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information.”

Mutations can cause an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information.

Even the somewhat beneficial mutations they point to like antibiotic resistance in bacteria are always a rearrangement or loss of information, never a gain. For instance, a mutation that causes the pumps in its cell membrane not to work in a certain way so it doesn’t suck in the antibiotics we try to kill it with. You see, it is resistant because of a loss of an ability. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the bacteria, rendering it unable to kill the bacteria. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new genetic information.

Sickle-cell anemia is often used as an example to support evolution, but the mutation causes a loss of normal function with no new ability or information.

Wingless beetles on a windy island and blind cave fish may have a survival advantage, but it comes from a loss of information.

This kind of stuff is used as evidence for evolution, but in every mutation (even the beneficial ones), this is always the case. All we see is a downhill change that fits with the fall in Genesis 3, headed in the wrong direction. Evolution requires new creative information, not a loss of information. Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into more advanced forms.

There is just a sample. As T. Wallace has said, “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

Answer 2

All most all Christians believe in Mircoevolution. Like Humans becoming taller of time. There are two main reasons for the general acceptance of this. It does not go against genesis in any way. Secondly it has been seen. Humans have recorded their average hieght over time. Also there are many examples of inscets doing this.

Macroevolution is evolution above the species level, so populations become two different species etc. This is not as widely held but still many belive in it (I know of at least the Catholic Church believes in Thesitic Evolution and the Big Bang). This has not been seen until now, someone previously mentioned the Fruit flies in America and he is correct. Also what you are talking about with the Finches in the Galapagoes Islands (off of ecuador, but you were close enough, you know more than most, congrats) They are an example of MacroEvolution. Mainly this is not belived by some Christians because it goes against a literal 6 day intrepretation of genesis.

Now as far as me, i believe in Thesitic Evolution (and the Big Bang for that matter). I believe that God used the Big Bang to create the universe then stepped back. Let the laws of phsyics take effect to form Earth the Sun and the moon. Then he sat and watched as somehow life began (i believe that it started w/o God's help but i'd be willing to accept that God did it). Then evolution took effect and created Humans after Billions of years. I believe this because if God is al knowing he could easily have know if he put this much energy into the Big Bang he couuld get the earth and life to form.

Answer 3

I was raised as a Christian but I still accept evolution. I will explain why. God said, "Let there be light. " And He saw the light was good. I'm pretty sure that when the Big Bang happened, there was a lot of light. I don't feel the Old Testament was meant to be taken literally. Adam and Eve are symbolic of society at the time. I think this is the point in history when man started to question himself about his own morals. Maybe people where beginning to be less nomadic than in the past and therefore had to take responsibility for the relationships they had with others around them. Most Christians live by the New Testament. These are the teachings of Jesus. They are basic morals that everyone should live by.

Answer 4

There are lots of Christians who believe in evolution, both macro and micro. Basically, Theistic Evolutionists believe that God set up the universe and evolution was His mechanism. Progressive Creationists usually believe in microevolution, since they generally agree to an old earth and a very old universe.

However, dog breeds aren't really an example of evolution. In order for microevolution to happen, a creature has to change from one species to another, not one subspecies to another.

While a unified definition for species is difficult to find, basically a species is anything that produces viable offspring with its own kind, but not with another kind. Coyotes and wolves are seperate species since they do not produce viable offspring if they mated.

However, any canis domesticus can breed with any other canis domesticus. A beagle can breed with a blood hound, a toy poodle with a great dane (assuming the great dane is the female, for size issues).

Answer 5

It depends on whether you're talking about microevolution or macroevolution. Microevolution, evolution within a species; i.e., different breeds of dogs, is evident. Macroevolution, the belief that two completely different species of animals came from a common ancestor, is not supported by Christians as much, especially fundamentalists. However, the Vatican has recognized macroevolution as science. However, I suggest you read the book "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. He talks to scientists and philosophers who have doctorates in several areas of science and ends up presenting a pretty valid case for Intelligent Design, which strives to unify Creationism with modern scientific practices. It's a great read, and worth checking out. It would probably answer a lot of your questions.

Answer 6

There is a disturbing trend of scientists, teachers, and students coming under attack for expressing support in the theory of intelligent design, or even just questioning evolution. The freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin's theory, or to express alternative scientific hypothesis is coming under increasing attack by people that can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists.”

New Ben Stein Flick, Expelled, Blows the Whistle on Evolution.
Expelled is a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Answer 7

Most Christians are sufficiently educated to recognize the fact of evolution in the development of living species. A number of fundamentalist sects however believe that their personal interpretations of the Bible are infallible, so when their interpretations contradict objective reality, they insist that objective reality must be non-existent. Sad. Just shows how far you can wander from truth when you make yourself the untimate authority. Of course, such misguided folks will insist that the Word of God is their ultimate authority. But obviously that is not the case, since that same Word of God is used by all Christians, and most of them don't feel the need to reject reality in order to accept God's Word. So, it is their personal interpretations that are the ultimate authority in their lives, not God's Word.

Answer 8

Apparently they don't realise that all dog "breeds" are descended from wolves, and humanity is responsible for pushing those changes.

It is quite sick really.
Most dog breeds are essentially just retarded wolves with a whole slew of deleterious mutations (locked away in the past by natural selection) brought to the surface. Shows quite nicely that "intelligence" is only good for messing up what nature was doing quite well on its own.

Answer 9

You are confusing natural selection and evolution. They are not the same. Also new dog breeds have nothing to do with evolution. New dog breeds are a result of cross breeding mostly intentional. You pick breeds that have traits you like and cross them trying to get a better dog. This is basically creating hybrids. It is not evolution or even true natural selection. It is artificial selection as man is choosing what to breed with what.

As to evolution. No I do not believe in it. It has way too many holes in it. As to natural selection which basically means organisms can adapt to their environment and the one that adapts best will survive. Yes I do believe this. I think God intended us to be this way. However it is not evolution.

By the way I am both a Christian and a scientist.

Answer 10

Check out this book: "The Collapse of Evolution." It contains a lot of science that shows organic macro evolution could NOT have happened. It uses legitimate science. No one can argue this.

The author's last name is Huse.

Answer 11

The majority of Christians are well-educated and quite up to speed on evolution and other sciences. There is, in fact a paleontologist who is a devout Christian and finds the glory of God in the unfolding of the evolutionary process.

As with any large group of people, there is a wide variety of opinion. I suspect that those who are adamantly anti-evolution are rather a vocal minority.