Dear atheist friends: Stop saying Christianity and evolution are incompatible

Cristo Redentor ("Christ the Redeemer") statue in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (public domain)

Dr. Jerry Coyne is a brilliant and respected biologist, currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. I start off with that, because some of what I have to say next might otherwise seem disrespectful.

Coyne has made it no secret that he is an atheist (if anything, he’s very proud of the fact), nor his belief that science and any kind of religious faith are incompatible. But of late, it seems he’s been positively gloating about it. See the recent blog posts on his website, Why Evolution is True, here and here.

In the first article, Coyne writes:

… accommodationist organizations like BioLogos and the Templeton Foundation are ultimately doomed to failure. Christian opponents of evolution aren’t dumb, and are in fact forcing those organizations to move more and more toward fundamentalist Christianity while the creationists themselves never waver in their views. That’s why, for example, BioLogos — and now Templeton — are tying themselves in knots trying to show how Adam and Eve, while not the literal progenitors of all modern humans, could nevertheless be seen as some kind of metaphor. BioLogos, in fact, refuses to take any stand on the historical existence of Adam and Eve.

We recently touched on the BioLogos Foundation’s views on Adam and Eve on this website, and while it’s true the organization takes no official stance on the issue, that appears to be only because its members hold a variety of different views. Indeed, contributors to BioLogos have submitted a number of theologically and scientifically sound ways to understand Adam and Eve. If Coyne is asserting here that disagreement on one aspect of a subject means there is no truth to be found therein, then the theory of evolution is in more trouble than I thought.

You’ll also want to see Coyne’s conclusion: “Those Christians who see evolution as a problem also are wedded to doctrines like the unique human soul and the existence of Adam and Eve. For them, no reconciliation is possible.”

Strong words. Both of the posts I’ve linked to here are actually largely in reference to an essay published last year by liberal-Protestant-minister-turned-atheist Mike Aus. In the article, Aus confessed that he once “glossed over the clash between the scientific world view and the perspective of religion,” but now sees evolution actually challenges virtually every core belief of Christianity. So, apologies to Asa Gray, Charles Kingsley, B.B. Warfield, C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, Peter Enns, Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson and more — but you all were/are wrong. Mike Aus is right.

Thank you, Mike Aus.

Here’s how he puts it:

Which core doctrines of Christianity does evolution challenge? Well, basically all of them. The doctrine of original sin is a prime example. If my rudimentary grasp of the science is accurate, then Darwin’s theory tells us that because new species only emerge extremely gradually, there really is no “first” prototype or model of any species at all—no “first” dog or “first” giraffe and certainly no “first” homo sapiens created instantaneously. The transition from predecessor hominid species was almost imperceptible. So, if there was no “first” human, there was clearly no original couple through whom the contagion of “sin” could be transmitted to the entire human race. The history of our species does not contain a “fall” into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed.

All right, Mike, I think that’s quite enough. All of this frustrates me to no end, and here’s why: It’s one thing for other believers (young-earth creationists, for example) to say stuff like this (which YECs do all the time). I’m up for a good theological discussion any day. But to have someone who is not even a Christian claim Christianity is incompatible with science is utterly ridiculous, and it needs to stop. I don’t try to tell you how to be the best atheist you can be; don’t tell me how to understand my own faith.

Simply put, if you think evolution, gravity, the big bang or any other scientific theory invalidates Christianity, then you don’t know squat about Christianity. For proof, let’s go back to, arguably, the moment it was born in this world.

Jesus is hanging on a cross. On either side of him are two thieves, also crucified. One mocks the lord, but the other rebukes him saying, essentially, “Is nothing sacred to you? We belong here, but this man doesn’t.” Then, he turns to Christ and says, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

According to Aus, Coyne, Ken Ham and a million other jokers who apparently don’t get Christianity, Jesus replied, “Sorry. If you had more time to read Genesis and properly understand the doctrine of original sin, then maybe you would have a shot. But seeing as you’re just a couple minutes from punching out your time card here, I’d say you’re out of luck.” But that’s not what my Bible says. In it, Jesus’ words are this: “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Let’s recap: I messed up. I deserve death. And…I’m kind of scared about it. Jesus, save me. Please.

