Can you believe in both evolution and creation?

Answer 1

Firstly Genesis was never ever meant to be taken literally, and was not taken literally either by the Jews or the early Church (see Origen quote above). Genesis, at least the first chapters, was written as a Hebrew allegorical poem. And a composite one at that. For there are two incompatible Creation stories there in chapters 1 and 2. Creationists who insist on taking Genesis literally either do not know, or conveniently ignore that the Hebrew dictates this allegorical nature. Yes, there is great truth there, of humanity's stupidity, the love of God, its sinful nature and so on, but the literal reading of Genesis loses this truth and replaces it with something that simply does not make sense. As examples:

1. The insistence on six (24hr) days of Creation means that the sun and moon were created after the 'day' - the effect, in other words comes before the cause.
2. Creationists insist that the serpent represents the devil. Yet this is never mentioned - and the concept of Satan as a personification of evil was not even in the Jewish theology when this was written.
3. Creationists insist that Jesus himself believed in Adam and Eve. yet the number of times Jesus actually mentions Adam (or Eve) or Eden - is preciesly zero.
4. If God, as a God of love, did not wish Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, why put it there in the first place? To tempt them? to trip them up? That does not speak of a God of love.

as well as many, many others.

So, taken literally, Genesis is riddled with inconsistencies on which Creationists have built their own theology rather than the theology of the Christian Church as set down by Our Lord himself.

Evolution too is not the complete answer. We know now that some sort of evolution does occur - and is occurring today, but there are still too many unanswered questions about it to presuppose that Darwin was totally correct. There are many events within evolution (why sudden blossoming of species? why no missing links between some clearly different species etc) that mean that we still, despite what Richard Dawkins says about Darwin, do not have anywhere near the complete answer.

However, there is a middle ground, which most Christians follow. Whilst accepting evolution wholeheartedly, I must disagree with the above answer which states that evolution does not need a creator. It certainly does. Back at the moment of Creation (or the 'Big Bang' if you prefer) the laws of nature were set down in the first microseconds of the expanding universe to enable the universe itself to evolve as it has done today. The so-called Anthropic Principle, which has caused quite a stir in scientific circles recently, dictates that the most fundamental constants of the universe are so fine tuned so that stars and planets can exist. The slightest fluctuations either way would mean that the universe as we now it, and especially the stars - which provide all heavier elements necessary for life - would not exist. You can possibly count on coincidence for a couple of these constants to be 'just right' but coincidence goes out of the window when one considers that there are over a hundred fundamental constants that are finely tuned in order that life should exist. One slight fluctuation of a fraction of one percent in any of them would mean that life could not evolve, anywhere. The eminent particle physicist Professor Russel Stannard once said "the universe has bent over backwards in order that intelligent life should exist...the universe must have known we were coming". The Anthropic Principle has become evidence for design within the universe, and the most fundamental and profound design at that.

So yes, it is possible to believe in evolution and Creation. But not the cut-and-dried definitive evolution of Richard Dawkins. Nor in the literal interpretation of a Hebrew poem. Thinking Christians and those who are more devoted to following Christ and his teaching rather than worship a book do just that - every day.

Answer 2

Evolution is a scientific theory based on fact - it does not require belief and can be scrutinized by anyone opposing the theory (they would have to come up with a theory that fits all the facts, of course)

Creationism is a religion-based set of deductions that most scientists would not even regard as a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

I suppose one could believe that evolution is part of the creationist concept of "Intelligent Design", though one could argue that if the universe were designed, the entity responsible did a really bad job:

Macro Design Flaws

• the universe is hurling towards "heat death", a time in which all stars will have burnt out and no longer able to sustain life

• entire galaxies are on direct collision courses, which will destroy millions or even billions of planets

• only a tiny fraction of planets are capable of supporting life; most are to cold, too hot or too big

Micro Design Flaws

• Our DNA contains myriads of inactive code passed to us from our evolutionary ancestors. This, for example is the reason a human embryo grows gills during its development, though they have absolutely no use in our species.

• The nerves and blood vessels in our eyes are in front of the retina, blocking some of the light from reaching the retina.

• In architectural terms, our pleasure and sewage systems are right next to each other - no self-respecting architect would make such an error.

Answer 3

First of all, it is rational to believe in evolution, because the facts are there. Evolution does not need a creator, but does not exclude the possibility that a divine creator was indeed involved in evolution, although without apparently guiding evolution along any path that evolution would not have taken in the absence of a creator.

What is not possible is to believe in evolution and the creation stories in the Book of Genesis, because Genesis so clearly conflicts with the scientific evidence. Even the early Church Father, Origen (On First Principles, 3.1.1) had this to say:
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, "planted a paradise eastward in Eden", and set in it a visible and palpable "tree of life", of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life: and again that one could partake of "good and evil" by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And when God is said to "walk in the paradise in the cool of the day" and Adam to hide himself behind a tree, I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events."

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 4

Yes, there are people who believe in Divinely-guided evolution. However, the usual paradigm in which Evolution is taught, is one of mere natural causes.
Many think that science, and specifically Evolution, have proved that there is no God. They don't comprehend that even if Evolution was an unquestionable fact, it would not automatically follow that God isn't there. They also seem unaware that there are some highly-qualified scientists who do not believe in Evolution.

See also:

Is there evidence against Evolution?

God's wisdom seen in His creations

Can you show that God exists?

Answer 5

Whatever you believe about creation, you have no choice in regard to evolution. Since the facts of evolution are well established, it would be foolish to claim either to believe or not believe in evolution. A well-informed person simply accepts the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, in the same way as he accepts the Theory of Gravity or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Since a well-informed person knows evolution to have taken place, he or she then can decide whether to believe in creation, although obviously not literally as described in The Bible. It is certainly possible to believe in 'old-earth creationism' or 'theistic creationism' while accepting evolution to be a fact. However, 'young-earth creationism' creates a problem for the intellect.