Evangelicals Accept Evolution

What’s the evidence that the numbers of Evangelicals open to evolution as an explanation of origins is on the increase?

As a Freshman at Olivet Nazarene College in 1966, then President, Dr. Harold W. Reed, spoke in an opening convocation length chapel. Although I do not recall the formal title, I cannot forget his thesis: Why I am a theistic evolutionist and why you ought to be as well. One reason I remember this event from more than 40 years ago is that he gave the same address a few years later, during my senior year (if memory serves).

So, in some respects, he was saying then what you are saying now. The difference is that he was a Nazarene college president, generally perceived to be a very conservative one, at that. (You and I are just lowly professors.)

During my 34 years as a Nazarene college professor, I have never heard any president say anything about evolution in a public forum. (Maybe I just don’t listen as well as I used to.) But it is my guess that no sitting Evangelical college, university, or seminary president would dare do what Dr. Reed did in 1966.

Why not? It is not because these presidents are not open to evolutionary theory. Hires in their Schools of Science suggest otherwise. It is because (I think) the evidence suggests that Evangelical resistance to evolutionary thought has never been higher.

This resistance has been fueled by the theological and commercial interests of such groups as so-called Creation Science Research and Answers in Genesis. The Intelligent Design movement has also offered itself as a mediating alternative between the perceived extremes, giving Evangelicals another option.

Dr. Gilbert Ford, late professor of physics and longtime Dean at Northwest Nazarene College, reported to me that during the same era that I was exposed to theistic evolution at Olivet he could speak quite openly about his preference for theistic evolution. But as he neared the end of his career in the 1990s, he had to become extremely cautious, in response to the decibels and number of the objections from the college constituency.

Evidence for my disagreement with your opening statement is entirely anecdotal. And I have exhausted it. What is the evidence for your position?

Is there, perhaps, truth on both sides? That is, are Evangelicals more divided on this subject than ever? Have we, like the rest of contemporary society, lost the ability to engage in civil discourse? And, if both are so, what does this bode for the future of the Evangelical movement? Are we doomed to be divided by “culture wars”?

Tom,

The church has had to adapt to observed findings for centuries. (Who believes that the earth is the center of the solar system?) It is time that the church face the observed findings of evolution.  It does not discount God, it confirms God scientifically.

An open discussion on this topic is vital for the integrity and relevance of the church.

Nice post.  I’m happy to see theologians who are evangelizing for evolution.  I think that there are a number of books that are good that say that Christianity and evolution are compatible in general… it’s the “next level” books that need to be written that help Evangelicals move from inerrancy but still keep inspiration. 

scienceandtheology.wordpress.com

I agree to sum degree that evolution has occurred. But my question is, “are you saying that man came from ape? or are you saying that over a period of time things have changed (evolved) to fit or adjusted their condition, size,etc. to the changing of the world. that I agree with. Look at man. Even man has become larger than he was, saying 30 yrs. ago. Animals change to meet their need to survive.

Convergence evolution is an interpretation based on a non-biblical ideology, not an unbiased presentation of data.

The earliest human fossils show a range of anatomical features yet all these features are found among humans today. The nearly complete skulls of people who lived 160,000 years ago are, in the words of paleontologist Tim White, “like modern-day humans in almost every feature.”

When Jeremy DeSilva, a British anthropologist, compared the ankle joint, the tibia and the talus of fossil “hominins” between 4.12 million to 1.53 million years old, he discovered that all of the hominin ankle joints resembled those of modern humans rather than those of apes. Chimpanzees flex their ankles 45 degrees from normal resting position. This makes it possible for apes to climb trees with great ease. While walking, humans flex their ankles a maximum of 20 degrees. The human ankle quite distinct from that of apes.

