‘How do I talk to my kids about evolution?’

Tyler’s note: If you are not devoted to a particular religious faith, answering that question is easy. If you are Ken Ham, answering that question is also easy, because you just tell them evolution is bad and they don’t even have to worry about it.

But if you are like me, and you care about your Christian faith and scripture, and you also value science and being honest with your kids, that question becomes a lot trickier. The following is how one parent handled it. I hope you enjoy this guest contribution from GOE community member Blaine Bowden.

A couple nights ago, while watching “Star Wars: Rogue One” with my six-year-old son shortly before bedtime, he randomly paused the movie to ask me a massive question.

“Dad, how did humans come into existence?”

My eyebrows raised, though I should not have been surprised since he is one of the most scientifically curious children I’ve ever known, especially with astronomy. He could probably tell me more facts about our dwarf planets than I could remember about our major planets, all thanks to wonderful science videos for kids on YouTube. But nonetheless, knowing my bright little thinker who always asks twenty thousand detailed questions about anything he’s unsure of, I took a moment to contemplate how I should explain the creation story in an evolutionary framework, in a manner that a six-year-old could grasp.

I started by explaining that it’s hard to only ask about humans when there are natural evolutionary processes that had a starting point, proceeding over millions of years to produce many kinds of life and eventually humans. So as we were already snuggled up in a blanket on the couch, I unpacked Genesis 1 for my son in the following manner.

“In the beginning of time, there was always God, who is uncreated and outside of time. He wanted to build a special universe that had an Earth. Through God’s Word, who is Jesus, and by the work of God’s Spirit, God somehow caused a gigantic bang in the darkness of space, and all the energy and elements of matter that make up the entire universe somehow came into existence. At first it was unformed, but worked together over time to eventually create light in the darkness. To do something like this was only like a day’s work for God, because He is powerful and can do anything.

Over billions of years, all the matter and energy came together in different forms to give us all the galaxies, stars, planets, moons, nebulas, comets, and everything we see when we look up at the stars. And it all moved together like clockwork to give us time and the seasons as we know it. To do this was also only like a day’s work for God.

Eventually, the Earth and our solar system were formed. Somehow, water was all over the Earth. Maybe a massive comet of ice hit the planet and melted, but we don’t really know. Lots of water evaporated from the heat of the sun and formed clouds. This also was only like a day’s work for God.

As the water evaporated into clouds, the dry land was uncovered and small forms of vegetation developed on the ground, which would eventually change and evolve over millions of years into the different plants we have today. This also was only like a day’s work for God.

Within the water, very small forms of life developed, changed and evolved over millions of years into the different types of boy and girl sea creatures we have today. The same happened with very small forms of life that developed to fly in the air, which eventually changed and evolved into the different boy and girl birds and insects we have today. This also was only a like day’s work for God.

On the dry land, as vegetation first developed, so also other small forms of life developed, changed and evolved over millions of years into the different boy and girl animals we have today. Yet somehow through this process of evolving animals, God wanted to create a very special kind of creature that was like God, who could think, speak and do great things. So certain types of animals evolved into upright standing creatures that kind of looked like humans, but weren’t quite human yet. Then over hundreds of thousands of years they changed little by little into many different types of the same kind of creature until eventually there were boy and girl humans. Since humans were made to be like Himself, God wanted humanity to be in charge of the world and everything on it, to take very good care of it. This also was also only like a day’s work for God.

Then since God had a very busy work week, He rested for a day, because rest is very important after working hard. The way God seemed to work on ‘different projects’ on different ‘days’ is where we get the idea for the work week that we have now.”

While my son seemed to understand what I was saying, he was actually more interested in a specific question, “But who was the first human?”

Of course, this is where the biblical rubber meets the evidential road. I did not want to pass off the entire Adam narrative as complete myth—since I have no problem with an actual historical guy named Adam existing at the beginning of the genealogy of Christ, whom Paul also believes was an actual man, without necessarily forcing the entire Genesis 1-11 prehistory to be an accurate historical account—but I could not in good conscience tell my son that the biblical Adam, as written, was the first of the human genome.

So I then explained how we have no way of knowing who the first genetic human was, or if there ever was only one human. But we do know where the story God and man began, that there was a particular man that our story began with, and that everything we have learned up to today started with his thoughts and experience. So I continued to unpack Genesis 2 in this way:

“Even before there was vegetation on the ground, when the dry land was still wet from the waters, it was God’s plan to create humans to be like Him when He first created life. To be in charge of the Earth and take good care of it. Once nature eventually evolved to form humanlike creatures, there was a man named Adam who was the first to be aware of God, and talk with God.