That’s it. That’s the gospel. That’s Christianity. All these other doctrinal issues have undeniable value. They come from the Bible, after all (there is a lot of other stuff in there outside of Luke 23), and I think they are things Christians should study, learn and discuss with other Christians. I would, in fact, argue that many of them are vital to understanding, from an intellectual standpoint, what the Christian faith is and what it’s based on.

But in the end, these doctrinal points are not equal to saving faith in Christ, nor are they necessary for it. They are icing on the cake. If President Obama were to perform a Jedi mind-meld on me tomorrow that wiped clean every point of doctrine I know, other than my admission that I am a great sinner and my belief that Jesus is a great savior, I think I’d still be all right.

And if anyone is going to convince me otherwise, it sure as heck isn’t going to be Jerry Coyne.

Tyler Francke

  • Jerry Coyne has posted another missive today: “Where the conflict really lies.” I don’t think you’ll be able to get him to change his tune.

    I dropped out of religion long ago. But I never thought there was the kind of conflict that Jerry and Natalie Angier see.

    • Hey Neil, your perspective is appreciated, as always. Thanks for reading and posting the link. I don’t doubt you’re right that neither I nor anyone else could get the likes of Jerry Coyne and Natalie Angier to change their tunes. They see a conflict because they want to see it.

  • Just a minor point – mind melding is a Vulcan thing. Jedi’s did the mind trick.

    Therefore – either Vulcan mind-melding or Jedi mind-trick. Your choice.

  • ngotts

    Asa Gray, Charles Kingsley, B.B. Warfield, C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, Peter Enns, Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson and more

    The argument from authority is generally recognised as fallacious. People are very good at persuading themselves of what they want to be true.

    Let’s recap: I messed up. I deserve death. And…I’m kind of scared about it. Jesus, save me. Please.
    That’s it. That’s the gospel. That’s Christianity.

    Don’t you need some evidential support for the belief that Jesus, or anyone else, can save you from death? There’s actually very little reason to believe that the little story you tell about the crucifixion is true: it’s hearsay, written down decades after the alleged event. Every organism dies; isn’t it likely that the belief is just wishful thinking because you are, as you admit, scared of death? When did the first organisms capable of being “saved from death” evolve, and how?

  • VorJack

    “Let’s recap: I messed up. I deserve death. And…I’m kind of scared about it. Jesus, save me. Please.”

    How helpful it is to have someone finally explain it to us.

    Look, I’m an atheist. I realize we’ve fallen into the trap of arguing against all Christians as if they were all fundamentalist evangelical protestants. I recognize that Biblical innerrancy, as it is woodenly represented by folks like Robertson, LeHaye, Ham, et. al., is not the be all and end all of modern Christianity.

    But could you please do us the favor of not acting like you are the sole voice of Christianity? Like you’re the one that got it all figured out? Like Lewis’ Mere Christianity is somehow accepted scripture? There are tens of thousands of Christian sects, churches, and denominations. There are dozens of soteriologies, christologies, eschatologies, systems of theology and methods of biblical interpretation. There have been throughout history, there will be forever and ever, amen.

    You can’t speak for both Billy Graham and the Pope, alright? You can tell us what you believe Christianity is, or what your community believe Christianity is, but you can’t act like you’re the voice of all 1+ billion Christians the world over. Remember that Ham, Robertson, Lehaye et. al. also believe that they’ve figured out what Christianity is all about, and they have exactly as much right to tell us what it means as you do.

    • Wow, you are absolutely right. I will have to consider changing the part of my website that says, “I am the voice of all 1+ billion Christians the world over.”