In 1979 Mary Leakey discovered early footprints of humans at Laetoli in Tanzania. The footprints were preserved about 3.6 million years ago under falling ash from the nearby Sadiman volcano. The raised arch and rounded heel of the footprints showed that these creatures walked as humans today. Unfortunately, Lucy and her kin were given the name “Australopithicus” (meaning ape of the south) by Donald C. Johanson, though Mary Leakey would have called the finds Homo. She expressed her regret that “the Laetoli fellow is now doomed to be called Australopithecus afarensis,” a name contrary to the evidence that Lucy and her people walked upright, had oppositional thumbs, short fingers, human dentition, built fire, shared their food, and used flints to scrap, saw and chop. There is evidence that Lucy and her kin butchered meat. This pushes back the use of butchering flints in this region from 2.6 to 3.4 million years ago. Here is the gist of the report: “stone-tool-inflicted marks on bones found during recent survey work in Dikika, Ethiopia, a research area close to Gona and Bouri. On the basis of low-power microscopic and environmental scanning electron microscope observations, these bones show unambiguous stone-tool cut marks for flesh removal and percussion marks for marrow access.” Microscopic stone fragments were found in the cut marks on the 2 fossilized bones, marks made by stone tools.

With DNA samples from 2400 individuals from more than 100 modern African populations, researchers have identified a panel of 1327 sites of genetic variation across the entire genome. Analysis of the data suggests that modern Africans are descended from 14 ancestral populations, which correlate with known linguistic groups. Comparative linguistics and genetics are moving to similar conclusions when it comes to the question of “change” among humans. The evidence in both fields indicates a limited amount of flux, but no essential change.

In other words, there is no evidence of essential change within “kinds”, and no support for the macro-evolutionary view of change from one kind into another kind. Roux and others say, “Evolutionary convergence at the molecular level is presumed to be widespread, but is poorly documented.”  (Roux et al. 1998) The identification of a unusual antigen receptor protein structure found in camels and nurse sharks can’t be explained by having a common ancestor.

Consider the work of Richard Lenski at Michigan State University. He has grown E. coli in the test-tube for more than 40,000 generations. The first generations showed little mutation. Then a “mutator” strain arose, after which new genetic varieties were present in all cells, resulting in more than 250 varieties. The total number of single changes is more than a thousand, yet Lenski has produced nothing fundamentally new.

Genesis teaches a fixed order in creation, that is, life at all levels has boundaries beyond which it develops only abnormally. That’s how we are able to identify anomalies.

Scientists seem to accept evolution more readily than do theologians. This could be because the Bible is not scientists’ focal point. Theologians seem to sometimes try to apply the Bible in areas it should not be used, such as trying to derive scientific facts from the Bible. I think that the Bible does not necessarily support evolution, but nor does it completely deny the possibility of evolution. I believe that God can create in whatever way God desires, so long as it does not go against God’s nature.

When you stated, “I believe God works through or alongside natural selection, genetic mutation, self-organization, and other evolutionary mechanisms,” does this mean that you are for evolution as a means of mankind’s existence today? maybe i completely misread that, but it seems like that would be contradictory to what Christianity was founded on…the creation of Adam and Eve and the first man and woman by God, rather than the evolution of humans from chimpanzees.
Another statement you made later on implied that the church needs to accept both God as the Creator and evolution…but this concept seems so foreign to me. Being raised in a Christian Church, I was basically taught that you had to choose God as Creator and that the scientific theory of evolution was a hoax that only those who denied God believed in. Following this you state, “In sum, Evangelicals should affirm the evidence for common descent and an ancient universe. They can do so while still affirming God’s creative and designing activity.” How are we to go about doing this exactly without becoming skeptics?

Hello again,

I just had to address a couple of comments. First of all, evolution does not state that we came from apes or chimpanzies. It says that we have a common ancestor.  Humans and apes branched off in different directions.

Secondly, the name “Adam” literally means “earthling.”  I comes from the Hebrew word for earth.  To personify Adam and Eve is to miss a very important lesson in Genesis. WE are all Adam and Eve and we have ALL taken from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We are all culpable for our action.  The lesson of Genesis applies to every generation and every human. To make the persons literal misses the message.