 Adam realized the goodness in nature and how it all was intended from God. He saw the purpose in the fish of the sea, the birds in the air, and the animals on the ground, and how it all worked together. Adam used a speaking language and even named all the animals that he saw. Where he lived, there were four different rivers that flowed in different directions, and with the land, provided everything he could ever need. It was like a perfect garden to him.

There was only one rule for Adam to keep his life in harmony. To ‘do what is right in God’s eyes’ (tree of life), and ‘don’t decide for yourself what is right and wrong, thinking you know better than God’ (tree of knowledge of good and evil). God is your Father who loves you and provides life for you. So when you decide your own right and wrong, it is selfish and hurtful toward your Father who loves you and knows what is good for you. Doing this is like running away from home, leaving life for death.

Adam thought about how some of the animals were good helpers, like the cow for pulling things and the horse for riding. But none of the animals could be an equal partner for him. Adam met a certain girl named Eve and loved her so much he couldn’t imagine being without her. She was such a perfect friend to him, he believed she must have been made from him, because it certainly seemed like she was made for him. He realized that boys and girls were alike enough being human, but different enough that when they come together, they provide what each other doesn’t have and become complete like one person. This is why grownups get married.”

I asked my son if all that made sense.

“Wait,” he said. “So nature made all kinds of life, and we don’t really know who the first humans were, but we know that Adam was the first important human?”

To which I replied, “Yeah, that’s pretty much it.”

  • Phil Ledgerwood

    Woohoo! New GoE articles!

    • Headless Unicorn Guy

      Tyler’s finally getting back to the blog after the long diaper derby!

  • Donald Johnson

    I never had to do this, but I think I would try to explain things in a full accommodation mode, not using any attempts at a partial concord with science.

  • Well educated kids, as yours seem to be, will take this in stride.

    I remember, in discussion of religion in high school, someone asked who did Adam’s children marry. And the person leading the instruction suggested that maybe he found a wife at the next town. That gave me a whole new way of thinking about it. Maybe Adam was the first of the Israelites, but there were other humans around too. Note that this was in Australia, where we knew that the Australian aborigines had been around since well before the time of Adam.

  • Rather than trying to come up with a “Genesis version” of human evolution, why not just explain what evolution is and leave it at that?

    If the kid wants to bring Genesis into it, that would be a good time to explain that the name “Adam” in Hebrew actually means “man” or “human” – a great introduction into the nature of allegorical genres like the early chapters of Genesis. Teaching children that the topic of Genesis is the scientific origin of the universe is misleading at best.

    Speaking of explaining evolution – this narrative never does it! The parent confuses the matter by blithely mixing an informal use of the word evolution (as in the evolution of the universe) with the specific biological meaning of evolution. And when he gets to biology, he never explains that evolution is descent with modification. This basic idea is one that children can grasp with just a few examples.

    Trying to merge Genesis with the science of human evolution simply misses the point of Genesis and dumbs down the science of human evolution.

    • He will ask questions about evolution tell him this is rooted in ancient Greek natural philosophy B.C.E. Then put Proverbs 18:15 to practice as this will have reading into ancient Greece; as I read about Greek Mythology in grade school as that was an early influence on my horror output. The Bible has referenced Hades from Greek Mythology. As my philosophy class spoke of Socrates and the Shades of Hades. I was introduced to Superbook and the Flying House as a kid but I read into shark evolution when I turned ten as the first book I read was JAWS. When my mother and step-father had shark books when they took up scuba diving in the 1980s.

      If he’s homeschooled look for books about science in the bronze age. Don’t get him Ray Comfort’s book because he doesn’t have a college education and is not qualified to teach science. I had dabbled in Egyptology when I wrote Passenger as it came from when I was in sixth grade as we studied Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece in social studies. I went to a public school and community college. The Bible is not a scientific book as you can get a glimpse of history in there but use it as a starting point then go further with wikipedia and National Geographic.

      Then when he researches mythological cosmologies then explain that Adam and Eve are allegorical. The scientific big bang is interpreted many ways though young earth creationists cannot grasp scientific ideas or philosophical concepts.

  • Matthew Funke

    I’ve gotten a fair amount of mileage with my kids by explaining that there are all kinds of ideas about how the Genesis story of creation and evolution reconcile. Some people think there were people, and Adam was a special one that God pulled aside. Others think that Adam was the first creature we would call “human”. Some people think that it’s a story, meant to show how the Hebrew God was different from other gods if people bothered to compare and contrast the story in Genesis with other creation stories.

