Rants - Can a real Christian believe in evolution (macro?)

Rants: Can a real Christian believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution (macro evolution)?

Quick definition of what we are talking about here when we mention 'evolution'. We mean 'naturalistic transformist hypothesis' (to quote Dr Carl Wieland), the idea that all life forms share common ancestry, that life originally came out of non-life, and that given enough time, goo turned into you. Some evolutionists may think this description is unkind or unfair, but when you strip away the faff and the frills and if they're honest, that is what macro evolution is. And if they don't believe in the above, I would be all the more pleased for them, anyway!

Also: Please note that in this essay I will not be attempting to prove or argue for or against macro evolution, or special creation/intelligent design. If you feel the essay strays into 'hit-and-run' on those grounds at all, feel free to request other materials, or simply wait for me to write more (give me a chance :P) or list links to other materials already doing so. Thanks.

The real question here is not 'can they?' because the answer to this is clear; they can because some do. In order to question their actual faith/salvation, one has to posture a logical absurdity; that only full and correct knowledge of the universe leads to salvation ... and that is NOT what Christianity is about. Who then would decide what knowledge we have to get right to 'be saved'; must we fully understand (scientifically) the virgin birth, or origins, or the resurrection, or healings, or the exact activity of demons...you see the trouble. Faith leaves the picture, conveniently in all the places where sceptics want it to be dashed. They dictate the game, and knowledge becomes 'god'.

No, the real question is 'is it consistent to believe the Darwinian theory and still be a Christian?'

I would like to add to this question, the option of being Neo-Darwinian, Gouldian, or any other type or form of macro evolutionist. The reason is simple; it is the actual argument of macro evolution that either does or does not present a problem to Christians claiming to believe in it, whilst also remaining consistent with their beliefs. To my knowledge, Darwin himself was mostly in the business of testing little thoughts and ideas that he had of macro and micro evolution, but only ever came up with proofs of micro evolution (Darwin's finches etc.).

'Templeton had long had doubts about the history in Genesis, which is foundational to the entire structure of the Gospel, and how it seemed to contradict the ‘scientific facts’. Logically, ‘millions of years’ meant that the fossils were laid down long before man, hence before sin. But the fossils showed death, bloodshed and disease. So the whole idea of a Fall ruining a once-perfect world, to be redeemed via the ‘last Adam’, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:46) was meaningless. And no-one seemed to be able to give Templeton answers to his associated questions: How could Noah fit all those animals onto the Ark? Where did the water come from?'

According to the above, large sections of the macro evolutionist position (the age of the earth and the fossil record, amongst others) actually undermine and seem to not correspond honestly with the Word of God as laid down in the Bible.

If the fossil record is what macro evolutionists say it is (a geological column representing ages and time) then the Bible must be wrong or at the very least, metaphorical when it makes the claim that Adam and Eve lived before the fall to sin, which the Bible teaches brought death, decay and destruction to the earth and everything in it. Couple that with the ages that macro evolutionary theory teaches, and you reach the situation described on the AiG web site; whereby before the time that we know (due to the Bible's chronological listings of people) Adam and Eve are said to have walked the earth, that death, decay, disease and disaster existed as part of what God was at that same time in the Bible calling a 'good' and 'very good' creation (Genesis chapter 1).

There are some bizarre versions of 'the Gap theory' out there which attempt to alleviate this problem, but it simply doesn't work out. At the end of the day, if Genesis is to be taken literally, then the days of creation were exactly that, days of 24 hour length. 'Evening passed and morning came, that was the second day.' And so on.

The Hebrew word used in Genesis chapter one to describe 'day' is YOM. In its context, it is used to speak of 24 hour, actual, literal days. The only contentions that scholars seem to have with YOM is suddenly when they come to the creation account in Genesis 1, whereas all other Biblical uses of the term YOM are just as clear and accepted without much (or any) arguing. AiG said the following:

'When you look carefully at Genesis 1, you’ll notice that the first time the word day is used, it is qualified with the words night, evening, morning, and number. And for each of the other times the word day is used for the six days of Creation, we see it used with a number and the words evening or morning. In other words, the contextual usage of the word day in Genesis 1 makes it obvious that it must be interpreted as an ordinary day.'

'The major reason why people [Christians] doubt that the days of creation are 24-hour literal days usually has nothing to do with what the Bible says, but comes from outside influences. For example, many believe that because scientists have supposedly proved the earth to be billions of years old then the days of creation cannot be ordinary days.'

'Respected Hebrew dictionaries, like the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon, give a number of meanings for the word yom depending upon context. One of the passages they give for yom is meaning an ordinary day happens to be Genesis chapter 1. The reason is obvious. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase 'evening and morning', anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase, 'evening and morning'. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days.'

