Evolution

A:

There is no possible relationship between ethics and the evolution of species, which is a scientific fact regardless of whether we regard it as a desirable form of progression. However, some people have taken the evolutionary concept of 'survival of the fittest' out of context and used it to describe unethical situations. This alows others to link evolution with unethical conduct and judge it by association, although that association does not really exist.

There are a wide range of physiological traits in human beings that can be explained by an evolutionary period in human existence that involved a partial, complete and then semi-aquatic phase in human prehistory.

These features include:

Hairlessness

Streamlined body

Reduced sense of smell

Subcutaneous body fat

Bipedalism

Diving reflex

Exostoses

The Nose

Downward facing nostrils

Philtrum

Breath control

Speech

Salt Tears

Eccrine sweat skin glands

Large Sebaceous glands

Hymen

Vernix caseosa

New-born swim ability

Webbed fingers and toes

Lunar Menstruation cycle

Lowest blood cell count of the apes

Highest haemoglobin per cell of the apes

Seafood diet bias

The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), sometimes referred to as the aquatic ape theory, asserts that wading, swimming and diving for food exerted a strong evolutionary effect on the ancestors of the genus Homo which is in part responsible for the split between the common ancestors of humans and other great apes. The AAH attempts to explain the large number of physical differences between humans and other apes in terms of the environment, methods of feeding and types of food of early hominids living in coastal and river regions.

As compared to their nearest living relatives, the great apes, humans exhibit many significant differences in anatomy and physiology, including bipedalism, almost hairless skin like some marine mammals, hair growth patterns following water flow-lines, increased subcutaneous fat for insulation, descended larynx, vernix caseosa, a hooded nose and the philtrum preventing water from entering the nostrils, voluntary breath control like marine mammals and birds, and greasy skin with an abundance of sebaceous glands, which can be interpreted as a waterproofing device. It has also been suggested that the abundance of docosahexaenoic acid in seafood would have been helpful in the development of a large brain.

There are several variants on the broad theme that early or proto-humans lived in close proximity to water, gathering much of their food in or near shallow bodies of water and developing and adapting new modes of locomotion in order to move and gather food (possibly including wading, swimming, and diving). Proponents have disagreed on the relative importance of fresh water versus coastal salt- or brackish-water habitats. Although the earliest proponents argued for an early (Miocene, about 6 million years ago) timescale, most now favour the view that the critical period of close association with waterside habitats was much later, Pleistocene or possibly late Pliocene (i.e., less than 2 million years ago). Possibly it happened when our ancestral Homo population spread along the South Asian coasts (so-called Out of Africa 1) where during the Ice Ages the lowered sea levels exposed large areas of the continental shelves; shell and crayfish were easily procurable by a dextrous, tool-using, thick-enameled, omnivorous primate and contained poly-unsaturated fatty acids such as DHA that were essential to brain growth. This may explain why this seaside phase (100-120 metres below sea level now) did not leave many traces in the fossil and archaeological record. From the coasts their descendants might have trekked into the continents along lakes and rivers.

Sometime prior to 546 BCE, the Milesian philosopher Anaximander proposed that mankind had sprung from an aquatic species of animal. He thought that the extended infancy of humans could not have originally permitted survival as a land-based species. This idea was based on elemental forces of mutation rather than natural selection.

The German biologist Max Westenhöfer was perhaps the first to publish the idea in an evolutionary context, writing in 1942 that "The postulation of an aquatic mode of life during an early stage of human evolution is a tenable hypothesis, for which further inquiry may produce additional supporting evidence."

The similarity of the subcutaneous fat in aquatic birds and larger aquatic mammals to the fat in humans had already been noticed by marine biologist, Sir Alister Hardy in 1930, while reading Frederic Wood Jones' Man's Place among the Mammals, which included the question of why humans, unlike all other land mammals, had fat attached to their skin. Hardy realised that this trait sounded like the blubber of marine mammals, and began to suspect that humans had ancestors more aquatic than previously imagined. Because it was outside his field and aware of the controversy it would cause, Hardy delayed reporting his theory. After he had become a respected academic, Hardy finally voiced his thoughts in a speech to the British Sub-Aqua Club in Brighton on 5 March 1960.