We must free ourselves from the literal account of Genesis. Any one reading Genesis will see two completely different creation accounts. Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-. The first account is attributed to the Priestly level of tradition. Then in 2:4 the creation account begins again, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” This is attributed to the yahwastic tradition. This second account is completely different in order and focus. Where Chapter one has man created last, the second account has man created first. Any objective comparison shows that they are from different sources and cannot be reconciled.

Therefore, we are not confined to a literal interpretation of creation because Genesis itself is not lacking ambiguity.

Which brings me to my original question to you: I’m okay with methodological naturalism as the a priori episteme for operational science, but is it an adequate assumption for historical science? Since evd3 is the dominant scientific definition for the term “evolution” and since it is almost entirely in the historical side of science, I’m very cautious and skeptical to accept the premise of it being true, both scientifically and philosophically. I would challenge you to be cautious as well, especially because of your influence on so many people and especially our students. Studying the past requires making assumptions about the past and we should be very certain that our assumptions are correct or we run the dangerous risk of misleading those who look up to us!

The evidence, contrary to what you say, only points to evd3 because that is the lens (naturalism) through which you and the “majority” of scientists are filtering the evidence. The evidence also fits (and I would argue is a better fit of the data) if one looks at it through a design paradigm. Ultimately this whole argument is not over the evidence, but presuppositions. Which lens gives more clarity of reality? I would strongly argue the lens of design.

Are you familiar with Antony Flew, the highly venerated British atheist? As you may know, he is now a deist. Why? Because he saw new scientific discoveries brought his personal philosophy, which was built on naturalism and atheism, into tension with the science. What data ultimately led him to abandon his life-long commitment to atheism? The information and complexity found in DNA and genetics! Wow, what a testament of humility on his part to change his worldview and what a testament to the power of the design argument where evolution (evd3) is not accepted.

Since you use “the majority of scientists” argument, the “majority” would step from methodological naturalism to ontological naturalism. You probably don’t like this leap, nor do I, but this is what the “majority” are doing in the scientific community (see Ecklund, E. H. and C. P. Scheitle. 2007. Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics. Social Problems 54: 289–307). So to use the power of majority argument (which is not scientific at all!), that would make ontological naturalism true and we evangelicals should integrate this thinking as well? I hope you would disagree and I hope you would see why I disagree and challenge the assumption of methodological naturalism as a sufficient philosophy for all “science.”

Now, this gets to one of my biggest concerns with what you have written and why I have taken the time to respond to your blog. Why are you so eager to encourage evangelicals to accept evolution (evd3) and to integrate tenants of naturalism into their beliefs? Do you really view naturalism (a worldview that pictures reality, being, and existence containing nothing supernatural) and theism as being compatible? Antony Flew didn’t, because, I would argue, he understood that there was a deep tension if one used the scientific accepted definition of evolution (evd3).

As I see it and have tried to clarify above, this reasoning is a violation of one of the basic laws of thought – the principle of contradiction: something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. Naturalism – nothing supernatural exists; Theism – something supernatural exists. “A” is both A and non-A. In other words, “there is nothing supernatural and this supernatural being created through evolution.” Are you really asking evangelicals to live with and to accept this tension? Are you insinuating we accept some kind of unspoken dialectic (like Hegalian or Fichte) here?

Hey, Dr. Oord!  I have really enjoyed reading your blog and the extremely interesting interesting dialogue that followed.  I am not nearly smart enough or informed enough to add anything at length, but I will say that this is an important conversation for us to have because this issue isn’t going away.

One of the reasons I think there has been so much strong emotion from many inside evangelical circles is because of the radical atheistic evolutionarists that want to use the theory to explain away God.  When we feel like our foundation is being shaken and we are about to loose everything we hold dear, we have a tendency to allow fear to send us in to a “fight or flight” mode.  Many have chosen to fight.

I can’t say that I am 100% one direction or the other on this issue, but I think that we as Christians have a responsibility to look at the issue with humility and respect for all.  Quite honestly, our pursuit is for the truth, wherever that leads us.  We should be open to new information and evidence as it becomes available.  If we are confident in our faith, then we can be confident that nothing “proven” by science will contradict what the bible says about the nature of God and salvation.