    I don’t know exactly why that story is in there, myself — I have some ideas, but nothing definite. Regardless of whether I’m right or wrong, I don’t think it was to teach us science. If you want to know why it’s there, I’m more than willing to look at the matter with you; it’s more than likely that I’ll learn some things I never knew, and have to change my mind.

    They haven’t made much of a fuss since then. My girl and I have even had some really cool talks about the evidence for evolution, and how big God evidently must be in order to work with such a concept.

    • Nick G

      how big God evidently must be in order to work with such a concept.

      Since the theory of evolution by natural selection neither makes nor needs any reference to an agent “working with” the entirely undirected mechanism proposed, “God” has nothing at all to do in this connection, and hence could be any size whatever, including zero.

      • Matthew Funke

        Sure. Admittedly, this all boils down to belief, since examination is not going to inform your ideas about how much a supernatural entity was (or was not) involved. I, personally, believe it a mistake to think that God somehow “steps back” and lets natural law operate all by itself — that’s more up the creationist alley. I also believe God has some kind of purpose in all this, so if He used evolution as a tool to reach His ends, He has to be big. My kids agree for now, but I’ve told them that they may well grow up to have beliefs different from mine, and that’s fine — it’s ultimately only up to them, anyway.

        • Nick G

          examination is not going to inform your ideas about how much a supernatural entity was (or was not) involved

          That’s only the case because there is no evidence that one was involved. There could easily have been such evidence – our DNA, for example, could include a sequence which is not transcribed (hence, has no biological function), but remains unchanged in all organisms and translates to “I am that I am” in Hebrew (or “Om mani padme hum” in Sanskrit or “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet” in classical Arabic, or whatever), though a simple substitution.

          Also, if God “used evolution to reach His ends”, he seems to have needed several goes at it, considering the five mass extinctions we know about – that at the end of the Permian is estimated to have eliminated some 95% of species, while that at the end of the Cretaceous seems to have been caused by a whacking great rock smashing into the earth, causing mass incineration, poisoning, starvation, etc. Not to mention the excrutiating suffering to quadrillions of sentient beings the whole process has involved just in the everyday course of events. If God “used evolution to reach His ends”, one safe conclusion is that God is not at all a nice person.

          • Matthew Funke

            That’s only the case because there is no evidence that one was involved.

            Agreed. That’s precisely why I’ve tried to be careful to explain that it “all boils down to belief”, and not tried to couch this matter in terms of evidence or knowledge.

            Also, if God “used evolution to reach His ends”, he seems to have needed several goes at it, considering the five mass extinctions we know about

            Sure. Or that those mass extinctions were all part of something deeper. I can’t claim to know that — that would make all of this a massive appeal to ignorance — but I believe it’s a possibility.

            If God “used evolution to reach His ends”, one safe conclusion is that God is not at all a nice person.

            That’s a possible conclusion, and I can’t fault you for it. I don’t claim to know why God allows suffering and death; none of the “reasons” I’ve heard are logically satisfactory, to be honest. I have to claim cluelessness, following much the same pattern as “I don’t know, but I allow this possibility” above. That’s not very compelling, I know, but I don’t claim that it is or that it should be.

          • Nick G

            I respect your honest response, but you leave me puzzled as to why (and even how!) you continue to believe that a benevolent deity guided evolution.

          • Matthew Funke

            To my mind, it takes no more faith than to believe that a benevolent deity guides the present world (never mind the diversification of life). I mean, look around. It’s a pretty brutal place.

            I’ll freely admit that theodicy is a challenge to belief in God. Part of the package seems to be an acknowledgement that you have no idea what the whole picture looks like. It seems to me that once you really begin to grasp how tiny your apprehension really is, theodicy-based arguments tend to seem kind of insignificant. (The sheer enormity of the drama that evolution hints at, over scales in time and space too large to ever fully comprehend, helps a lot here. It may be why I’ve become so passionate about the topic. Mathematical studies in constrained randomness also help, and the way certain families can lead to deterministic outcomes — and whether you think a deity was involved or not, evolution is an exercise in constrained randomness.) It also helps a bit, to my mind, to think of beliefs less as things that define you, personally, so much as things you hold in a very provisional way.