News of Hardy's speech generated immediate controversy in the field of paleoanthropology, and Hardy followed up by publishing two articles in the scientific magazine New Scientist. In the article of 17 March 1960 Hardy defined his idea: "My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch." (Hardy 1960:642) Despite receiving some positive feedback in the Letters pages of New Scientist in the weeks that followed, and strong backing from a professor of geography, the idea was largely ignored by the scientific community.

In 1967, the hypothesis was positively reviewed in The Naked Ape, a book by Desmond Morris in which can be found the first use of the term "aquatic ape" (Morris 1967:29). Writer Elaine Morgan read about the idea in Morris' book and was struck by its potential explanatory power. She developed and promoted it over the next thirty years, publishing six books on the subject. Several other proponents have published work in favour of the aquatic ape hypothesis during this time including the physician Marc Verhaegen, neurochemists Michael Crawford and Stephen Cunnane, and ecologist Derek Ellis.

The hypothesis and its variations have been largely ignored by mainstream paleoanthropology, although occasional papers have criticised certain aspects of it. It has been suggested, for example, that a broad terrestrial diet would ensure sufficient access to docosahexaenoic acid that there was no requirement for high consumption of seafood and accordingly no reason to posit an aquatic phase in human evolution for dietary reasons.

In 1991 a symposium was held in Valkenburg, Holland, titled "Aquatic Ape: Fact or fiction?", which published its proceedings. The chief editor, Vernon Reynolds, rejected the strong version of the hypothesis, but accepted a weaker form, summarizing that "overall, it will be clear that I do not think it would be correct to designate our early hominid ancestors as 'aquatic'. But at the same time there does seem to be evidence that not only did they take to the water from time to time but that the water (and by this I mean inland lakes and rivers) was a habitat that provided enough extra food to count as an agency for selection. As a result, we humans today have the ability to learn to swim without too much difficulty, to dive, and to enjoy occasional recourse to the water."

Despite the conciliatory wording of the summary, and the fact that half of the submitted papers were in favour of the hypothesis, it was reported in the anthropological press that the hypothesis had been rejected.

However there has since been some acceptance. In 2004 Colin Groves, Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia with co-author David W. Cameron stated that

"..nor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH). Elaine Morgan has long argued that many aspects of human anatomy are best explained as a legacy of a semiaquatic phase in the proto-human trajectory, and this includes upright posture to cope with increased water depth as our ancestors foraged farther and further from the lake or seashore. At first, this idea was simply ignored as grotesque, and perhaps as unworthy of discussion because proposed by an amateur. But Morgan's latest arguments have reached a sophistication that simply demands to be taken seriously (Morgan 1990, 1997). And although the authors shy away from more speculative reconstructions in favour of phylogenetic scenarios, we insist that the AAH take its place in the battery of possible functional scenarios for hominin divergence."

Humans are the only terrestrial animals that can voluntarily hold their breath at will.

The ability to hold and control breath is necessary for complex speech. This ability would, of course, also be needed for diving. It is likely that the ability of humans and aquatic mammals to hold their breath was an adaptation meant for diving, and that the development of complex speech was a side effect.

Also, humans have a descended larynx, which other apes do not. This allows us to gulp large amounts of air. Most animals only breathe through the nose, but the descended larynx allows humans to breather through our mouths, which allowed us to take deep breaths "prior to diving" (Watson). The larynx thus allowed early humans to spend longer periods of time underwater than they could have if they were taking shallow breaths through their noses. Complex speech is also dependent on the descended larynx. Other aquatic mammals, such as sea lions, walruses, and manatees have descended larynxes.