BLM

Tim Anstine wanted to also post this comment, but the word limits prevented him…

Tom,

First, I realize that this is a blog and thus said it is accepted in blogosphere land to voice anything one desires. However, because a number of students are reading this, I must voice a few counter-points to what you have written and challenge you on your attempt to marshal evangelicals to blend naturalism (a worldview that pictures reality, being, and existence containing nothing supernatural) and theism into their beliefs.

I’m most definitely not an uberscientist, but have been trained to think as a scientist in some of the leading universities in the country (including a postdoctoral fellowship at UC Berkeley in high-energy organic photochemistry). Please know that I am not writing this in an attempt to alter your beliefs. I am writing this as a former theistic evolutionist who would like to voice a few of the reasons why I reject the need to live with the tension intrinsic to theistic evolution and why I strongly discourage the acceptance of “evolution” by evangelicals.

The Evidence Points to Evolution.

This is a highly specious first point. What do you mean by “evolution” here? Are you talking change over time (evd1), descent with modification (evd2), decent with modification leading to the existence and explanation for all life and all variations of living forms (evd3), or something else?

No scientist that I have ever discussed this with would disagree with evd1 and just a few question evd2 because of questions of ascent or descent (evolution or devoltion). The growing concern in the scientific community is most definitely over evd3. Is the neo-Darwinian synthesis adequate or sufficient enough to explain the existence and explanation for all life and all variations of life forms? I and a number of highly qualified scientists strongly doubt this. And I need to say that the doubt is not theologically based. It is entirely scientifically based. Here is a link to a database containing many scientists who doubt evd3 and agree with this statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Of course, you and I would agree (I hope) that Christianity and ontological naturalism (the view that our best explanation of what there is, is what science says there is) are incompatible. Where I think we disagree is the necessity of methodological naturalism (limiting scientific research to natural causes only) and whether it is compatible with the Christian worldview.

I’m sure you are well aware of this, but maybe your readers are not. Epistemically, there are two “types” of science, if you will, and unfortunately, these are often confused by labeling both “science.” First, there is operational science which looks at how things work. Artificial hearts, rockets, iPods, penicillin, etc… would be examples of the science that has brought these things about. These areas of science are what we call falsifiable. This doesn’t mean that they are false, but that scientists can conduct experiments to determine if indeed they are repeatable and test whether a hypothesis is correct or incorrect.

But then there is historical science (or more specifically, origins science) which looks at how things originate or originated. Questions of how things like solar systems, planets, the atmosphere, DNA, proteins, cells, bacteria, etc… came into being would fit into this realm, as well as the big bang and my personal areas of interest, abiogenesis and chemical evolution. These areas of science are much more difficult to falsify because they are explanations of past events based on the interpretation of evidence. For example, how would one falsify a singularity like the big bang? It can’t be duplicated, and thus, would extremely difficult if not impossible to falsify.

Since all science rests on the objectivity of mathematics and the subjectivity of philosophy, which realm of science is more susceptible to bad philosophy? It is demonstrably true that operational science rests heavily on mathematics and “laws”, and origins science rests heavily on philosophy. Depending on one’s a priori commitments and presuppositions, if the philosophical assumptions are incorrect, origins science is much more at risk of being off the path of discovering truth (something I think we would both agree we are seeking) and a growing number of highly qualified scientists are beginning to believe it is off the path.

George and Stan,

I have seen some recent polls taken by the American Scientific Affiliation that suggests a growing number of evangelicals affirm evolution. If I remember correctly, these polls were of professors in Evangelically-oriented educational institutions. They were not polls reflecting the “common Evangelical.”

Among Nazarene scientists, I know many teaching at various institutions in the U.S. who affirm the general theory of evolution. They may even comprise the majority. But most are not as open about affirming evolution as leading voices like Darrel Falk, Karl Giberson, and Rick Colling.

I wish the atmosphere in the denomination were more friendly to this conversation. But in the interest of avoiding conflict, I think few have offered venues for open and safe conversation.

