Are Christianity and Evolution Compatible?

First of all, I would like to apologize for the elongated period of time it has taken me to respond to this topic. However, I am very busy with matters such as school and work, matters that others should learn to undertake.

In my post, "Intelligent Design: In The Classroom - A Scientific Perspective" I made the argument that Christian and Evolutionary mindsets cannot co-exist. I was asked if I would elaborate on this argument.

"I can see you provide an explanation for the 'Why?' but your argument is still deficient in explaining the how in theological terms."

First of all, I would argue the Evolutionary model as part of the negative argument against theism. The atheist uses the evolutionary model to argue against the theistic position. The Creationist model is used to support the theistic position. From this conflict in interests alone, it would be reasonable to infer that evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

However, one would say that Christianity is a religious position, and evolution is a scientific one. In other words, Christianity describes the "who" and the "what", and evolution describes the "how".

Therefore, one would be tempted to tack on the scientific vantage point of evolution to Christianity in order to make in a more logically sustainable system. This is where I find the first breakdown. Although the motive here is good, the coherence is not. But first, let me define the argument.

Creation Order: (Gen 1)
Day 1: the heavens and the earth; light
Day 2: expanse in the midst of the waters, separating waters from waters (atmosphere)
Day 3: waters below heavens gathered into one place; dry land; vegetation
Day 4: lights in expanse of heavens; two great lights
Day 5: water creatures: great sea monsters, everything that moves; birds: every winged bird
Day 6: land creatures: beasts, cattle, creeping things; Man
Day 7: God rested


1. Literal interpretation excludes possibility of evolution.

The Bible does not explicitly say how God created the Animals, or Man. However, it does give the time period, a matter of six days. Further, the Bible lists the types of animals created, suggesting that God made all the animals as they were, fully formed. It says God made man from "dust of the ground". Thus, I argue a literal interpretation of the Bible makes Christianity and evolution incompatible.

Here is a further scientific theory as to how God made the animals and Man. It is called the Creation Orchard Model. Evolution uses the tree model. Alleged Creationism uses the lawn model (where each blade of grass is a species). However, Creationists believe a more scientifically plausible model is the Orchard model, in which each leaf represents a species, and each tree represents an animal prototype.

Looking at the various speciation, it is logical to argue that certain animals have a common ancestor, because they share main traits e.g. a lion and a cat. Let's say God creates these prototypes with the sufficient amount of genetic information to speciate and adapt to particular climates and habitats.

As this speciation occurs, the animal loses genetic information, because certain genes are not suited to the habitat. However, this loss of genetic information may very well isolate the species from that once shared a common ancestor. The change is downward. speciation is not evolution in the large sense. I would argue from this model that a species can only become more specialized; it cannot acquire new genes/traits.

Now, one would use this argument to say that Man and apes share a common ancestor. I would argue the opposite from the explicit language in the creation of Adam. Have I deferred to religion to avoid the argument? No, since our argument in the first place is whether evolution and Christianity are compatible.


2. Context of the entire Bible excludes evolution.

The Bible is very elaborating (but infinitely far from exhaustive) on the characteristics of God. Basically, He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. In other words, He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and His presence (i.e. the divine) is in all life.

Now, to philosophize about God's attributes does in a way minimize His being, but this is the only way humans can think about God, since they are bound by time and space, and cannot think in infinite terms. In other words, God must condescend (come down to the human level of thinking) in order for us to understand Him at all.

Looking at God's attributes, the possibility of evolution diminishes. God is omnipotent and omniscient, therefore He could create everything in an instant. The very fact that God spends six days to create everything shows the very artistic quality and thoughtfulness behind God.

God is love. After God created all life, he called it "very good." Further, the purpose of creation, the Bible tells us, is to bring God glory. I maintain that the six day creation model, as taken literally from the Bible, brings God more glory than mindless evolution, as the pain and death and harshness of survival of the fittest would be avoided.

Stephen J. Gould once said that humans in the dawn of Man "survived by hook and crook", insinuating that survival of the fittest is a cruel notion, where animals all compete simply to exist. How could this model, simply for moral reasons, have been used by God to construct Man, who was "made in the image of God?"

Some would say that evolution could have existed, only God was directing the evolution. I see this as a last resort for the Deist (or one positing the evolutionary and Christian model), simply because its argument is evasive. However, the same logic used above also counters this view. God, in his supreme power and glory, would not stoop to such devices, when in an instant He has the ability to create the entire universe. This is the nature of infinite power, that supersedes the human understanding of space and time.

3. The evolutionary model excludes original sin.

Original sin is a foundational truth for the Christian. Starting with the acknowledgement of one's sin before a holy God is the starting point of salvation. From there one accepts the sacrifice of Christ for his/her sins and accepts Him as LORD. But from this point the Bible describes the believer's state as being saved, or sanctification, where the believer must combat the remains of the old man, or previous sin nature.

If Man evolved, there would be no basis for original sin. The Bible states that Adam and Eve were created in a perfect state, with no sin. However, evolution requires pain and death, struggle and "hook and crook". I would argue: how could a sinless Human Race exist in the thick of evolutionary struggle? I see the six day model as superior in accounting for the truth of original sin.