There is another similarity between humans and aquatic mammals: the diving reflex, also known as bradycardia, a decrease in heart rate and redistribution of blood to the brain and the organs. This is a natural reaction of humans to being submerged. Other apes do not share this ability, as they obviously have no use for it. "Humans can dive to depths of one hundred meters at the extreme but most humans can certainly dive to ten meters," which no ape would do (Watson). The diving reflex makes swimming and diving practical, and humans have no living ancestors that possess this trait. It must have been acquired at some point after humans split from apes, and this supports the idea that man evolved in an aquatic or semi-aquatic environment.

• The pattern of hair on our backs. Like all mammals, humans are covered with short hair. The hair on our backs lays down and towards the center in a streamlined way that would theoretically facilitate swimming.
• Noses. Compared to all other primates our noses are very long and rigid. Our nostrils point down as opposed to gorillas and chimps whose nostrils are almost flush with the face. This is quite useful when swimming for preventing water from getting into the respiratory system.
• Geological evidence. At around the time that Homo sapiens became a species in their own right, sea levels appear to have been higher than they are now in the areas where human fossil evidence is being found.
• Swimming primates. Most primates cannot swim and do not like water. (If I remember correctly, chimps sink like rocks.) One exception is the Probosis monkey which has been seen wading bipedally in waist-deep water. Probosis monkeys have developed longer legs than many primates, and their proportions appear closer to humans than most other monkeys. Humans, however, love water. Look at the modern world and how cities and vacation spots are arranged. Few seem interested in touring savannahs, but we flock to beaches.

• Voluntary breath control. Primates are physiologically unable to hold their breath. However, humans have developed the ability to regulate their own breathing, a necessity for diving.
• Vocalization. The wide range of sounds we can make is due to the orientation of our larnyx. We share this feature with only a few other animals: the dugong, sea lion, and walrus.

• The sensitivity and dexterity of our hands is perfect for searching for food underwater. Our fingernails are stiff and fast-growing, and therefore ideal for prising open shellfish.
• Our tool-making ability. Pebbles are perfect for opening shellfish, as otters have similarly discovered.
• When swimming, all signalling becomes useless apart from vocal signals. If we developed language for the purpose of hunting on land, it would be more useful to create a sign language; hunting is usually a very quiet activity. Other creatures with a highly developed vocal 'language' include whales and dolphins, not creatures such as wolves.
• Of all similar creatures, the elephant is the most striking. Its evolution is really quite remarkable - it is descended from a small pig-like animal, but then over the ages, grew to be the largest land animal in its era. It is very easy to compare it to another mammal whose size swelled remarkably over the ages: the whale. In water, large mass is not the problem it is on land. Indeed, it is a benefit, as larger creatures lose heat much more slowly.
• Its anscestors also had peculiar tusks. Some had spade-shaped ones, perfect for digging in soft, waterlogged soil, but not much good in the plains.
• The early ancestors of the elephants showed a movement of the nose towards the top of the head. This would have been uncalled for on land, but excellent in the water. Nowadays, of course, they have a trunk. And what use is a trunk? It's inefficient for grass eating (a long neck would be better), and unnecessary for tree browsing. But it makes a pretty good snorkel. Not to mention its use for picking water plants.

Suggestion that Pachyderms all shared a more intense evolutionary period with us and the sea. The Seal, Dugong and Walrus quite obviously going the way of the Dolphin, although there is no reason why time and the environment should not leave them where they are or move them in the direction of the land once more.

The Hippopotamus still living a semi-aquatic existence, whilst a distant relative went all the way and became the Blue Whale, fully aquatic and the largest animal to have ever lived as far as we know.

The Elephant, Tapir (both of whom have trunks [read:Snorkel] which have been shown in prehistoric times to have been moving towards the top of the skull, clearly an advantage in the water) and Rhino also share with the other Pachyderms the hairlessness seen in humans and share numerous other similarities not seen in non-aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals.

