One of the most important differences, IMHO, is that for evolution to work, there has to be death involved. Otherwise the whole idea of "survival of the fittest" doesn't work. However, when God was making the world, He said several times "It is good." Would He have said that if animals had been dying for millions of years? I think not.

Evolution vs. Creation is a scientific vs. doctrinal debate.  As Christians we should affirm a Creator God, a God who has history in his hands, and planned for salvation and preservation of the original goodness of his creation through the work of Christ and his sacrifice... faith is God's gift (Eph. 2:9) whether or not someone has a literal or allegorical interpretation of the Genesis account.

Another point, proof for the Christian God doesn't exist in a perishing world.  Our proof and hope comes through faith and trust in God, that he is truly present and that he preserves his fallen world, which has been made known to us by our baptism, which is sustained in us by the Holy Spirit through his Word, and by his true body and blood we receive at his altar.

And my last point... If you notice in the creation accounts (there are two of them...) they are at ends in what order the world was created.  The juxaposition serves to enlighten the reader that 1.) God gives order to his creation, that God's created and physical world is good, because that is what God ordained.  In the first account, God is "outside his creation", he is the mystery, the "why things exist", and the unknowable.  And 2.) God is present and active, the revealed God, the God who made himself known to his creation.

I'll have something on my blog soon enough.  Thanks.

Evolution is not compatible with Christianity. There are two theories that try to accomodate them, however. They are the Day Age theory and the Gap theory.

The Day Age theory relies on the 'day' in Genesis to be symbolic, and mean millions of years. They say that God used genetic mutations to create everything. Day Agers ignore one very important fact. A word cannot be symbolic the first time it is used! It has to have a literal meaning the first time it is used, otherwise we would never know what a literal day was. The author of Genesis went through great pains to make sure it was understood to be literal. It says "and the evening and the morning were the first day" (Gen 1:5).

Another problem with the Day Age theory is the plants. Recall that the plants were created before the sun was. And plants cannot live without light. So if the days were really meant to be symbolic, the plants would have died, and we would have no plants today. The light was created first, it wasn't necessarily present because there was no source for it.

The Gap theory is unbiblical already. It affirmes that there was a huge gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. To do this, they have to face the fossil record, which naturally requires death. So the Gap theorist says that there was death in this Gap. But, we are clearly told that death was a result of the Fall in Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Gap theorist ignore this and therefore it is unbiblical already.

As for bisoumoi: Fictional creation? My friend, it is evolution that is fictional. Since you deny the existence of a God, as is implied, I assume you hold to abiogenesis. HOwever, the possibility for that happening is 1 in 10 to the negative 40,000 power. My belief is fictional? You rely on chance and nothing more to support your argument.

God Bless All

No, it's not compatible at all.

Do you play the recorder?

Poor stated: Every time the word is used in Genesis 1, it is used in conjunction with "morning" AND "evening" AND a number. (There was morning, and evening, the first day, etc.)

My reply: Shoot you busted my thunder. Not only that but if you carry out the useage of Yom out several chapters the author continues to use it as a single day.

I follow the understanding of God making the universe in an apparent age. Not creation from the infantcy as it were but just as Adam was created as a grown man, so goes the universe. Thus accounting for the apparent age of the world.

Now to your question are we talking about micro or macro evolution?

In Him
TH

Sling said: Day Agers ignore one very important fact. A word cannot be symbolic the first time it is used! It has to have a literal meaning the first time it is used, otherwise we would never know what a literal day was. The author of Genesis went through great pains to make sure it was understood to be literal. It says "and the evening and the morning were the first day" (Gen 1:5).

My reply:   While I agree that Day age or figurative usage of Yom is incorrect, I think your point is slightly on the wrong perspective. While I agree that the first time a word is used it must be used in its literal form, I must remind you that the Bible is not the first useage of Yom. The perspective of each writing must use the word literally in order to set its basis is actually incorrect. The author makes that decsion based on his/her (in any writing) understanding of the word. For what would prevent them to use the word in its literal form the first time but change to a more figurative term the second time? You see then the readers would be confused on the second term to take it literal. There are no guidelines when using words that are common to the time of the author and readers. Moses was not the first to write, a written language was already established and useage of the language was already given.

In Him

Todd

Evolution is "compatible" with Christianity.

Yes, I'm a Christian, but I can't deny certain biological evidence that things evolve. DNA molecules are very complex, fragile things and they can be altered by just a tiny dose of radiation. We're all exposed to that.

Saying that things don't evolve over time would  be like saying that a computer never needs to be de-fragmented over time. After a while, things start to change. The computer doesn't behave the way it did when it was new.

Whether or not we came from apes is still up in the air to me...  personally, I think it's a stretch. But to an extent, I believe it is possible for things to evolve. When God created the earth in Genesis, He put man on earth (plural) so that they would come forth and multiply. It wasn't until afterwards that He gave man the breath of life. And, it doesn't give an exact figure on how long that time period actually was, before He gave man life (like the soul, spirit, etc).

And who knows? How do we know that God didn't cause man to evolve into what we are today, by sending tiny amounts of harmless radiation towards us? I mean, if He could blow up entire cities and flood the earth for several months, then surely He could make some tweaks to us by using radiation...

Tom H.

And... now that I've read everybody else's comments on the matter...

I've never heard of the "Gap Theory" or "Day Agers" or any of that stuff. I'm just kinda figuring it out as I go. Maybe I'm wrong... maybe I'm right... I'll find out when I get to Heaven.

I mean, evolution is an interesting topic, but I don't think it matters that much. What matters is one's faith in God. Heck, maybe, given enough faith, God might reveal how this whole things works to us someday!

if you mean mental evolution, then i think it is entirely compatible with the bible -- i mean, people learn more and accumulate knowledge (wordwide) over time.  we've seen it happen.  we know it happens.

however, if you mean the whole 'bacteria to apes to people' thing, i'm not so sure.  but it depends how you take the bible.  some take it literally, in which case evolution is entirely contradictory to adam and eve.  but perhaps we can interpret on a deeper level.  maybe we, as a species, came from bacteria.  but what breathed life into us, what gave us the ability to think and to love and to believe -- our faith, in other words -- that's God, in my opinion.  if we don't take everything exactly at the word (i.e. ripping adam's rib out and building an eve around it) then often meanings become clearer.

peace.

+ rhetoriqal +

watup....havent said hi in a while so i thought i would do. so hi! lata

kell

It depends on which type of evolution you are talking about:

6. Microevolution-the variations within kinds

The only type that is scientifically possible and fits with the Bible is #6.

Alright. have any of you listened to Dr. Kent Hovind? His theories on creation are the best. It proves evolution has nothing to do with the creation. The day-age theory, the gap theory, are unnessessary. God created the Earth in 6 days. 24 hour days. it is clear on it. Evolution demands death of species and the dramatic struggle for survival, a direct violation of the book of Genesis which clearly states "Man brought death into the world." Nothing ever had to die, nothing ever did die, until Adam and Eve bit the forbidden fruit. Then things died.

The only true evolution would be Micro-evolution, in which different varities of a species is formed. yes, that has been witnessed. But the bible has the true scientific keys to the past if you pay attention.

Great site. I'm sorry that I don't have the time to comment with substantial meaning at the moment.

~Caleb ><>

Which came first? The chicken? Or the egg?

That age old question that has plagued many for years. The answer is simple. The chicken. Everything God created He created with age and maturity. Adam was not a baby when he was created, he was a full grown man. Does it not then reason that the earth might appear to be millions or even billions of years old? God created everything with age, and that is why people think our earth is older than it really is!