Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting


It is very simple - Jesus was born to rescue us from the original sin. If there is no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. Hence the whole premise for Christianity will break down. So every true Christian should believe in creation account - literally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heffalump (talk)

Reply: So are you saying that all evolutionists deny original sin? Because Darwin didn't deny original sin. -Ethan

I think the nature of sin is one of the big different between creation and evolution.

Evolution doesn't really recognize sin, and see death and suffering as a part of nature and necessary process in evolution, to evolve to new species.

But bible says that death and suffering are because of sin, it is not what God wanted, and nothing nature and necessary about it.

I think Christians who still believe in evolution don't really realize the cruelty of evolution. 90% of a group have to die off in order for the rest of the 10& to "evolve".

Counter: You assume that morally right=factually right, which simply isn't true. You can't look at the theory of evolution and claim to debunk it because it contradicts the theory it would replace.--JacobS(who will eventually get the hang of this internet thing) 07:48, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

God won't use death and suffering in His creation. And I think God is smart enough to make everything perfect in the beginning (just like what the bible says) instead of made a few amoebas and let them "evolve" over time.

For those of you who watched Dr. Kent Hovind's videos, I accept most of his views about this.Kmcheng 16:54, 25 December 2008 (EST)


Given that God created Adam and Eve, how do you explain the existence of human races?

There are forces that act on all things. These forces also act on living things. The process of reacting to these forces to descendants is called evolution.

Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. There are 6 mechanisms of evolution and we may debate the effectiveness of each one, e.g., natural selection. However, evolution is a fact of reality and is unstoppable so long as life exists. Evolution is not at odds with Christianity and it is too bad many Christians do not understand that. --Peterporcaro 15:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

As humans are capable of believing two or more contradictory things, it entirely possible (and quite common) for someone who is truly a Christian to have a wrong view about parts of the Bible, including the parts that contradict evolution. So believing in evolution does not mean that you are not truly a Christian, even though you believe something quite anti-biblical. Philip J. Rayment 21:59, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

This is very difficult to answer. I agree with Mr. Rayment - probably yes. --JBuscombe 08:15, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

As said above. --UaSsAu 08:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't understand. How can someone believe in two contradictory things? --Heffalump 18:31, 16 March 2008 (EDT) Can you give me an example of some thing you contradictory you believe in? --Heffalump 18:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Most people who believe in two contradictory things don't realise that they believe in two contradictory things. They've never really thought through the implications of the things they believe to realise that there is a contradiction. That's not always true, though. Sometimes people do realise that they believe in two contradictory things, but choose to keep believing both of them. This I cannot understand, and I can't recall any examples. More common, however, would be those that have realised that two of the things they believe in are contradictory, but don't yet know how to solve that contradiction. Many people have become Christians but continued to believe in evolution. At first, they don't see the contradiction (believing, for example, that God used evolution to create). Later, many of them realise that there is a contradiction (their compromise doesn't actually work), but don't know how to resolve that. Fortunately, many of them ultimately resolve the contradiction by rejecting evolution, but there's many others who haven't done that last step, or haven't reached that last step yet.
But the point is, salvation is not dependent on the believer accepting every last detail of what the Bible says. Those described above who eventually come to reject evolution haven't finally become Christians at the point that they reject evolution; they were already Christians before that.
Philip J. Rayment 21:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

That is a great explanation, Philip. That kind of opened my eyes. --Heffalump 14:14, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

As a theistic evolutionist I think that the story of creation is more of an allegory. As for Adam and Even and Original Sin I haven't really decided whether or not they literally existed and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, or if that is an allegory as well. To be honest, I'm more of a passive evolutionist, fully realizing that I could very well be wrong while being glad that I'll be forgiven if I am. I'm just glad that the creationism v. evolution isn't really central to Christianity. FernoKlump 00:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
That's a defeatist attitude (don't take it personally!). Today you are a "passive evolutionists", tomorrow a "passive liberal". When will you be a "passive atheist"? Sorry for kidding, but think about it. If you don't take Creation literally, everything else in the Bible can be an "allegory". There are many allegories, metaphors, parables in the Bible, but the account of Creation is not. Nowhere it mentions that it shouldn't be taken literally. I'm sure Mr.Rayment will explain it better. --AdamE 11:18, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
On the type of text of the creation account, see Creation week. If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin. If there is no original sin, then we don't need a Saviour to save us from it. Therefore we don't need Jesus. If there was no first Adam, there is no need of a last Adam. You're right; it's not central at all! Philip J. Rayment 11:34, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

As for this argument using the Adam and Eve story, this and the Theory of Evolution are not related. They are not alternatives of each other. The account of creation in the Bible is just that. It refers only to how things were created in the beginning. The Theory of Evolution concerns how life on earth has changed over time. If one is not satisfied with that argument, then perhaps this one: the Bible does not explain the means by which most forms of life were created by God. Is it not possible that God used evolution to further the variance of Earth's life forms? This idea is reminiscent of the ancient ways of explaining the universe: the apple falls from the tree because God wills it so. While this is still true, it has since been discovered that God created gravity, and this law of nature is most directly the cause of the apple's fall. It is most probable that God created evolution in the same way, to govern nature's life forms and the way that they change over time.--JArneal 21:55, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Sure, why not? Ironheart777 11:59 (PST) 25 november

I missed answering this earlier, so I will now, even though JArneal is no longer with us (on Conservapedia, that is).
The evolutionary and biblical stories are alternatives, because they are incompatible. No, it is not possible that God used evolution, given that evolution requires billions of years, whilst the Bible clearly and unambiguously records that creation took six ordinary days, among other differences.
The Bible does record how most forms of life were created: to reproduce "after their kind", i.e. not by becoming another kind, as evolution claims.
Other differences are the order of creation (the Bible has birds before reptiles, for example), and that there was no death before mankind.
Philip J. Rayment 05:36, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

I am a Roman Catholic. In 1996, Pope John Paul II accepted evolution of our physical bodies by means of natural selection, as long as our souls were created by God, we can accept both Genesis and evolution. --LincolnShuddered

I don't think the Pope said that, and you don't provide a quote.--Andy Schlafly 13:45, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
I had a quick look for it, and found this quote instead, "my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points" Pope John Paul II. - JamesCA 02:14, 25 November 2011 (EST)

I hope I am not coming late to the party (although I clearly am looking at the edit dates :P) but I would like to share a belief of mine on evolution. I think that originally God created Adam and Eve and all that good stuff in Genesis, however evolution was also by God's design as well. Perhaps He wanted us to enjoy the majesty of him creating such a diverse history and how if life existed on Earth before Adam and Eve, that would be what it looks like. It would give us something to admire Him and His creation. However I believe that the concept of evolution was contorted by Satan in such a way that people began to use it as a substitute to Adam and Eve's story. Not sure if that made any sense, but, yeah.--CR 00:20, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

I appreciate your sharing this, but honestly it doesn't make any sense to me. What's your view of the Flood? Original sin? The reason for Christ's Passion? Everything unravels once a student falls for the liberal of evolution.--Andy Schlafly 13:45, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
I believe in all the things you mentioned, I'm not accepting evolution as the way the Earth or humans were made, just something added by God afterwards.--CR 13:47, 29 May 2010 (EDT)