            Your mileage may vary, of course. When the question comes up as to what I believe, I usually tell people that I’m a Christian, but I also think I’m probably wrong about that. If their curiosity persists, I’m more than happy to invite them along for the journey, to find out what this “following Jesus” thing means, even and especially if they come to different conclusions; their different perspective and findings as they explore can only help me to see or understand things that might have completely escaped my notice otherwise (and it’s my prayer that more of the Christian community will eventually treasure these insights, or even treasure the opportunity to consider them, rather than imagine it has all the orthodox answers).

          • Nick G

            To my mind, it takes no more faith than to believe that a benevolent deity guides the present world

            Well the commonest Christian response is that the state of the present world is down to human “sin”. Not that that response is very plausible, because there’s a lot of present suffering that clearly isn’t our fault. But the sheer magnitude of suffering that preceded human existence is surely an item on the charge sheet the creator must face if it doesn’t have the excuse of non-existence!

            It seems to me that once you really begin to grasp how tiny your apprehension really is, theodicy-based arguments tend to seem kind of insignificant.

            That’s argumentum ad ignorantiam in its purest form! It’s arguable that there is a moral duty to conform one’s beliefs to the current state of the evidence and existing arguments. If we don’t hold that, a climate change denialist can simply say that despite all the evidence, they just choose to believe that the earth-system is self-stabilising and nothing we do can destabilise it.

          • Matthew Funke

            Well the commonest Christian response is that the state of the present world is down to human “sin”.

            I’m aware. That doesn’t sit very well with me, personally; it completely fails to account for so-called “natural evil”.

            But the sheer magnitude of suffering that preceded human existence is surely an item on the charge sheet the creator must face if it doesn’t have the excuse of non-existence!

            To be fair, He’s got a lot of time to answer for it. 🙂 I don’t know exactly what justice would look like in this case, I’ll admit.

            That’s argumentum ad ignorantiam in its purest form!

            Well, maybe not its purest, but it’s pretty clear that it is such a claim. Nevertheless, let me remind you of the role of logical fallacies. They don’t, by themselves, indicate that a conclusion is incorrect; they merely indicate that a conclusion was not arrived at through logical means. If this were a claim that one must arrive at through logical means, I’d be more concerned.

            It’s arguable that there is a moral duty to conform one’s beliefs to the current state of the evidence and existing arguments. If we don’t hold that, a climate change denialist can simply say that despite all the evidence, they just choose to believe that the earth-system is self-stabilising and nothing we do can destabilise it.

            With respect, that’s a false analogy. The climate science denialist is denying testable facts in evidence. The believer in God is believing in things that, by definition, cannot be tested; there are no testable facts to deny (or any testable facts at all). As long as the believer keeps this in mind, and is humble with respect to his/her understanding, I don’t see a particular problem with that. It’s a position closer to the scientist who is stuck with conjectures because she doesn’t have enough data to even form a working hypothesis than the denier — a belief that lies beyond current knowledge, not in contradistinction to current knowledge.

          • Nick G

            The believer in God is believing in things that, by definition, cannot be tested; there are no testable facts to deny (or any testable facts at all).

            With respect, that is not the case. The testable facts are the prevalence of suffering and evil, which are prima facie incompatible with the existence of a benevolent, wise and uniquely powerful creator. If you don’t allow that they are evidence against the existence of such a being, presumably you would say the same even if all that appeared to exist was something like Dante’s vision of Hell, and we were trapped in it.

            It’s a position closer to the scientist who is stuck with conjectures because she doesn’t have enough data to even form a working hypothesis

            But we clearly do have enough data to dismiss a specific class of hypotheses – that there is a wise, powerful and benevolent creator – as grossly implausible. (I’m not claiming a logical proof here – but no scientific theory ever follows logically from the data, since it is always conceivable that some powerful agent has systematically interfered with the evidence in order to mislead us.)

          • Matthew Funke

            The testable facts are the prevalence of suffering and evil, which are prima facie incompatible with the existence of a benevolent, wise and uniquely powerful creator.

            Perhaps. But it is also the case that sometimes, suffering occurs to prevent other suffering. I have no evidence that that is the case, but I also have no evidence that we’re in Dante’s Hell. Your “evidence” doesn’t indicate anything in particular, other than that suffering exists; we can’t know how this compares to the best of all possible worlds nor to the worst of all possible worlds, because we only have one data point. Any comparisons to the way things might be or should be are nothing more than imagination, and very limited imagination at that.

            (This relates to an area where I differ with classical Christian thought — I don’t hold that God is omnipotent… just vastly more powerful than we.)