      Look, believe me, I know Christians have a huge range of opinions about everything from the nature of Christ to how many guitars is too many guitars on a worship band. Forgive me for not fully encapsulating the complete spectrum of Christian thought in a blog post, but I don’t think I’m out of line to suggest there is widespread agreement among ALL believers that salvation is based on the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

      • ngotts

        By no means universal. Many Christian seem to recognise just how bizarre it is to believe that God somehow had to sacrifice his “son” (who is also himself) to himself before he could forgive the beings he created (whether directly or by evolution) for acting as they were created to act.

        • I don’t think it’s really that bizarre that a good and loving God would be a little upset when his creations hurt each other and otherwise behave in ways that are selfish and cruel. He demands justice, and unless any of us can go back in time and erase every wrong thing we ever did, it’s a debt we could never repay. Only Jesus, who never sinned, would qualify.

          Unless you’re talking about universalist Christianity, or those Christians who view Christianity more as a cultural heritage or something, I still must confess disbelief, ngotts. Do you have a particular denomination or theologian in mind that shares this viewpoint (that Christ’s substitionary atonement is NOT the basis for Christianity)?

          • ngotts

            I don’t think it’s really that bizarre that a good and loving God would
            be a little upset when his creations hurt each other and otherwise
            behave in ways that are selfish and cruel.

            That’s not what I said is bizarre, is it?

            Unless you’re talking about universalist Christianity, or those
            Christians who view Christianity more as a cultural heritage or
            something, I still must confess disbelief, ngotts.

            Those would certainly be examples. So would Christian Scientists. Are you claiming these groups are not Christians? Because if you admit that members of any of them are Christians, your claim falls. The first at least has a very long history within Christianity, at least if it is accepted that Origen was a universalist. Of course, if you make belief in substitutionary atonement a defining feature of Christianity, your claim is secure, but also rather empty. It is in any case, a bizarre and ethically very dubious belief. What logical or ethical sense can it make? If person A commits a crime, and person B agrees to be punished for it, that is not justice.

          • Hey ngotts, I don’t think it would be fair for me to say who is or isn’t a Christian. That’s not really up to me. But, theologically, I do think Christian Science beliefs are incorrect about the nature of Jesus and sin. I also disagree with Christian universalists on some points, but unless I’m mistaken, I think they mostly do see their faith as grounded in the atonement — they just believe it applied universally and not just to the faithful.

            James McGrath is a friend and has been a strong supporter of this website. That doesn’t mean I agree with him on everything.

            I think you make an excellent point about substitutionary atonement. I agree that it doesn’t seem fair. But it was the only way. I think of it more like a rescue, but whatever metaphor you use, it was a deliberate decision on the part of God to offer a life we never could have attained on our own.

            I understand that you don’t agree with it, but I just don’t see it as bizarre: Sin brings consequences. Payment was needed. Payment was made.

          • ngotts

            I don’t think it would be fair for me to say who is or isn’t a Christian.

            But you also said:

            there is widespread agreement among ALL believers that salvation is based on the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

            Now if you admit that Christian Scientists, or ” those Christians who view Christianity more as a cultural heritage or something”* are Christians, then that’s not so. But if you deny that they are Christians, then you are saying “who is or isn’t a Christian”. Maybe you’re saying you don’t know who is a Christian and who is not – but even then, the quote I give just above is more definite than you can justify.

            But, theologically, I do think Christian Science beliefs are incorrect about the nature of Jesus and sin.

            But I’m sure you wouldn’t say that anyone who disagrees with you theologically is not a Christian, so I don’t see how this is relevant to the point I’m querying.

            I think you make an excellent point about substitutionary atonement. I
            agree that it doesn’t seem fair. But it was the only way. I think of it
            more like a rescue, but whatever metaphor you use, it was a deliberate
            decision on the part of God to offer a life we never could have attained
            on our own.

            Why was it the only way? Why couldn’t God, who is supposed to be omnipotent, either make people so they wouldn’t sin in the first place, or forgive us all anyway, without sacrificing his son (who is also himself) to himself? It’s not just that it doesn’t seem fair, though it doesn’t. It’s absolute nonsense.

