Perhaps you’ve heard that science and the Christian faith are at odds. This rumored conflict between evolution vs. faith is often posed in the form of this question, “Can Christians believe in evolution?”
The very first verse in Genesis 1 tells us: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
This opening to God’s Word declares that there certainly was a beginning and, therefore, a Cause (or Beginner) to the universe. Christians believe that God created everything and that God’s hand can be seen throughout all the amazing architecture in our natural world—from the smallest cell to the vastest galaxies and beyond.
But how did God create the heavens and the earth?
People have asked this question for thousands of years and have come up with many different ideas, including the theory of evolution.
Before we get into this topic, it’s important to remember that each person’s belief regarding evolution is a secondary issue in theology. Thankfully, no matter what your viewpoint is on evolution, it does not dictate if you are (or can be) saved by Jesus Christ. Yes, it’s an important and relevant topic, but it doesn’t impact our salvation.
As a curious person, you might be wondering . . .
Can Christians Believe in Evolution?
Christians can believe in a number of scientific concepts that aren’t explicitly outlined in the Bible, such as cells, molecules, photosynthesis, gravity, etc.
However, some scientific concepts—like evolution—can both align with and challenge the Christian worldview in different ways. When it comes to evolution, the question becomes: Which worldview best lines up with the evidence in nature and the truth of the Bible? Both will give us clues.
Christians hold different views when trying to understand how God created.
The three most common views are:
- Young-earth creationism (YEC)
- Theistic evolution / evolutionary creation (TE)
- Old-earth creationism (OEC)
Each view engages the topic of evolution differently, but all three accept at least portions of evolutionary theory. Reasons to Believe holds an old-earth creationism position and believes it offers the best explanation for what we see in the record of nature and the words of Scripture. RTB also remains skeptical of the extent to which the evolutionary paradigm explains the history of life.
But . . . What Exactly Is Evolution?
The concept of evolution emerged in the mid-19th century to help explain our ever-changing natural world. When it comes to the origin of the universe and life on Earth, evolution remains the predominant idea being taught in schools.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the definition of evolution is “any change in the frequency of [gene variants] within a population from one generation to the next.” This means that any change in a living organism’s genetics from one generation to the next is within the realm of “evolution” (i.e., plants, animal breeds, eye color, etc.).
More simply put, evolution = changes over time.
The concept of evolution predates Charles Darwin. However, Darwin progressed and popularized the term “evolution” and the theory in connection to natural selection in the 1800s through his writings On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871).
Images from your high school textbook are probably coming to mind!
Darwin’s ideas led to something called the evolutionary paradigm, which many scientists use in an attempt to explain any biological change or even the emergence of life in the universe. The problem is, this paradigm is a mixture of proven concepts and unproven theories.
Let’s unpack it so you can clearly see which parts are well-supported by science and which ones are not.
Breaking Down the Evolutionary Paradigm
Within the evolutionary paradigm, there are five categories:
- Microevolution: the idea that gene frequencies can change in a population (like peppered moths changing wing color in response to environmental pollution)
- Speciation: the idea that one species gives rise to a closely related sister species (like the Galapagos finches changing into types of species via reproduction)
- Microbial evolution: the idea that microorganisms can evolve (like bacteria acquiring resistance to antibiotics)
- Chemical evolution/“origin of life”: the idea that molecules can self-organize into the very first cells via repetitive production (like simple chemicals assembling into complex molecular systems on early Earth)
- Macroevolution: the idea that one major group can give rise to another group (like an ape-like creature giving rise to humans)
The first three categories are well-evidenced and noncontroversial. We see them working in our everyday lives when we go to the zoo or are given a flu vaccine at the doctor’s office. Many of us even take delight in microevolution when considering which dog or cat to choose as our beloved family pet!
But the last two, chemical evolution and macroevolution, are proposed concepts and lack full scientific rigor and support. This is why RTB remains skeptical of the full evolutionary paradigm.
Chemical evolution tries to explain how life on Earth began using only natural processes. The main idea behind it is that the basic building blocks of life—the “essential stuff” that’s loaded with detailed information (like DNA, proteins, and cells)—supposedly came together through natural processes, without any outside help. Scientists working in this field are hoping to find a way to explain how this could happen all on its own, to avoid the need for a miracle.
However, current evidence doesn’t support the idea of chemical evolution. Even with experiments in labs trying to recreate the conditions of early Earth, scientists can’t produce life without stepping in and guiding the process. This shows that natural processes alone might not be enough to explain how life started
In What Darwin Didn’t Know, biochemist Dr. Fazale “Fuz” Rana explains:
While early, sudden, and complex life makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, a creation explanation seems reasonable. If God introduced first life on Earth, it would appear instantaneously and abundantly in a complex form.