          • Nick G

            But it is also the case that sometimes, suffering occurs to prevent other suffering. I have no evidence that that is the case

            You appear to be contradicting yourself here – first asserting without qualification that some suffering occurs to prevent other suffering, then saying you have no evidence this is the case. Can you clarify your point?

            I also have no evidence that we’re in Dante’s Hell.

            We know we are not. But if we were, you could make exactly the same arguments, with exactly the same soundness or lack of it, as you do with regard to the world we do live in – which was my point. If you don’t allow suffering to be evidence against the existence of a benevolent, wise and uniquely powerful creator, then no amount of suffering could count as such.

            we can’t know how this compares to the best of all possible worlds nor to the worst of all possible worlds,

            Well maybe my imagination is less limited than yours 😉

            I find it quite easy to envisage worlds which are better than this one. For example, all sentient beings could be equiped with a “cut-out” causing their pain-perception system to shut down if pain is more than enough to prompt evasive action. More radically, the hedonic tone of all sentient beings could range only from neutral upwards. Or available resources could expand exponentially through time, obviating the “struggle for existence”. Or the world could be like the traditional Christian conception of Heaven – endless bliss for all its sentient inhabitants.

            because we only have one data point.

            We can and do compare different (spatial, temporal, spatio-temporal) parts of this world to each other, so it’s not hard to envisage a world in which all parts resembled the best we know of.

          • Matthew Funke

            You appear to be contradicting yourself here – first asserting without qualification that some suffering occurs to prevent other suffering, then saying you have no evidence this is the case. Can you clarify your point?

            You’re right. I spoke poorly; thank you for giving me a chance to clarify.

            Our own human experience shows us that sometimes, some suffering occurs to prevent other suffering. We might point to vaccinating our children, or displacing people in order to allow them to avoid a natural disaster. We have no evidence that this is the case for the divine, though, and I personally find it unsatisfying, because it seems at first impulse that suffering-that-prevents-other-suffering only really matters if the “other suffering” is difficult or impossible to avert directly.

            If you don’t allow suffering to be evidence against the existence of a benevolent, wise and uniquely powerful creator, then no amount of suffering could count as such.

            On the other hand, if I do allow suffering to be evidence against the creator we’re describing, then that creator could never make something like Dante’s Hell. Right? So I’m not sure the evidence is as powerfully conclusive as you seem to think. Maybe it is; I admit that I don’t know.

            Well maybe my imagination is less limited than yours 😉

            Entirely probable.

            I find it quite easy to envisage worlds which are better than this one. For example, all sentient beings could be equiped with a “cut-out” causing their pain-perception system to shut down if pain is more than enough to prompt evasive action.

            That assumes that pain only exists to prompt evasive action. That’s the kind of thing I mean by a failure of imagination — not that we can’t imagine things that we think would be better, but that we aren’t sure that we’re seeing all facets of suffering, or all the effects (long- and short-term) of shuffling parameters around. I’m inclined to think that we have an incomplete picture of it because no answer to why it exists seems to be satisfying.

            We can and do compare different (spatial, temporal, spatio-temporal) parts of this world to each other, so it’s not hard to envisage a world in which all parts resembled the best we know of.

            That might be using pretty simple judgment to assess “better” and “worse”. I’m not sure that “better” and “worse” lie on a linear spectrum, judged by the presence or absence of a small number of criteria (e.g., “suffering”), any more than, say, something like “intelligent” and “foolish” can be assessed according to a small number of criteria (which is one of the problems with something as simplistic as an “intelligence quotient”). I’m sure this looks a lot like moving the goalposts, and maybe it is; I hope it offers adherents a chance to examine things and remind ourselves that we know very little while assessing the situation of others. Naturally, we can’t use this as an excuse to simply let suffering exist, or any other thing that seems to make things worse from our limited perspective; we use the best judgment we can to make things as better as we can, and trust that God will fill in the gaps we don’t see.

          • Matthew Funke

            That’s argumentum ad ignorantiam in its purest form!

            At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me attempt to be more precise.

            If I were to claim, “I don’t know X; therefore, I know Y”, that would be argumentum ad ignorantiam — like the creationist claiming to have evidence for or proof of the existence of God based on his assessment of the probability of life forming on its own. Even if his assessment were correct, that would still be an “argument from ignorance”, since you can’t claim to have any kind of evidence or knowledge based on what you don’t know.

            But what I’m claiming is closer to “I don’t know X, since X is unknowable and untestable by definition; I believe Y”. Strictly speaking, the second part of the statement isn’t even a conclusion based on the first — just a statement of belief about the first, since we both know that we can’t know X (much less conclude anything from it). If you’ll go back over our conversation, I think you’ll see that I’ve tried to be careful to point out exactly that.