            Payment was needed.

            Why? Supposedly, God’s the one demanding payment. If someone owes me something, I’m free to remit the debt without torturing and killing either myself or my son – indeed, to do the former would seem utterly perverse, and to do the latter, plain evil. Why isn’t God free to remit the debt?

            *You seen to have changed your mind about universalists: first you gave them as possible examples of Christians who don’t accept the substitutionary atonement of Christ, now you’re saying that they are not such examples – or maybe that some are and some aren’t.

          • Ngotts, I didn’t really change my mind about universalists. I threw them out as a possible example earlier on because I honestly didn’t know what you were talking about. On deeper reflection, I didn’t think they fit after all, and that’s where my later comment came from. I don’t know much about Christian Scientists and wasn’t aware that they reject the idea of the atonement, so thanks for pointing that out to me.

            As far as why my belief for why Christ’s sacrifice was “needed,” I will do my best to explain. I don’t think it was merely a simple, transgression-forgiveness transaction, and I apologize that some of my statements have probably made it seem like that’s what I believe. I really do think of it more like a rescue.

            Sin is not just a single behavior but a condition of the heart. And it’s something that we become trapped in, and are unable to free ourselves from (hence, why outside help would be “needed”). I believe that it was when God came down, took on flesh, faced the same temptations we face, lived the life we were meant to live and, ultimately, yes, took the penalty for our sin, that he broke the chains that bound us. I believe that it is recognizing the enormity of what’s been done for us that we might find the motivation to repent, and it’s through faith and the promised gift of the Holy Spirit that we find redemption and new life.

            I can’t tell you exactly why, but I believe it was important to God that humans have free will (to answer your question of why wouldn’t he just make people who don’t sin in the first place). Rather than trumpeting his existence from the very beginning, he wanted to allow for his creations to “seek him, and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.” (Acts 17:27)

            In the end, I think God could just forgive us, and indeed, I believe he does forgive many, many sins. But the sacrifice was still needed because even his forgiveness would not free us from the sin we had trapped ourselves in through our own decisions (unless he subverted our free will).

          • ngotts

            Sin is not just a single behavior but a condition of the heart.

            Then consult a good cardiologist :-p

            And it’s something that we become trapped in, and are unable to free ourselves from (hence, why outside help would be “needed”).

            So why make us so that this would happen? Even if the significance of “free will” is conceded (see below), it’s not clear why this should lead to becoming “trapped in sin”, whatever exactly that’s supposed to mean.

            I believe that it was when God came down, took on flesh, faced the same temptations we face, lived the life we were meant to live

            But the doctrine is that Jesus was radically different from us, what with being God as well as man (an absurd doctrine, but doctrine nonetheless), so he most definitely did not face the same temptations nor live the same life, because he had inside knowledge.

            and, ultimately, yes, took the penalty for our sin, that he broke the chains that bound us.

            But it’s supposedly him (being God) who imposes the penalty. It makes no sense.

            I believe that it is recognizing the enormity of what’s been done for us

            I’m sure crucifixion is extremely painful, but many people have suffered even worse, and being God, he knew he’d be back inside two days. “Jesus had a really rotten weekend for your sins”. There are plenty of admirable people who have sacrificed their lives for others without any such safety net.

            Now to the “free will” defense:

            1) What do you mean by “free will”? It’s at best a very slippery concept, and particularly difficult to reconcile with the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent being.

            2) Making relevant information available would not be “subverting our free will”. If you’re about to cross a minefield I know about and you don’t, I’m not “subverting your freewill” if I tell you it’s there. Similarly, if those medical scientists who discovered that smoking is likely to kill you had concealed the information so as not to “subvert” smokers’ freewill, they would rightly be condemned.

            3) Is there “free will” in heaven? If so, it’s clearly compatible with an absence of “sin”. If not, it can’t be that important.