Elephants by way of interest also have webbed feet although this has atrophied as in humans. They can also swim for six hours straight and their large size is in anycase probably attributable to a long period of permanent water habitation. Elephants also show the crying response when emotional. Hardly any land creatures cry and hardly any sea creatures don't. They are also highly intelligent and have a complex language which includes Infrasound comunnication.

• subcutaneous body fat, similar to aquatic mammals'
• ability of new-born babies to swim
• diving reflex: our breathing slows down underwater
• hairlessness, except on head, that hair floating for infants to hang on to
• long-chain fatty acids composing the brain easily derived from marine food, not easily from Savannah food
• crying salt tears
• resonant voice
• upright posture, bipedalism
• people with their hips together resemble dugongs in streamlining effect
• webbing between fingers

The Aquatic Ape Theory is at least a reasonable hypothesis, if not a fully acceptable scientific theory. It provides a sensible explanation for why human beings, while genetically similar to apes, possess so many different physical features, and how these physical adaptations could have come into being. Without the Aquatic Ape Theory, it is hard to explain the parallels between humans and aquatic mammals. Science, especially evolutionary biology, is a constantly changing field. Nothing is set in stone. The AAT may someday replace the "Savannah theory of human evolution" which most evolutionary biologists now deny they ever supported which is telling, especially since this coincided with the discovery that the whole basis for the so-called "Savannah theory" was incorrect and the environment which produced upright man was wet and wooded.

Perhaps a third theory will arise. At the very least, Elaine Morgan's books have made some scientists rethink what they have been taught about evolution.

Evolution has evidence, while creation only has the Bible, a book written by men no matter how inspired they might have been. Critics of evolutionary theory used to point to the lack of transitional fossils in the evolutionary record but transitional fossils have gradually been discovered, demonstrating just how one species evolves into its successor species.

Creation is the view that God created things just as they are, with no change. Yet countless fossils, and now the evidence of DNA, prove without doubt that evolution has been going on for nearly four billion years. The ancestors and near-relatives of modern humans have been found and studied.

Living things sometimes seem to exhibit evidence of design, but this is really only evidence that natural selection has promoted the most effective organisms. Evolution can not reasonably be denied and therefore is the stronger case.

The manmade idea called the Theory of Evolution had its heyday in the Age of Enlightenment of the 19th and 20th Centuries. With advancements in the fields of science, this theory is being challenged on multiple fronts. Today, there is much debate on fundamental laws governing the entire universe. This is the Anthropic Principle: Many in the fields of mathematics and physics agree that from the very beginning - the Big Bang of some 15 billion years ago - these fundamental laws had to already be in place, and set exactly, to allow our universe to exist the way it does in our time - with us humans here. Indeed, mathematically, it is beyond improbability that this universe of ours would randomly come into existence with just the right properties to allow humans to exist. Life therefore requires a Lawgiver.

On the biological front, scientists are finding that intelligent design exists in everything they examine. In my school days, the simple cell was just that - an organism of matter with some vaguely identifiable parts within. Today, under very strong microscopes, we can see that the cell is a complex information-processing machine with tens of thousands of organelles and vastly complex protein molecules, each arranged in finely-tuned algorithms of communication and synthesis. And our human bodies contain some 60 trillion of these, which store information in DNA, replicated also in various forms of RNA, following the mathematical laws of information. To many, this shows Intelligent Design requiring a Designer and not random evolutionary change.

Just consider the human eye, which Charles Darwin, who fathered the modern theory of evolution, admitted that such complex organs as the eye would be difficult to explain using his theory. Or how about creating life from non-life as scientists have been attempting for decades now. Most have come to the conclusion that the law of Biogenesis is correct. Life can only come from life and requires a life-giver or Creator.

To conclude, one should also ask, how does evolution explain the mystery of human consciousness? Why do we know we know? Or how about dreams/visions or even the modern phenomenon of NDEs - near death experience. Without taking into account the God-given "Spirit in Man" (see Job 32:8 and 1 Corinthians 2:11), it is impossible IMHO. Yet rest assured, there will always be some scientists who, not wanting to believe in God, will remain determined to come up with some explanation which excludes Divine creation. Believers call these "fanciful theories" which attempt to explain the complexities of life. Reading most/all of these simply requires a huge leap in logic as they assume a mathematically improbable event "just happened to happen." For me then, Creation has the much stronger case.