'If there were death, disease, and suffering before Adam rebelled – then what did sin do to the world? What does Paul mean in Romans 8 when he says the whole of creation groans in pain because of the Curse? How can all things be restored in the future to no more death and suffering, unless the beginning was also free of death and suffering? The whole message of the Gospel falls apart if one allows millions of years for the creation of the world.'

A summary of these arguments can be found at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1316.asp

The answer seems to be crystal clear to the professing, Bible-believing, true Christian. Unless you are prepared to stand either:

a) Ignorant because no one has told you otherwise and you have not sought any information

b) Inconsistent with the gospel that you believe has saved you from sin and given you eternal life with your Creator God in Heaven.

c) Arrogant enough to say that you do not care; you see the inconsistencies but you pooh-pooh them as not important to your faith.

The latter may seem plausible to many people; surely the message of the gospel is love and forgiveness and that's what matters? Well, yes that is what really matters but in an ancient kingdom, if the King's throne sat in an open desert with a low wall and no guards on the wall, his so-called 'position' would be overrun at the first half-attempt to take his ground from under him, wouldn't it? To be frank, he wouldn't stand a chance against an organised force with a mind to usurp his position. And this is exactly what the very vocal minority of militantly atheistic and naturalistic scientist community (and their followers/fans) are doing!

If you cannot argue and hold your own, you are also not reading your Bible terribly well, for it says in 1 Peter 3 14-15: 'And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled. But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defence to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.'

Now, obviously no body is perfect. God isn't expecting you to take to the streets and save everyone that you meet with your 'defence'; that in actual fact is attack, which is good but is not what this verse is talking about. It is telling you that if you have no argument, no logical reasoning for what you believe in then not only will your ministry be damaged and brought down easily by scoffers and sceptical, would-be converts, but you will also be easy prey for the more unpleasant and militant non-Christians out there, who will take some pleasure in exposing your deficiency to the world as much as they can (the Internet) and may have a very good chance of causing you to seriously question or destroy your faith. Either way; that's not good news, is it?

God and science are utterly compatible. Those arguing otherwise can be shown to be wrong at best and at worst, an excellent definition of the term 'muppet'. Christianity and science are also totally compatible, although outspoken atheist Professor Richard Dawkins can be seen on certain Theology A Level video materials, claiming that in his opinion, they are rivals. I challenge him to place any real evidence for that claim at the doors of other educated men and women who are not vehemently anti-Christian (as he has shown himself many times to be, which can be demonstrated on request) to see if his evidence can withstand a fair test. After all Richard, isn't repeated testing what scientific discovery is all about?

So the situation seems quite clear. Any Christian who claims to believe in the Gospel, which tells us that Jesus died as the 'second Adam' to redeem us of the fall to sin by the original 'first Adam' featured in Genesis, will be inconsistent, ignorant (which is proving increasingly unlikely in these days) or arrogant if they claim that macro evolution is true.

However, does this mean no one can be saved according to consistent Christianity, without belief in a literal, six day creation, a young earth and a real Adam and Eve? I would argue it does not.

Believing in the gospel doesn't mean you have to understand it in full. The Bible teaches that even a little child can understand and can find the truth when they see/hear it, therefore it would be ludicrous to suggest that all children must sit through a viable, educated and documented debate or presentation of all the varying beliefs on the origins of life and the universe, before reaching a conclusion on the truth and reliability of the gospel message. No; quite plainly one can find salvation, according to consistent, Biblical Christianity, in just one, simple way. Confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Almighty God, that He paid the price for the sins of the world and to accept that payment on a personal level, inviting Jesus into one's own personal life & heart to be your friend and King.

But because we are not saved by knowledge of all things, does not mean we should rush to the foot of the cross with blind faith. Faith will always play a part in coming to God; that much is made perfectly clear in scripture. But so will some knowledge, understanding, perhaps teaching and learning, and also the call of God on your life. God has never asked in the Bible for one to 'check their brains at the door'. He did however, ask one to check their pride, lusts and ungodly desires, which in this author's humble opinion is what really keeps a lot of people from making that decision - not the smokescreen of evolution.

To sum it up, believing is not knowing all the answers, especially straight away ("I know Kung Fu!" said Neo in The Matrix, at the moment of 'input'), but it is also not blind faith. As shown above, people whose faith rests on nothing more than a nice thought will be easy prey in a secular world, just waiting to prove them wrong. Knowledge, reason, God's call (the Holy Spirits unction) and faith all come together in that special, extra-sensational moment we call 'salvation'. But what is it all through? The grace of God and the blood of Jesus Christ. You don't need to know or understand exactly where you came from, or how God parted the Red Sea, you just need to know you need forgiveness, and become aware/convinced this is the only place to find it.