Thanks for the comments,

Tom

Hi Tom,

Thanks for being careful on your language – using “accept” as in accepting evolution rather than to “believe” in evolution.  This is a helpful distinction that better demarcates the boundaries of and sources of evidence in science and faith.

In light of the many good comments above, people may argue about the merits and validity of theory of evolution (TOE).  However, TOE is still the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. What other scientific theory comes close to challenging it?  Evolution as a comprehensive theory remains tentative but has certainly endured the test of time and accumulating evidence.  If detractors of evolution can provide something in its place that has a naturalistic explanation, then they should do so.  Whatever the explanation, we evangelicals can say with one voice that God is the ultimate (or primary) cause of the creation and we should look to science for proximate (or secondary) causes as God’s means in creating.  As Francis Collins often says, “God is not threatened by our scientific discoveries.”

Not to raise more questions, but some areas (other than how to interpret the Bible) remain important for evangelicals to work out if they accept evolution: How did humans acquire a soul (first, let’s define the soul); theodicy (past and present); and teleology (and God’s action in the world).  Denis Lamoureux’s recent book and some of your books go a long way in addressing these issues.  However, they may still represent major impediments to an evangelical’s acceptance of evolution.

Cheers,
Mark

I am an avowed “unbeliever” in the Christian religion (but not an unbeliever in God or Jesus as the focal point of deity in this world)who enjoys friendly “chats” on the subject with the local Nazarene pastor. He gave me your website as a source of information on Christianity. Imagine my shock when I saw the leading article on why evangelicals should accept the Theory of Evolution!
To say that “the evidence points to Evolution, especially in biology, is insane. Biology is the weakest argument in favor of the theory. To believe it, you have to believe that life began by the random union of a few units (of whatever description you prefer) of sub-microscopic substances over course of uncounted billions of years. It would be more
rational to believe the the works of Shakespeare could be duplicated by a chimp randomly pounding on a typewriter for 10 billion years.
There are many rational arguments that point out in detail the fictions of the “proofs” of Evolution that need not be presented here.
Let us simply say that there is an observable, intelligent design to everything we see in the universe.

I enjoyed reading your post and the subsequent responses.  I am not convinced God did create using evolution, but I am convinced God could have created using evolution.
You wrote “similarities of bone structures across species, fossil continuity, genetic sequencing, and more point to evolution as the general theory that best accounts for the emergence of life over a long period of time and the common descent of species.” I would disagree.
This is not solid evidence of evolution for me.  Fashion designers, painters, sculptors, and other artists are often recognized by certain characteristics that are present even in vastly different works of art.  God’s creations could also have similarities because of the same designer/artist created them.

Absurd my friend. As a scientist and a teacher I am obliged to tell you you are wrong. Evolution is a flawed theory and many secular scientist will concur. I could go on for hours, but just consider these few facts. Evolution has not showm change from one KIND of animal to another.. (kinds are described in the bible).. what evolutionists point to is known as MICRO evolution or variation within a kind, such as within birds we see variations, same as dogs… but we do not see any macro evolution… micro evolution is NOT evolution.
I really do not think you have done your homework… feel free to ask away.

Very minor thought I had as I read through this post – nicely written by the way – and its subsequent comments. My thought is this: how much should we (Christians) care about this topic? I have seen many an article on evolution and I am curios what the full implications are for landing on any side of this issue? Perhaps someone could enlightening me to the factors that make this topic such a necessary debate for Christians? I am not trying to say “who cares”, rather I am saying with seriousness “why should we care?”

I can’t help but wonder, would we be searching for ways to disprove scientific observation if we were not boxed in by an interpretation of the Bible? In Galileo’s day it was held by the church that the planets and moons were perfect, because God made them so. When Galileo looked at the moon through the telescope he saw craters, mountains and rifts. When this was presented to the church he was chastized. Today, everyone knows that the moon and other celestrial bodies are not “perfect.”  We had to accept observervations over theology.