No. Evolution has been excepted as science, but it is not scientifically proven.

Second answer

Only mathematical equations can be "proven." Science simply compiles evidence that best supports natural phenomenon. In order for something to be considered scientific, it has to be falsifiable. Some people with ideological biases claim evolution is not scientific since it can't be disproven. There have been numerous times in the past where it could have been, like the discovery of DNA. If all life on earth wasn't related, the DNA would have shown this. However, it showed that humans share genes with everything from the biggest redwood tree to the deadliest virus. Evolution has thus stood up to over 150 years of intense scrutiny. Therefore, it is not proven in a mathematical sense, but it is backed by lots of evidence.

amphibians are creatures that can live in water or on land, that does not mean that if we build a dome underwater and live their that we are amphibians.

Amphibians can breathe underwater and on land, and since humans can't breathe underwater without the help of special equipment we are not amphibians.

How can one be a Christian and believe in evolution at the same time? With an ease that almost borders on the ridiculous. In general, Christians don't have to give up a single thing within their faith to accept evolution as it is presented in modern evolutionary synthesis (MES). MES is the current "state of the art" construct that accounts for all the findings made up to now as regards evolution. Those findings, by the way, include a veritable mountain of hard data that enjoys input from a number of other scientific disciplines as well as the expected contributions of paleoanthropologists and modern anthropologists, who in turn draw on such fields as linguistics and genetics. No thinking and believing Christian is phased by what is known about life on earth and the manner in which it developed. The tons of evidence unearthed up to now are as nothing to his faith. Furthermore, he is unafraid of what may be discovered next, proved next. He could even be said to be excited in anticipation of the future and what it holds as regards illuminating the path down which man has come.

And, other than his faith, he has a reason to not bat an eye at science and what it shows us about the past. MES has absolutely no physical evidence to account for the appearance of life on earth. None. There are only theories. There is no conflict with Christian belief because there is nothing "provable" that contradicts it.

About the only Christians who have a problem with evolutionary science are the so called Young Earth Christians. They have two problems. One is the timetable set down by geologic study coupled with the paleontological record. The other is the diversity of man as evidenced by the variety of races, which is shown by, among other things, their genetic makeup and linguistic patterns.

As regards the geologic evidence, the earth has been the scene of a number of catastrophic geologic events since its creation. What Young Earthers would have us believe, in essence, is that one great catastrophe compressed into a few thousand years is sufficient to account for all the changes to the earth that geology and/or paleontology have shown to have occurred. Make no mistake about it. Catastrophe and the earth are old dance partners. The pounding the globe takes upon the arrival of a big rock from space every few hundred thousand years or every few million years is well documented. The current theory of the disappearance of the dinosaurs is that a big falling object (perhaps coupled with wide scale volcanic action unconnected with the appearance of the space rock) caused climate change on a massive scale over a short period of time. (The "one-two punch" theory.) Exit the dinosaurs. The facts, the hard data, presented by either body of work, the full of geology or the full of paleontology, are enough to crush the life out of any theory that the earth and life on it are only a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years old. Catastrophes included.

Then there's the diversity of man. The Young Earthers would have us believe that Noah and his three sons and their wives, the four couples in all, account for the broad tapestry that represents what is now human kind. Even if the couples were long lived, their progeny could not account for the way things are. Remember, it's not a question of numbers but of diversity. The diversity of man as can easily be observed by looking at his globally distributed characteristics is strong evidence of the hollowness of the Young Earth theory. Grab the data from linguistics and genetics and it smothers the idea that man has only been evolving for a few thousand years.

Some "regular" Christians are embarrassed by the shouting of the Young Earthers, and some other Christians feel sorry for them. And for obvious reasons.