So, there is a fine line there. Militant anti-Christians will trumpet the call of 'blind faith' and 'brainless Christianity which is out-dated by science', but they will carry on doing that reguardless of whether or not actual Christians are blind faith believers or not. It is true there will always be weaker Christians intellectually, and there will always be some who simply do not know that there is even an issue (though this sort are increasingly rare these days). Others still may be of a certain disposition where they find it very hard to get into confrontational situations of debating and arguing for their faith (read witnessing). But at the end of the day, Christianity has always had its proficient defenders and so long as it has, the charge of blind faith needs to be buried once and for all exactly where it belongs; in the dustbin.

Can a Christian believe in macro evolution? Yes they can, but they are treading very dangerous ground not because God will be angry with their thoughts; but rather because other humans will be quick to pounce on such as these and point out to them the inconsistencies in their position, which may lead to a damaged or destroyed faith in God. So it's not smart, it's pretty 'blind' (see arguments that show how macro evolution and the Bible don't add up) and while you may end up saved by grace, you won't have an easy ride of it - people like Dawkins will make very certain of that.

Why do I believe that you can still be saved even if you believe in macro evolution? I've already stated various arguments for this above, but quite simply put, God doesn't expect you to know everything - He created you and knows full well what your limitations are. There was a time when I was a strong-minded and witnessing Christian, but I thought special creation (or creation science) was a right hoot! Why? Indoctrination from a very young age with picture books, schooling and pretty much every resource I'd ever seen. I placed what I 'knew to be fact' because it was always written as though it was absolutely proven totally, ahead of the Bible and just never questioned anything. You don't, do you? The Matrix film shows how we can all quite concievably wander through our lives and never question the very things which are under our noses, just because ... we never ask the right questions. It's not because we're thick, we just ... don't ask. We're too busy to bother. We are comfortable. We like the way things are at the moment and God is, at best, an insurance policy for the afterlife, in case it turns out to be true.

But one day all that changed. I did discover there was an argument going on about evolution, even though I'd never questioned it and even made fun out of certain 'Creationists', because they said the earth was created in six literal days. I mean come on - that's funny! At least it is if you think that science has 'proven totally a hundred times over' that the earth is billions of years old.

Books like 'After the flood' by Bill Cooper, 'The Answers Book' by Ken Ham and 'In the beginning' by Walt Brown began to show me that there was another way to see things. Yes; it was Biblically biased, but everyone had a bias, didn't they? You may feel today that you are not biased; that your evolutionary belief is based on solid fact alone, but as I quickly began to discover, we all do have biases, in fact strong ones. Bias sounds like a dirty and very un-scientific word. But it's not. Bias and faith are present in all of us. You assume that the test tube will not melt in your hand because glass has properties which don't do that. You assume that the drivers on the road outside your house are qualified to be there and won't aim their cars at you in a fit of rage every time you cross the street or walk down the pavement when a car is going along side of you.

But why would you? It's not very scientific of you, is it? You've seen the local car accident statistics, but if one in a thousand cars every month in your town hits something, what's to tell you that the car approaching you right now isn't one of those? Your faith in the statistics is logical but it is biased towards yourself 'not ever being on the spot where that one car a month turns out to be'. You also have absolutely no data whatsoever on the car coming towards you now. You don't know who the driver is, whether his wife just had a row with him or not, if he's been drinking, taking drugs, is driving a criminal vehicle ... the list goes on.

Certainly we should not all go around being paranoid and taking cover whenever we see a motor vehicle! But what it does show is that we all operate faith and personal bias on a regular basis. It is not a dirty word, it's a very real, street word. Frankly, as a Christian, I want to know about what's real and what works in actual, every day practise - not what sounds good on paper. I won't check my brains at the door; but I won't allow philosophy or a clever argument from a biased human being to mould my thinking, either.

In my humble view, no practising or ministering Christian will be able to last too long in the current climate if he or she believes in macro evolution, because the Bible and it do not add up. You can pretend to not care, you can mean nothing to your unsaved friends because you cannot answer their questions on it, you can hide from the whole argument or you can simply say 'I don't know, sorry'. But what you cannot do is read your Bible and find no problems there with your belief in macro evolution, which is unobserved, un-testable (therefore) and has no proven mechanism within which it could happen (see Gould's arguments with other pro-evolutionists over his belief that evolution happened in short, random and quick bursts, therefore leaving on fossil remains or transitional forms).

Reminder: Please note that in this essay I have not been attempting to prove or argue for or against macro evolution, or special creation/intelligent design. If you feel the essay strays into 'hit-and-run' on those grounds at all, feel free to request other materials, or simply wait for me to write more (give me a chance :P) or list links to other materials already doing so. Thanks.