            4) More generally, unless you can show that it’s logically impossible for people to have “free will” and yet never “sin”, the question remains: why not create a universe in which there is one and not the other?

            I can’t tell you exactly why

            That’s a bit of a refrain in any attempt to finesse the Problem of Evil, I’ve found. The position that the existence of evil is compatible with that of an omnipotent and benevolent being is full of absurdities, and this or some variation on it comes up whenever its defender is backed into a corner.

          • ngotts

            On another point:

            don’t think it’s really that bizarre that a good and loving God would
            be a little upset when his creations hurt each other and otherwise
            behave in ways that are selfish and cruel.

            But it’s surely utterly incredible that a good and loving God would fail to intervene when, say, some psychopathic sadist is torturing, raping and murdering a child. I make no claim to be particularly good or loving, but I’d do all in my power to stop such an atrocity, and I’m sure you would too.

            Moreover, why would a good and loving God create a world in which quadrillions of sentient creatures suffered excruciating agonies even before any human being existed?

          • Chris P

            Substitutionary atonement was not the prominent motif in the first 1000 years of Christian theology. Christus Victor was. Look it up.

          • Jim Jones

            > Christus Victor was.

            Was it copied from Sol Invictus?

        • Brandon Roberts

          yeah i know but it’s true and is it any less stupid than the big bang

      • dylans

        The author of this essay says that all he requires to be a Christian is belief that he is a sinner and that Jesus is the saviour. But what does this “salvation” amount to? When I repent and get forgiven for my sins I am granted access to heaven right? I guess I must because otherwise the salvation of our thief on the cross didn’t really amount to much.

        This assumes then that we have a soul and this just begs the question, from an evolutionary point of view, at what point did we get one? I mean did other homo species have souls too? Did other primates? Do all mammals?

        If not, if only homo sapiens have a soul then at what point did we get one, given that evolution teaches that we did not emerge suddenly but gradually from earlier species, at what point were we mere animals and at what point did we become “In the image of god”.

        See, this is one of the problems with trying to reconcile Christianity with evolutionary theory. Once you ditch the creation myths of Adam and Eve, things get a bit blurry on when precisely we became human.

        • Hey Dylan, I think you ask a really important question, and my short answer is “I don’t know” where the soul came from or when our species might have acquired it. I actually blogged about this not too long ago. You should check it out if you’re interested: http://www.godofevolution.com/soul-searching-in-light-of-evolution-where-did-the-soul-come-from/

          • dylans

            Hi Tyler
            Thanks for the reply and yes I read your blog post. It’s very interesting that you have already considered precisely the point I was raising.

            On that note I have another point/question to make. As you know, evolutionary theory doesn’t only posit the idea of species gradually changing through time but the process of that change, namely natural selection. Now it seems to me that this , above and beyond evolutionary change in itself, poses particular problems for the theist in general and the Christian in particular. Of course this is why it is precisely natural selection that the ID supporters attempt to challenge as the main threat to faith even as they are prepared to concede evolutionary change as an accurate description of the origins of diversity

            This, as I am sure you are aware, is because NS is a purely natural process, one that not only doesn’t require a guiding hand but one which is blind as to any eventual outcome. Species don’t know they are evolving and there is no predetermined direction to which the process evolution is leads.

            Natural selection is the simplest of processes, individuals within a population survive to reproduce or die before reproduction as a result of the smallest seeming most insignificant of trait advantages or disadvantages in any particular environment,. Those with advantageous traits survive to reproduce and therefore pass on those advantageous traits, slowly, individuals with those advantageous traits flourish within a population and the population gradually changes.

            Now, I am sure you know all this but my point is this process is blind as to its potential path and indeed the slightest change in the environment can radically alter the path of evolutionary change. There was no guarantee that humanity would arise and prosper. If the environment had been a little different, offered an advantage to a different taxonomic group then the world would be a very different place.If a particular catastrophe, ancient Tsunami or meteor hadn’t changed the environment then perhaps mammals may not have found their evolutionary niche and evolution would have followed a different path, one that didn’t lead to human beings.