The same goes for evolution. The evolution that scientists see is challenged because it does not fit our theology. I believe we need to see what the cosmos and life tells us then see what it tells us about God, not begin with our belief systems and then make judgments over what we observe.

Hi Tom!
Thank you for your excellent article.
In this context, I would like to call your attention – and that of your readers – to the following article: “Augustine’s Origin of Species”, by Alister McGrath, which appeared in the May, 2009 issue of Christianity Today, (pp.39-41). Although St. Augustine, of course, did not know about Darwin, he nonetheless had some valuable insights into the issues involved in Scriptural interpretation which may be relevant to our times.
It may be that you and/or your readers are already aware of this (and similar) articles. If so, fine; but I just wanted to bring it up in the event that you might not have seen it.
Cheers,
Charles

This is an interesting blog post Tom.  Science has never really grabbed my attention but i have always been a curious person.  It is probably because all the atoms and dna/rna and such stuff has been a big “say what?!” to me but it is interesting.  I do not know that much about evolution but what i have heard is that with evolution things should be continually getting better, but now today and throughout history it seems that things are getting worse. Yes we are gaining more knowledge of stuff and how to scientifically better stuff but life in general is declining.  I do not think that believing in evolution or not believing in evolution is a salvation deal breaker.  I think the more important thing is what a person believes about God as savior of the world and how that person lives their life according to that belief.

I’ve seen mentioned several times in this blog the need for civil discourse and having a calm conversation of this issue. 

Evolution has really ‘come out of the closet’ in Nazarene circles lately, but evolution seems to me to contradict the scripture on several levels.  The call for civility strikes me as an effort to blunt criticism—part of a desire to let evolution become accepted orthodoxy as fast as possible.

Mr. Rhodes,

Thank you for your comment above! It saddens and, quite frankly, infuriates me that you had to go to a secular university to hear both sides of the debate. There is something so very wrong here!

My son sat in a biology class this year at one of our Nazarene universities where he heard ONLY the “facts” of evolution. I – a parent paying a lot of money for him to go to a Christian university – had to provide him with the abundant evidence for biblical creationism and the means to refute the very weak claims his professor had made to try to substantiate arguments for Darwinian evolution. 

Why can’t we present both (or all) sides for the origins of life at a CHRISTIAN university? Where is our Nazarene leadership on this?

Hi Dr. Oord,

Thanks for your post. While I disagree with the evolutionary theory and the idea that more should accept it, I am pleased to see that you have actually brought this topic to the table in order to be discussed. I believe someone else who replied here said that they have felt like an outcast in many cases due to their acceptance of the evolutionary theory. This is funny to me personally because I have experienced just the opposite. I have felt as if my concerns about evolution have been down played or avoided due to my belief in Intelligent Design and rejection of Darwinian evolution.

Some have already pointed out that there needs to be a clear understanding of the definition being used for the word evolution. Micro-evolution talks about changes over small periods of time within a kind. There is evidence for this. We can literally observe this in nature. However this does not coincide with Darwinian evolution due to the changes being done within a kind. We have not seen any changes from one kind to another kind which is what Darwinian evolution confuses. Macro-evolution means that there are changes over long periods of time from one kind to another. This has never been observed. As a matter of fact there is more convincing scientific data showing that the theory of evolution is entirely false. Biochemist Michael Behe has contributed to this evidence with what he calls “irreducible Complexity.” Irreducible complexity states that you must have all the working parts of something at the same time in order for it to work. Meaning-and using the example of the eye-the eye would have to have all its parts working together at the same time and no part left to still need to form over time. Maybe that is a bad example but all this is covered in his book: Darwin’s Black Box. I would encourage you to check this out along with another great read and one that has really opened my eyes called: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist” by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler. There is some compelling evidence in these reads whether you like the authors or not.

Either way, I enjoy the fact that you bring these type of discussions to your blog and that we are able to talk peacefully as Christian brothers and sisters seeking truth together.