How can someone be a Christian and believe in evolution at the same time? Most Christians are unphased by what science, driven by the relentless curiosity of the human mind, has shown us about the past history of our planet and about ourselves. Some may even see God's handiwork in the layers of rock within the Grand Canyon or the fossilization of old bone or in the molecular spiral that is DNA.

Another Answer

You can not believe in both!!!!! Most people on both sides, who fully understand the meaning and implications of both would agree. Evolution is specifically a theory designed to provide a completely naturalistic explanation of how the world and universe came to be. Secondly, evolution as such, is a philosophically driven theory frequently ignoring the mountain of contrary evidence produced by the many scientists who do not believe in creation.

Christians who believe in the Bible and who do not wish to mix false science with a faith which is firmly rooted in historical fact reject not only the false belief but the false science that goes along with it. They are not afraid of any genuine scientific debate since true knowledge will prevail in the end. The frequent use of 'straw-man' argumentation by those who wish to characterize this position, together with remarks which amount to a personal attack, does not change the mounting evidence against evolution, not does it change the incompatibility of the two positions.

Put simply, oil and water don't mix and so the two belief systems are incompatible. Another Answer According to Intelligent Design, God designed the Universe (along with its laws - the law of species evolution included) and then the universe evolved. This theory makes sense. Universe indeed seems well designed (a slight change to the 200-th decimal point of the gravitational constant or the electron charge would lead to a universe that cannot support life). Moreover, the evolution theory indeed explains some things in the micro-level of species evolution. Literally, it's impossible.

Another View:

But, there are some Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution - that God used evolution to create the entire universe. This is feasible. As long as the Christian believes that God was behind the beginning of the universe (whether by creation or theistic evolution), it is okay.

But it is not okay to be a Christian and believe in secular evolution. That is, that there was no intelligent design in the process of evolution. That would be a Christian living a hypocritical lie. And it cannot work.

Another Answer: I am a Christian and I believe in evolution. The first two chapters of Genesis were never intended by the author to be literal history; they're Hebrew poetry. As such, they give us theological not historical truth. This means that the theory of evolution does not conflict with the Bible. If it doesn't conflict with the Bible it doesn't conflict with Christianity. What evolution does conflict with is a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible, but that is not the Bible itself; its just a modern interpretation of it. It is entirely reasonable to be a Christian and believe in evolution.

Another Answer

Certainly many Christians believe in evolution. Sometimes in so doing they absorb ideas which are not put forward by people who understand the Bible correctly and so contain information which is not correct. One examples of this is related to the type of literature represented in Genesis. It is formed as prose and intended to be interpreted as a historical document. The 'toledoth phrases' which regularly appear through the book indicate the end of particular sections, possibly the tablets on which they were written.

It is also certainly true that the Genesis creation account has its theological aspect which proceeds from its historical statements about the creator. If evolution is true, then the Genesis record of events cannot also be true, even theologically. The two are inseparable.

Thirdly, the language of Genesis one does not leave room for any interpretation other than that the days as written were of 24 hours duration as we know today. This is because the Hebrew word yom (day) is qualified by the words evening and morning. Even those who believe in evolution and thus reinterpret the Genesis narrative acknowledge this to be the original meaning.

Long-age interpretations are also recent as the account in Genesis has almost universally been understood in a literal sense down through the ages, until the rise of Darwinism. It is thus a prior belief in evolution which then forces a re-interpretation of Genesis which is decidedly foreign to the text itself. Many have also noted that the actual order of Creation is different in the two systems.

People then go so far as to suggest that a literal interpretation is somehow out of keeping with the original intention of the author. While people do accommodate the Genesis account to fit evolution, this is decidedly foreign to the clear meaning of the text itself and is not in anyway an 'invention of fundamentalists' or 'Young-Earth creationists'.