            My point here is that,natural selection is not a teleological process (even if we often talk about it as if it were.) In fact Its not a mechanism or process at all. Its actually a result or an outcome of a number of combined processes, such as the variation of individuals within a species, the possibility of the inheritance of traits. from parents to offspring, the competition for reproduction and survival in a given environment and the fact that because of the presures of particular environments some individuals survive and reproduce more than others. We often treat these processes as the same and call it natural selection but in fact its not one process but a generic term to describe a combination of different processes.that together lead to adaptive evolutionary change

            My point is that none of this is guided in fact the combination of processes that we call natural selection explicitly rules out any kind of teleology. How then can you reconcile this with the idea that mankind is the result of some kind of divine plan or intention? (presuming you do see mankind in those terms in the way that, say, the Catholic Church does)

            It seems to me that evolution by natural selection leaves no role for any guiding hand of god except in the deist sense of something that might have lit the blue touch paper on the first self reproducing bio-chemical formula long ago.before retiring from the scene. It certainly doesn’t leave room for any kind of interventionist god or god that is concerned with the mundanity of man’s existence or even it seems, the fact that we would exist at all. How, when our existence is merely the result of an incredible chain of fortunate events, one of many possible outcomes and one whose path we can only see in retrospect, can we see any hand of god in the world?

  • NickHudson

    I don’t think Jerry Coyne (or many New Atheists) are interested in convincing someone like you, as shown by his response to a letter from a Christian who believes in evolution. If most American Christians had your beliefs (and I wish they did), then Christianity would not be a problem. Unfortunately, many do not and they are extremely vocal and politically active (as you are well aware).

    Moreover, as pointed out in the comments to another post, fundamentalist Christians are the ones who started, and continue to talk, about the incompatibility of evolution and Christianity. Dawkins, Coyne, and Myers are all reacting to them. One can certainly claim that most evangelical Christians don’t know squat about Christianity, but that seems unlikely (as @VorJack:disqus observes).

    And while this is largely off-topic, your comments about sin, payment, and atonement reinforce my belief that Christianity is the solution to a problem it created.

    • Blunt Belief

      Fundie Christians often do argue that the two are incompatible, but the author of the blog post already pointed that out. “It’s one thing for other believers (young-earth creationists, for example) to say stuff like this (which YECs do all the time).”

  • Adam

    I haven’t read much of your other entries and I haven’t read many of the comments below, but it seems to me that you’re not really attempting to meet the argument by Aus that you quote. In fact, if Aus has deconverted from Christianity, he is perfectly qualified to provide commentary on the science and Christianity debate. Are you suggesting that Christianity and its core/ peripheral doctrines cannot be understood by anyone who does not hold them to be true? What else does “Christianity” mean if it cannot be understood in terms of such doctrines? If it is reducible to what you say about Jesus dying for our sins, then it seems like you’re being highly selective about the total story of Christianity. What does Jesus dying for our sins mean if we are not depraved sinners, fallen from God?

    By the way, it should be said, that I like and respect this site. I recently posted one of your posts on facebook the other day, which produced a constructive debate about science and religion. So, yeah… there you go. 🙂

    • Hey Adam! Thanks for your thoughts, and thanks so much for sharing a post of mine. Glad to see we are helping spark constructive discussions about science and religion 🙂

      I did not mean to suggest that Mike Aus — or anyone else — is unqualified to discuss or give their opinion about Christianity or Christian doctrine. But, plainly speaking, the claim that the truth of biological evolution renders any religion meaningless is patently false. It’s simple logic: No aspect of the gospel message (people are sinners, Christ died for our sin, etc.) is dependent on evolution being false, therefore, the fact that it is true does nothing to upend the gospel.