But one would say, "since humans did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil, they in fact had not sinned." This is a very good point. Let us examine the presuppositions: sin is based on knowledge, not action. From this logic, if I don't know it's wrong to murder, it's not sin. From this I see the incoherence of this view.

But one would further say, "what's wrong is not always sin." No, I suggest the opposite, what's sin is not always wrong. Because we as humans tend to justify ourselves comparatively to other humans, as opposed to judging ourselves according to God's perfectness. Things like selfish pride, arrogance, greed, sexual immorality, drunkenness: these tend to be justified in the eyes of the law (in most cases), but are most definitely sinful.

Adam and Eve not only lacked the knowledge of good and evil, they lacked the capacity for sin, except for a single standard they had to follow: "Do not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". Therefore, under this simplistic standard, they could not sin, until they ate of the tree. It did not matter that they lacked knowledge, when they could not sin in the first place.

4. The Nature of Providence excludes evolution.

God has a supreme will, which will come to pass. In other words, God's design for the history of the ages from beginning to end will happen just as He chooses, even with the freewill of Humans to oppose God's will and so-forth. This is the doctrine of Determinism, which Christians have struggling for ages to understand.

Here are some simple truths about determinism: God has predestined certain events to occur on Earth. God predestines all who will be saved to come to repentance. God is actively "saving" believers, giving them the grace to persevere in the faith until the very end. Also, God has willed (through prophecy) that the world will end a certain way, and that He will receive all glory.

Now, I would argue that this doctrine further excludes the possibility of evolution, since God has planned out His grande design from beginning to end: The Fall of Man, the Redemption of Man, and the Glorification of God. Evolution does not fit in this grande design, in fact is takes away from the Fall of Man, as has earlier been explained.



"Are Christianity and Evolution Compatible?" I would say no, because:
1. Literalist interpretation of the text (just as one would judge a historical text literally) excludes possibility of evolution, since evolution could not have occurred in six days.

2. The over-arching context of the Bible about God's nature excludes evolution, because God would receive more glory from a mindful work rather than a mindless work.

3. The foundational concept of original sin and the Fall of Man are stripped away with the evolutionary model, where Christianity as a whole would not function.

4. The deterministic concept excludes evolution, as evolution is not part of God's overall plan, and in fact takes away from the plan.

Intelligent Design: A Philosophical/Logical Approach

Is religion simply hardwired into human brains? Why do humans have a seemingly irrational attraction to God? Is this a defense mechanism programmed into the human brain that allowed Humans to survive over the centuries?

I would say no, religion is not simply hardwired into the human brain.

Presuppositions of above question:
a. Religious thought is irrational behavior.
b. God does not exist.

If God exists, a longing for some spiritual connection would exist. Therefore, religion would not be irrational.

Thus, religious thought is rational valid point if God exists.

Breakdown of the argument against the existence of God:
atheism derives from the Greek root:
a-theos -> negative + "God"

The statement "God does not exist" declares an absolute negative, which is a logical fallacy. The moment atheism is affirmed, the person is essentially saying, "there is no being with infinite knowledge in this world, and I know that to be infinitely true by virtue of my own infinite knowledge."

The next stance atheists take is the position that theism has not presented itself with a defendable stance, in which case atheism is chosen by default.

p: God exists.
q: God does not exist.

To argue against position p, and posit another, q, you must prove all other systems are equally invalid.

Evidence for position p:
1. Logical Consistency (no contradictions in the system).
2. Empirical Adequacy (outside evidence confirms the system).
3. Experiential Relevance.

Position p also answers the existential questions each system must face:
1. Origin.
2. Morality.
3. Meaning.
4. Destiny.

Position q faces some existential negatives:
1. Lack of moral law - moral relativism in which right and wrong are indeterminate.
2. No meaning - life loses meaning without some greater purpose, i. e. a theos directing things.
3. No hope - the atheist is unable to cope with evil and death, because there is no higher answer.
4. Pascalian wager - the Christian, if wrong, has fulfilled the atheist's test of life: happiness and fulfillment. The atheist, if wrong, has not fulfilled the Christian's test, and is subject to eternal judgment.

Now, let's take position p a step further, and say that God is the Christian God of the Bible.

The Law of Noncontradiction (either-or system) reflects reality. Therefore, Jesus was making a most reasonable statement when He claimed exclusivity.

This Law also states that truth by definition is exclusive. This fact is proven by the fact you can either agree or disagree with what I just said.

Thus, two different religions making different truth claims cannot both be true. So how does one decide which religion is true?

The Three Tests of belief systems (mentioned above for position p):
1. Logical Consistency.
2. Empirical Adequacy.
3. Experiential Relevance.

1. The Bible is the most logical consistent manuscript to date. It presents one overarching theme throughout (the redemption of Man and glorification of God). It contains no contradictions.