Dr. Oord,

Thank you for this excellent article.  I have written a short book on this subject, the entire text of which is available online at:

http://truecreation.info

None of us were around when God created the universe, but the overwhelming evidence from biology, geology, genetics and genomics point to an old earth and the common descent of all life through natural processes solely by the will of God.

I appreciate all the wonderful comments on the blog as I scrolled through to the bottom.  I have two points to express.  The first has to do with the Bible being used for a science text when it was designed to tell us about God’s love.  The phrases of the Bible telling us how to get to heaven. . . and how to find abundant life. . . are appropriate.  Using the Bible any other way comes very close to breaking a couple of the 10 commandments.
  Also, on the idea of co-creators, I like the idea but would like to point out the responsibility we must assume as co-creators when we approach activities such as cloning and DNA manipulation. The caution is to remember the splitting of the atom.  The original intent was to find a new source of energy.  However, God had to know some of creation would be used in way other than the created use, and created anyway.  What a wonderful example for us.

Thank you Sylvia for that helpful reminder that being a co-creator has in many cases led to the exploitation of the earth and the loss of human life. I suppose with any activity- spiritual, physical, relational or scientific- we must seek God’s direction and blessing and be sure we use the creative genius he has instilled in us for noble purposes. Not likely to happen in a broken and fallen world…

I found myself agreeing with what is being said here in your post Dr. Oord.  The part that I am in total agreement with is: “We Evangelicals are adamant that we seek truth. Simply put, the general theory of evolution best accounts for the biological evidence we find in our world. Not accepting evolution means not accepting the best overall theory available to account for the data we find.”  I must be about seeking the truth about the world I live in.  Scripture leads me to the knowledge of salvation found in Christ with not much information on the how God created the world.  I am okay with partnering with science so that I can learn the truth without negating the God of creation.

There is a difference between what we normally consider evolution and evolutionary development.  What we normally think of when we see the concept of evolution is that of interspecies evolution.  In a gross simplification, interspecies evolution is what we often see in cartoons.  It starts with an amoeba that eventually divides into a multi-cell entity, then becomes a water creature which eventually grows legs and walks out of the water.  This alligator-like creature morphs into a chimp which then morphs into a human.  Evolutionary development is where humans (or any other species) has changed and adapted to new environments.  Humans were humans but they did not always have the same features.  This development was slow and is not seen over a mere few generations.  To me, evolutionary development would be more compatible with the creation story.

I read Dr. Lyons’ comment, and in many respects I do agree with him. That is, I too cannot imagine a seminary president these days being as forthright as his example back in the 60’s. But I don’t think that is a reflection of the culture at large, only a reflection of the influence that a strident group has over some evangelical institutions. My own experience points to something else—I have found more and more people agreeing that evolution was at least a part of God’s unfolding story. Even my own parents, who were big on making sure our youth group back in the day learned all about the problems with evolution, have changed their tune and are willing to grant it is a tool God used in history. However, I do think statistically speaking, Dr. Lyons may be correct—the latest Pew Forum research shows that only 3% of respondents who consider themselves Evangelical accept evolution.

I looked at the blog post with skepticism and disbelief, but I realize that we have difference in our view and scope of evolution.  From me, I describe evolution as the various types of plants and animals that have preexisted with distinguishable differences and have developed those changes over successive generations or even from lower, simpler states to higher, complex states.  From this perspective, I don’t see distinguishable differences in humans or that they have gone from simple to complex states.  I do see adaptations.

I am not against the assertions made, and see it as perspective more than anything else.  I didn’t think about the perspective of free creatures and created co-creators before, and I have to admit it is logical.  I agree that the dramatic change from regeneration creates distinguishable differences.  I would add miraculous healing to the group.  I have no objections in thinking of God creating through evolutionary mechanisms.  For me to say that God is not able or willing to use them, would be putting limits or restrictions on what God can or can’t do.  This is clearly not my call.