      For me, the question is not, “Are all people sinners, fallen from God?” I believe that we are. The question, I think, is, “How did we get that way?” And I reject the idea that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God because of a single act of disobedience that transpired thousands of years ago and which none of us had anything to do with. Instead, I believe that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God because each of us has chosen to sin and go our own way. There are numerous Bible passages that support this idea, and — as I’m sure you’ll agree — it can be true regardless of whether evolution is true or false.

      • Blunt Belief

        Loved your blog post, loved this reply. Thank you for sharing.

        • Thanks! So glad you liked it. And thanks for commenting!

  • Brandon Roberts

    look i love this but yeah look atheists you want me to respect and tolerate your beliefs while you mock mine and me sorry but that’s not going to happen cause it’s complete b.s you have to respect and tolerate me if you want me to reciprocate

  • Dr. Dennis Bonnette

    This thread appears pretty old now, but if anyone seriously wants to see in detail how evolution might be compatible with a literal Adam and Eve, take the time to study a peer-reviewed scholarly publication that accepts evidence based science, does not embrace young earth creationism, and yet offers a solid case for a literal Adam and Eve. Follow this link: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5244649

    • Hello, Dr. Bonnette! Thanks for the comment! And thanks for sharing the link. Very cool!

  • Dr. Dennis Bonnette

    In answer to the claims that there can be no first true man, no literal Adam and Eve, see my peer reviewed article as follows: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5244649

  • Jim Jones

    Why are there (usually) two sexes?

  • Dick Colon

    Your logic is flawed. Evolution is completely incompatible with The Gospel because if Evolution is true, then that means Jesus was just an evolved being. If He was just an evolved being, then He’s not God.

    • Your comment is the equivalent of Cesar Romero criticizing Heath Ledger’s portrayal of The Joker for being too campy.

      Dude, there is this thing called the Incarnation. It’s the theological doctrine that states that God took on flesh and became a man, and that person we call Jesus. The ancient origins of mankind, whatever they may be, don’t change the doctrine of the Incarnation in the slightest.

      Your name makes sense, though.

      • Dick Colon

        I completely understand the incarnation but Jesus often refers to the Father, thus proving He believed in creationism. If evolution is true then men aren’t the final creatures because eventually we’ll evolve into something else so the scripture “died for all of mankind” wouldn’t make any sense. What about the hominoids and neanderthals, are they in hell? Ever thought about that?

        • but Jesus often refers to the Father, thus proving He believed in creationism.

          I’m not sure I’ve ever read a sentence that makes less sense than this.

          If evolution is true then men aren’t the final creatures because eventually we’ll evolve into something else so the scripture “died for all of mankind” wouldn’t make any sense.

          Oops. I spoke too soon. You’re out of your depth here, buddy. You should go back to arguing about Kanye West’s style and the pros and cons of sneaker collecting.

        • Matthew Funke

          If evolution is true then men aren’t the final creatures

          Why do men have to be “the final creatures” in order for God to have died for us?

          What does it mean for men to be “the final creatures” in the first place?

          What about the hominoids and neanderthals, are they in hell? Ever thought about that?

          Yup.

          As near as I can figure, these beings ending up in Hell (assuming they could even go there in the first place) would depend on whether or not they were created with eternal souls, if they had a need for redemption, if redemption was made available to them, and if they rejected it. I don’t know any of those things. I also acknowledge that I don’t know the situation as well as God does, which is fine — He’s in charge of salvation, not me, and my understanding (or lack of it) of how salvation works has absolutely no bearing on the issue. Nor does my understanding (or lack of it) have anything to do with whether or not evolution is true.

          Now, I’m curious — since we have all these hominids and hominins, and artifacts indicating that they had substantial intelligence, what do you think about their spiritual condition, and why?

    • Matthew Funke

      That’s a bit like arguing that creationism cannot be true, because if creationism is true, then that means that Jesus was just a created being, and therefore could not have been God.

      We Christians believe that God performed a miracle in becoming human. Why is God stumped by evolution?