2. Empirical evidence for the Christian position is overwhelming, from cosmology to microbiology to historical facts.

3. The Christian faith is coherent, and applicable to reality. Some examples:

-Nature of Humanity: the Bible's description of sin is very applicable to the state of the world, and explains why we struggle so much with human flaws and human error.

-Nature of Suffering: pain and death pervades our world. But meaninglessness comes not from being weary of pain, but of pleasure. The Christian sees suffering as a necessary element in life, but as Life's fundamental questions are answered, suffering is only peripheral; joy is central in life.

-Nature of Reality: the classical philosophers searched for unity in diversity. In the Christian mindset, theology is the queen of the sciences, unifying them to one goal. Similarly, the Christian life, with all its diverse functions and capacities, is unified to a uniform expression of worship to God. Not to mention the nature of unity in diversity caught up in the Trinity, unity, diversity, community.

-Nature of History: history is not one blank thing after another. It serves a purpose. With Jesus and the Cross at the center of the paradigm, one can see the unfolding of history's meaning. Not to mention the countless fulfillments of prophecy in the Bible, spanning hundreds and some thousands of years.

-Nature of Destiny: eternity is set in the mind of humanity. Hence phrases such as "My, he's grown", or "how that year just flew by"; we as humans are unaccustomed to the passing of time. This is like a fish being surprised by the wetness of water. It points that we have eternity written on our hearts. The Christian mindset fulfills this longing for eternity with promises of hope given to the believer. The Resurrection of Christ serves as the ultimate hope for the believer, because through this resurrection, he/she may hope one day to be resurrected in glorified bodily form in heaven.



So, is Christianity just a defense mechanism set in the human brain from years of evolution to survive through the centuries? I would say no, because there is adequate logical evidence God exists, therefore religion is reasonable, and Christianity meets the 3 tests for truth.

So here is one last piece of meat/logic: if religious thought is derived from a defense mechanism over years of evolutionary advancement, then all thought is a defense mechanism, enabling us to survive. Therefore, the argument, that religion is a defense mechanism, is itself a defense mechanism, and thus self-defeating.

This is why I believe Christianity to be logically sustainable.

The Foodstamp Program: Necessary Reform

I am an employee at Sheetz. An employee for 3 1/2 years, I seen many things, ranging from car wrecks to angry customers throwing sandwiches at employees. But these unfortunate circumstances appear trivial when compared to the misuse of the Federal Foodstamp Program.

I once read a bumper sticker: "Keep working! Millions of people on Welfare depend on you."

Now, I am a proponent of helping the poor and needy. I wish that more Americans would take the initiative to help the needy themselves than rely on the Government to undertake this task. However, I know that it is necessary for these Government programs to exist.

My complaints against Foodstamps:

1.The Foodstamp Program is outdated because it has no restriction on items: Customers are free to buy any cold food item, including soda, candy bars, gum, potato chips, etc.

2. The Foodstamp Program is wasteful of tax payers' money: Customers are free to spend funds however they wish, in which they tend to buy expensive items (such as made to order sandwiches) rather than basic foods (such as flour, bread, packaged meat) for wholesome meals.

3. The Foodstamp Program is easily abused: the most common non-food items a Foodstamps customer buys is cigarettes and alcohol. Tax payer dollars are basically freeing Foodstamps customers' funds to afford these items.

4. The Foodstamp Program sets no goal: Foodstamps customers are given no incentive to get out of this Foodstamps-dependent state. On the contrary, it encourages customers to remain in this state.

5. The Foodstamps Program rewards immorality: People who have premarital sex and get pregnant are easily eligible for Foodstamps. This mindset in a way rewards premarital sex. Only those in financially desperate situations should be eligible for Foodstamps.

This is clearly evidence the Foodstamp program should at the very least be reformed, if not eliminated altogether. If reform were to occur, I would base it on changing the above points:

1. Restrict more stringently the items Foodstamps can buy: items such as basic foods (bread, eggs, lunch meats, cereals, milk) and basic ingredients (flour, baking products).

2. Place weekly allowances on all accounts.

3. Foodstamps families must provide record of expenses. (This also encourages financial independence in the future, and provides incentive).

4. Along with a record of expenses, customers should be required to allot funds for savings. Also, there should be goals, and rewards if families reach these goals.

5. Raise eligibility standards to only those who are financially desperate, apart from respect to national origin, sex, or religious convictions.

The first two above points are the core of the matter and the easiest to reform. Simple updates to computer systems would change the inventory items available for purchase with foodstamps. Weekly caps would be easy to set to fight wastefulness.

The second two points would be more difficult to produce. However, the solutions could be quite simple: Agents could be hired (such as social workers) to bring families out of poverty. Their tasks would be to assign a family a budget, create a savings account in which a family puts money weekly if not monthly. This would help create financial responsibility and further promote incentive to get out of poverty.

One thing is true: the Government is excellent at wasting tax-payer money. The Foodstamps program is an example, and needs reform in order to prove more resourceful with tax-payers' dollars.

Perhaps one day a bumper sticker will say, "Keep working. Your tax-dollars are helping families get back on their feet."