Dennis

I can see why this is a very controversial subject and even pivotal for people’s faith, but I cannot help but wonder at some of these arguments for and against it.  Some people have said “well we have not seen it so it cannot be the way” Well we have not seen God either but we see the results of God; so in that respect, why should anyone believe in God if we can’t see Him or the trinity.  I am not for or against Darwinian evolution.  I simply do not care how we began the point is we are here now and this is how we are.  Yes, this may bother some peolpe but it does not bother me.  Whether we were created or randomly evolved creatures or something in between does not change my relationship with God.  To me, its like saying an adopted child, biological child, or a test tube baby all can’t have the same quality of life and/or have the same type of relationship with who they identify as their parents.  For some it matters, but to me it does not.  We are all children of God either way.

I agree with Katie’s post and that was pretty much what I was going to say. I believe in evolution at a smaller scale. Though I believe God was our creator, what does explain why we have certain similarities as other mammals? I can see where people can question their faith because Christians are told growing up that God created a man and a woman separately from the animals. But who’s to say either one is technically right? It’s someone faith that determines which concept they want to believe. But I see us all as children of God and God loves everyone no matter what. I tried to explain my thoughts so people could understand them. Most of the time I try to convey my thoughts and it sounds like nothing but mumble-jumble, but makes sense to me.

This debate certainly is much debated and not just amongst Christians. There are many different arguments as to why one side feels they are right over the side. I took the Origins class last year and it was very interesting comparing some of the different arguments of the different views and theories on creation. Now as for the idea that Christians can believe evolution? I have my own opinion, but I also think that it is a personal decision that is between the person and God.

ブランド商品を中心とした財布・バッグやアパレル、ジュエリーやサングラスなどをセレクトしてご紹介します。スタンダードなものからユニークな注目商品、新商品まで品揃え豊富にあらゆるジャンルを取り揃えております。<a >ミュウミュウ店舗</a>超お買い得商品をお手元にどうぞ！
<a >ミュウミュウ店舗</a>はMiuMiu バッグやおMiuMiu 財布だけでなく、MiuMiu ドレスやミュウミュウ シューズ 、カチューシャなど小物もたくさんがあります。高級感を押さえつつ気取らないカジュアルさが、ますますに受け入れられやすかったのです。多彩な色もあり、１０代から4０代までと若い女性でも、中年婦人に人気のブランドとなっています。
最近は、<a >ミュウミュウバッグ</a>の民族衣装風な花柄を刺繍したスカートやスカーフを発表しており、そして、不思議な魅力を持っています。実はミュウミュウというと女性のブランドではなくて、ミュウミュウメンズの商品も発表しているのです。１９９５年からメンズシリーズを発表しており、遊び心を反映して、優雅な風合い、特別なデザインなど特徴もあります。
<a >ミュウミュウアウトレット</a>の史は１９９２年から始まります。ミュウミュウは世界で有名な设计者ミウッチャ・プラダ幼いころの名です。だから、ミウッチャ・プラダはミュウミュウブランドが１９９３年春夏にファッション展覧会を発表したのです。シンプルでありながら、どんどんに若い女性が大好きな可愛いブランドになりました。
イタリアの人気ブランド ミュウミュウ（miumiu）は、1993年の春夏コレクションで発表したプラダのセカンドブランドです。<a >ミュウミュウ財布</a>はメンズ・レディースのウェアのほか、財布・バッグ・靴・アクセサリーなどを中心に展開しています。特に昨今、バッグや財布の人気が高いブランドです。

グッチヴィンテージ要因希望倍GのロゴとHorsebitデザインはと呼ばされているファッションの知覚。の役割を持つ高品質​​<a >グッチ</a>社会。有名な製品のについてグッチのようなグッチスニーカー、グッチバッグ、グッチ財布、グッチ腕時計などに人気がありamonyトレンド女の子。に

コーチ バッグ : http://www.bagsaletokyo.com/
Self-governed shipping cheaply Appliance,Omnibus bags,Rehearsal away with,Crammer online,up on coach.All products provided, you gratify a promotional heavy-set bribe and unsurpassed service.
<a >コーチ バッグ</a>
<a >コーチ販売</a>
<a >コーチ 財布</a>