All this said, it is clear that Christians do believe in evolution and then try to fit Genesis to it. This also creates problems with the literal understanding of Genesis which Jesus Himself clearly had. What has been created can evolve. I was created as a fetus in my mothers womb, after I was born I evolved into a newborn baby. Over the years I have evolved into a teenager, young adult, then a man. Creation can evolve to a higher existence. BUT, creation was first.

Additional Answer:

Answer is no, you cannot believe in millions of years of evolution (one animal turning into a completely different type of animal over millions of years) and be consistent with the Bible. Humans didn't evolve -you started out a human and you're still a human. Christians shouldn't believe in evolution because it completely contradicts what the Bible says. I believe that being a follower of Christ and believe in evolution are 2 mutually exclusive things. This is why:

To believe in Jesus Christ is to confess in your heart that He is God, who became flesh and was born as a man by virgin birth; that He lived a sinless life and lived among His own; that He died in atonement for our sins and that His sacrificial death reconciled us, sinners, with God.

Now, sin was introduced in the world by the Fall of Man - an act of rebellion originated by pride and deception - which separated mankind from God. Therefore reconciliation was needed. The only way to such reconciliation was Jesus' death on the Cross. As Christ (the Messiah) and as God, Jesus was the only one who could provide a sacrifice holy enough to reconcile us with the love of the Father.

Think about this: if mankind "evolved" from a common ancestor with apes, then there was never such a thing as the Fall of Man. Hence, sin was never introduced in the world; man was never separated from God and no one needed to be reconciled.

Therefore there was never the need for a Savior - and Christ died in vain.

See the problem? Denying the creation of man by divine and supernatural intervention is denying the need for Christ. Therefore, belief in evolution could be (to some extent) compatible with the idea of "a" God - but certainly not with the God of the Bible, and even less with Christ. As a Christian and geologist I have no problem being both. You can not ignore the fossil truth and the fact that the bible was wrote for the masses to understand in parables.

There is a higher being that created us. Saying all humans evolved from Africa is silly like saying all fish came from one lake or sea or all dogs came from one country.

Life forms or humans develop anywhere the environment is conducive to life even on other planets.

It is not logical, the two are mutually exclusive. Acknowledging Darwinian Evolution while upholding a Christian belief is axiomatically contradicting in credo and deduction; one cannot be a Christian while at the same time sustaining a mental coherence between the two. Why? Darwinian-Evolution, comprising of two scientific theories 'Evolution' and 'Big Bang,' practically undermines the whole of Christian theology, falsifying a massive amount of Old Testament content and a majority of New Testament books, particularly Romans, and all four canonical gospels of John, Mark, Luke, and Matthew.

If already this much of the Scriptures is forged, then what keeps it from becoming, as nearly the entire atheist's blundered camp jeers, a fairytale-mythology? How does it undermine Christianity you ask? Let's consider under what premise neo-Darwinism identifies itself. First, it embraces naturalistic processes which are devoid of purpose and any supernatural interference or causation; no inference from a designer.

Secondly, the primary evolutionary mechanism, the interplay of chance mutations with environmental pressure, requires no explanation for the mechanism, and therefore, any religion under the pretense of providing a required "Why?" is guilty of ignorance and deserves a consequential strict scientific condemnation, as science rightfully should, on behalf of the currently established scientific tenets of evolutionary science (consisting cosmological and chemical evolution, along with biological).

Evolution and Christianity cannot co-exist.

Only the scientifically illiterate (except in the rare case of Collins and a few others who have all been soundly refuted) and ignorant can hold to Christian belief together with evolution (a concealed form of religious belief). For it is the same as ratifying and promoting Christianity and Scientology amiably with one another.

Additionally, while there is no definite answer, there are plausible and convincing answers as to what transpired to produce the "Big Bang," (National Academy of Sciences, Singh, Dawkins and other notable pioneers and supporters cling to Big Bang theory) which is the critical constituent prior to the inception of evolution (be it any type of the theory of evolution, yet excepting micro-evolution preemptive for Creation Theory) in Evolutionary Theory.