            One could make the point that your conclusion about the nature of my statement is both a straw man argument (since my argumentam isn’t even an argumentam, and can only be such if we mischaracterize it) with an argument from fallacy (argumentam ad logicam, if you prefer the Latin) stacked on top of it.

  • summers-lad

    I love your explanation!

  • Nick G

    Of course, this is where the biblical rubber meets the evidential road.

    What you have actually demonstrated with this farrago of dishonest nonsense is that the biblical account and evolutionary science are incompatible – one point on which Ken Ham is completely correct. You should be ashamed to deceive your son in this way.

    I did not want to pass off the entire Adam narrative as complete myth

    But that is what it quite clearly is.

    since I have no problem with an actual historical guy named Adam
    existing at the beginning of the genealogy of Christ, whom Paul also
    believes was an actual man

    There is no evidence whatever for the historical reality of any biblical figures earlier than David (who was a minor hill chieftain, not the ruler of a huge empire). See for example Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman the Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts. Finkelstein is one of Israel’s premier archeologists and, as it happens, an observant Jew. And the fact that Paul of Tarsus believed what other Jews of the time believed is not evidence that he was right.

    So I then explained how we have no way of knowing who the first genetic human was, or if there ever was only one human.

    Genetics demonstrates quite clearly that there never was only one human.

    • Don’t let the Institute for Creation Research near your kid as they take advantage of science illiterate Christians and pass creation pseudoscience off as science. Flood Geology isn’t science either as that’s Bible Woo. He needs to educate himself on cults as well as some Christian denominations shun science as we know it is with evolution included as they call evolution a “new age religion.” This is what I call willful ignorance as they also defecate on academia unless it’s a Bible College. Pensecola Christian College (which is Eric Hovind’s alma mata.) This Baptist sect are truly weirdos in how they impose a dress code on men and women then preach book burning, record smashing and piss on science. They often verbally urinate on modern Bible translations and follow the wingnuttery of Gail Riplinger.

      Pastor Bob Beeman and I addressed them on different times for being legalistic as they shun men with long hair. The Indpendent Baptists are acting like Jehovah’s Witnesses.

      I have encountered an Independent Baptist in Philosophy class and the teacher was a former pastor at College Church in Wheaton who referenced modern Gothic Literature as part of his discussion. I equate Jehovah’s Witnesses as the children from Village of the Damned all grown up. I darkly call them “murderers” over the barring of blood transfusions. Their views on science is deceptive. This blog shows their equally willful ignorance towards science as they push superstition. On a Gothic message board I was active with we’d trade idea about how to mess with Jehovah’s Witnesses heads — one suggested open the door in the nude. :laughing: or pretend to have a black mass [I can’t believe I am joking about this. I would crack about detractors making a voodoo doll of me and throw darts at it.] )

      Once you refute the teachings in the Independent Baptist sects and Southern Baptist sects you can show them the epic of evolution and point out that the Big Bang wasn’t an Atheist deal but came from the Catholic Church in the 20th Century.

      • Nick G

        I’ve no idea how this is supposed to be a response to my comment. Did you just stick it in at random?

        • I had rebutted Eric Hovind in 2014 as I debunked young earth creationism, have I suggest do a google about Illinois’ The Tully Monster.

          • Nick G

            I’ve no idea how this is supposed to be a response to my comment. Did you just stick it in at random?

          • I was pointing out do a google on shark evolution and the tully monster then you got your discussion for the older earth and evolution.

          • Nick G

            But what does that have to do with my comment?

  • Have him read about sharks that’s what got me curious about evolutionary marine biology as a kid. Tourniquet dabbled in marine biology with this track in 2003; which is about the Giant Squid. Six years old is a little young to be talking science and philosophy as they’re still learning their A.B.C’s and learning how to read. I say when they discover heavy metal – that’s when you also introduce the evolution dialog as Iron Maiden with Quest for Fire was singing about prehistory and the stone age.

    Use Romans 1:20 and doesn’t matter the translation as I am referring to a Roman Catholic translation, “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.” My late grandmother when I was 8 read The Genesis Narrative though my atheism developed as a kid, I didn’t believe in God until I was 17 (I went to church on my own as I left on my own — I had some scientific background as a kid though I was still a young Christian who wasn’t ready to refute the Independent Baptist sect yet.) When a kid enters science and biology — he will end up discussing the stone age and prehistory as he might be a little young to explore philosophy.