Is There Such a Thing as a Christian Evolutionist?

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8 comments


by Aaron Felty

My name is Aaron Felty, and this is my first blog post for Worldview Warriors! I am excited about the opportunity to listen to feedback and share what the Lord has laid on my heart.

Now to the question: is there such a thing as a Christian evolutionist? The short answer is yes, but upon further inspection we have to question if that is even possible. The requirements for salvation are to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ; that is what Paul and Silas said when the jailer asked what must he do to be saved (Acts 16:30-31). There is nothing in this passage about evolution, the age of the earth, or the fossil record. So, belief in evolution is not going to make someone go to hell! However, I would suggest that a mature faith CANNOT believe in evolution. Please re-read that line: a mature faith CANNOT believe in evolution.

To dig into this further, we first have to define evolution. In this case I am referring to macro-evolution (one species evolving into another). We are not talking about micro-evolution (changes within a species, which you can see by looking at my 5 kids!). So from here on out, when I say evolution I am talking about macro-evolution.

In order for the proponents of evolution to support their claims, they need millions of years of animals dying and a fortuitous set of random occurrences to happen in a very precise order. Not only that, but they need new DNA information introduced into a species which would account for an actual change from one species to another. While there are many escape vehicles around these claims that the most ardent proponents of evolution will cling to, there is one question for the “Christian” that is impossible: how do you account for death and blood shed before Adam sinned?

Having a Christian worldview means that we view the world, as best we can, according to the way Christ did. We get Christ’s view from the Scriptures. Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people.”

A Christian follows Jesus, but an evolutionist believes that millions and millions of things died before Adam sinned, meaning DEATH ENTERED the world before Adam sinned!

God told Adam in the garden, the moment he ate the fruit he would die. God also explained the consequences Adam’s sin would have on all of creation - thorns and thistles, essentially all the created order would move toward death (Genesis 3:17). Obviously, Adam did not physically die the moment he ate the fruit, so is God a liar? Of course not; the Bible says it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). God breathed the breath of life into Adam’s lungs and he became a living being. Once Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he died spiritually. He was disconnected from God until God sacrificed an animal and covered Adam’s nakedness.

So back to the original question. Can someone be a Christian evolutionist? I would contend one cannot be a mature Christian and believe in evolution. If evolution is true, God is a liar, death did not enter the world because of Adam’s sin, and Jesus’ death on the cross to undo Adam’s action was unnecessary. Romans 5:17 says, “For if, by the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!”

1 Corinthians 15:20-22 goes further: “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”

So, while believing in evolution is not a heaven or hell issue, I would say, it certainly indicates one who claims to follow Christ has not really considered the implications of this belief. This person’s faith is immature and risks stripping Scripture of its power. I would encourage you to think through why an evolutionist would want to believe death has been around millions of years. I believe this worldview (the evolutionary worldview) is an effort to create a god in our own image and give us unrestricted freedom and excuse to do what we want without accountability. If death entered the world through Adam’s sin, we are all guilty and need a Savior! If death has always been around, nobody is guilty or in need of a Savior. One step further: if you believe that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven but also believe that God used millions and millions of years of death and bloodshed as His vehicle to deliver salvation, I would ask you to consider the very fact that you have conflicting worldviews. I urge you to search the Scriptures to see if there is any room ANYWHERE for millions of years. Search to see if there is any room for macro-evolution. As I read the Bible, I see that God created plants, fish, birds and all the other animals “according to their kind” (Genesis 1:11-12; 21; 24-25).

One final question: why would God declare everything “very good” at the end of the 6th day, if for millions of years before this death and bloodshed reigned?

To those of you still with me, if you have been believing in evolution and claim to follow Christ, I suggest re-examining what you actually believe about the Scriptures. As you hopefully are beginning to see evolution does not fit into the Christian worldview.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.

8 comments:

Tony Fluerty said...