As the Big Bang and Theory of Evolution are not mutual, that is, Big Bang is not prerequisite of the Theory of Evolution; this follows to say that despite the seclusion of the Big Bang, it is a naturalistic process that happens throughout life, and no form of theistic Christian belief (theism cannot account for, or compromise evolution) is sanctioned. Evolution is caused by triggers in genes. Different animals have different triggers. These triggers can be caused by varying circumstances, but most commonly a change in habitat.

Evolutionary beginning:

This dwells into biopoiesis (such as primordial ooze).

Some maintain that evolutionary processes started only after life was already present, and from there makes a leap of improbable proportions to a "single, universal, common" ancestor for all life on earth.

Some maintain that when lightning struck the ocean, chemical elements reacted and almost instantaneously arranged itself in RNA and DNA, which further arranged itself into several thousand genes and millions of atoms capable of feeding itself from non-organic sources. It then remained in stasis for around 3.5 billion years, when over the next 600 million years, it then proceeded to arrange itself into all life.

As demonstrated and explained above, the Theory of Evolution leaves no room for a Christian God to interfere. An adherence to Christianity and Evolution combined is dismissed as illogical, incomprehensive, and paradoxical.

Another View:

Although this acceptance is a growing trend across Europe, in particular, there is simply no way anyone can 'reshape' the Bible into a book that also somehow supports the theory of evolution. Jesus (as the Son of God) and the Apostles did not teach any other 'genesis' than God's creation found in the opening book of the Bible and repeated many times throughout the Scripture -- in fact Jesus was the one who did the actual forming of man out of the dust (see John 1:1-4). He was there. Was anyone there to witness evoloution? Has anyone found the 'missing link.' Can evolution explain why the eye sees or the myriad of symbiotic relationships in nature. How about the finite universe?

There are immense pressures falling upon Christians and the various denominations to find a 'middle ground.' However, if we are brave enough to accept the creation account at face value, then theistic evolution becomes impossible to believe. We cannot believe both the Bible and evolution. Both Old and New Testaments consistently support the account of the divine creation of Adam and Eve.

Logically then, those of us who desire to truly know the truth and not merely accept writings/teachings of others, are obliged now to examine the evidence for the authority and authenticity of the Bible, along with God's existence, and compare them with the viability of the theory of evolution. I wonder how many will actually take this first step.

Another Answer

Evolution is the attempt to explain Creation without a Creator. There are only two options: either Creation by Evolution or Special Creation by God. There are several reasons why Christians could believe in Evoultion.

Disobedience.

Many scientists have thoroughly checked Evolution and concluded it just cannot work, and then despite this still believe in creation by Evolution because the only other option is Special Creation by God but refuse to accept that because it would mean obedience to that very same God. Unfortunately some of these are Christians who don't want to be told what to do.

No alternatives given.

Most people are taught that everything came about solely by Evolution, and are not even told there is another option available of Special Creation by God: they don't even know there is a choice. Since many of these people are Christian it is inevitable they will believe in Evolution.

Risk of losing job.

Also, although many scientists are Christians who believe in Creation by God, if they so much as hint this they will will not get even neutral Peer-Reviews, and will,believe it or not, definitely lose their funding, plausibility, accreditation, and their jobs. They have to say they believe in Evolution if they want to keep their job, and over time can actually come to believe what they have actually said. They can only openly say they don't believe in evolution when their job is not at risk

Old Testament not taught.

Some Christians do believe in Evolution because the Creation by God is in the Old Testament, and they don't read it because they have been taught the Old Testament has been done away with. Creation figurative Some Christians believe in Evolution because they have been taught the Creation is Figurative only and wasnt factual so it didn't happen that way. Media The Media is very strongly Pro-Evolution: it does not give equal air time to Anti-Evolutionists. If time is given Creationists are mocked, lampooned, and their comments are biased and censored. Creation by God is not mentioned except to downplay it and stress it was believed only by uncivilized primitive savages but in comparison modern man is civilized.