Good article, I agree a mature Christian that holds to evolution and deep time yet claims to understand the nature of sin is suspect at best however I think you need to shift the goalposts on one species to another as your definition of evolutionary change just to be safe.
You need to go up the chain a bit and define it as one genus or family to another, remembering of course that these are merely man made classifications and have been adjusted both in the recent and in the past.
Bless ya heaps.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Thank you for your comment. Tell me what you concern is with that level of classification. What are you specifically thinking about?

I specifically chose species because once you cannot reproduce you are no longer the same species and even there we do not find evolution of this type. And the examples we do have (that some try to use as evidence...mule) work contrary to macro-evolution because they produce sterile offspring which would kill off the "new" creature.

The issue is that there is no mechanism for macro-evolution between species because it requires "new" information, not mutated or cross hybridization. That is 2 tall horses cannot make a giraffe over time because there will still be information missing. They would still be long necked horses unable to reproduce with giraffes because they have different genetic information.

Tony Fluerty said...

A horse and a zebra are not the same species yet they can reproduce.
lions and tigers .
Species can and do procreate, this is how God filled the earth with all these amazing creatures.
you need to do more research on this issue .
try creation International.
The worse thing we can do is misrepresent how animals change over time .
I suggest you study these links

https://creation.com/speciation-questions-and-answers

Unknown said...

If an animal can reproduce it belongs to the same species...look up the definition of species. Not sure where you got the idea I don't think species procreate...of course they do lest they die out...however, a sterile species goes extinct!

Horses and Zebras belong to the same family as do lions and tigers...a chihuahua can reproduce with a saint bernard because they are both of the dog type of animal...this is not evidence of evolution it is evidence that God created animals after the own kind (not the taxonomic definition)...the reality is that any evidence for macro-evolution in the fossil record is sketchy at best, but nothing large scale. What we find are animals that are what they are 100% not transitional fossils...

I'm not sure how misrepresenting how animals change over time is the worse thing we can do. I can think of many other things worse than that. The truth here is that if death and bloodshed occurred before the fall then God is a liar and Jesus is unnecessary, therefore our faith is futile and we remain in sin! That is the worst thing we can do as it relates to the impact of sin on creation.

If I were you I would re-read Genesis 1-3 focusing in on Genesis 1 and with laser like focus asking God what He meant when He said He created things after their own kind. Then look up the verses posted in the original post and ask what else could they mean if they do not mean there was no death before sin?

I appreciate your link. I have studied both sides of this conversation for years so I will look at it but I am pretty sure there will be nothing new in it.

Unknown said...

Nothing new on the website links...

I love the portion about speciation, because I stated in my original post that observable science supports changes within species (Horse and Zebras or Wolves and dogs)...but they are the same kind of animal. No macro-evolution there...That is called micro-evolution. I am not disagreeing with that...only macro (of which we have disputable observable evidence and that very little amongst the animal kingdom).

I think you probably should read more of those articles closely because they are saying what I am saying. Or perhaps you are not understanding my position which is there is no death before sin (according to the Scriptures). Therefore you cannot have species and animals dying in mass before sin entered the world. The website you linked to agrees with that.

Charlie said...

Aaron, just for reference, Tony is one of the good guys. He's on our side. I sense the wrestling here is over what a "species" is. There are multiple scientific definitions of a species including the original definition which we understand as a "kind" to the modern scientific one which has changed since Linnaeus' system was installed. I think that is the debate on this point. I just wanted to make sure that is clear and I'll step aside and let you both iron it out as you desire.

Unknown said...

Thank you Charlie,

To me this is an issue over whether or not there is death before sin. Not species and so forth, those comments were in regards to evolution not satisfying the death began after sin explanation of the Scripture.

I'm sure Tony is great. I have very strong convictions about evolution since I began as a Theistic evolutionist. I tried to make it work until it dawned on me that sin caused death to enter the world and that death began when Adam ate from the tree, not before in some evolutionary millions of years of death and sickness that necessarily predates Adam and Eve...