When we look at the origin of life, it seems that a divine hand is more likely than chemical evolution.
Macroevolution similarly falls short. There’s not enough data to support this idea. For example, macroevolution fails to explain:
- the sudden emergence of complex cells (the Eukaryotic big bang)
- the rapid diversification of multicellular organisms (the Cambrian explosion)
- the rapid diversification and expansion of numerous new species including fish, birds, and mammals (radiation events in vertebrate history)
- the sudden emergence of art, language, and technology (origin of social consciousness)
- And much more
Many supporters of macroevolution suggest that humans evolved from ape-like creatures through a line that may have included Neanderthals or Denisovans. In this model, scientists attempt to explain the origin of humans without the need for a Creator. But there’s not enough evidence to support human evolution, either.
Learn more about the evidence (or lack thereof) for microevolution vs. macroevolution and watch below to hear how Dr. Fazale Rana briefly responds to macroevolution:
So, to respond to the question “Do Christians Believe in Evolution?,” the simple answer is yes and no.
- Evolution, at best, can offer explanatory power for the development of much of the life we see on Earth.
- Evolution, at worst, attempts to explain away a Creator who seems not only probable but necessary!
Evolution and the Bible
A similar question to the one above is: Can Christianity and evolution coexist? Earlier, we presented three common Christian views on the creation of the universe: young-earth creationism (YEC), theistic evolution (TE), and old-earth creationism (OEC).
Can a Christian hold any of these positions and embrace at least a form of evolution?
| Concept | Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) | Theistic Evolution (TE) | Old-Earth Creationism (OEC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microevolution | + | + | + |
| Speciation | + | + | + |
| Microbial Evolution | + | + | + |
| Chemical evolution (Origin of Life) | – | + | – |
| Macroevolution | – | + | – |
Young-earth creationism
Generally speaking, YEC rejects much of modern science concerning the antiquity (ancient nature) of the universe, Earth, and life’s history in order to fit a six 24-hour day reading of the Genesis 1 creation events. YEC would not be compatible with chemical evolution or macroevolution.
Without diverting from the primary purposes of this article, there are many robust biblical and theological reasons to question if YEC is the most accurate reading of Genesis 1–11 as well. We suggest exploring the days of creation or looking at how old the earth is according to the Bible.
Theistic evolution
Theistic evolution (also referred to as evolutionary creationism) accepts the scientific evidence for the antiquity of the universe, Earth, and life’s history and views the fossil record as a reflection of life’s history. But just as the name suggests, this view accepts evolution (including macroevolution), arguing that God created through evolutionary processes. Theistic evolutionists see no conflict between the evolutionary paradigm and Christianity because they believe the biblical creation account is symbolic or allegorical.
Theistic evolution also sees the Bible and nature as separate domains. Though adherents consider both to be valuable, they believe these realms should not necessarily be integrated.
Old-earth creationism
OEC accepts the antiquity of the universe, Earth, and life’s history, viewing the fossil record as a proxy (a representative tool for dating) for a real history of life on Earth. OEC expresses skepticism about the claim that all of biology can be explained as the outworking of evolutionary processes (think back to our conversation about chemical evolution and macroevolution). In other words, OEC would not be compatible with chemical or macroevolution.
Alternatively, this perspective argues that key transitions in life’s history require the Creator’s intervention. Features of biological systems seem to reflect intelligent design and the hand of an all-powerful Creator. OEC sees the Bible and nature as harmonious forms of revelation from God to humanity. When accurately interpreted, both sources point to the same truths since those truths originate from he who is truth.
Biblically speaking, the primary contention between TE and OEC is in regards to the mode of divine action. Does God intervene occasionally when he creates or does he create through natural processes alone?
Fazale Rana shares part of his testimony, why he believes OEC offers the best explanation for life, and why he does not subscribe to the TE position:
This is all well and good, but . . .
What Does the Bible Say About Evolution?
In Genesis 1, we read of key moments in the creation events. Eight times the text expresses that God spoke and then creation responded. Those phenomena include the appearance of light, separation of waters, land and sea, vegetation on the land, separation of day and night, creatures of the sea and air, creatures of the land, and, finally, man and woman.
It’s helpful to understand the verbiage of the original text of Genesis 1. The Hebrew verb bārā’ means “created” and is used three times in the chapter. In its basic form, it refers to only one subject—God—and refers to a type of creation that only God could do. It’s called creation ex nihilo or creation out of nothing. In chapter 1, this term is used when God creates the heavens and the earth, the sea creatures and the birds, and humans (Adam and Eve). In other places in the text, other verb forms are used for the act of creation such as: ‘āśâ (make, fashion, create, execute, manufacture); hāyâ (be, happen, come about); dāshā’ (sprout, bring forth, produce, or spring forth); and others. This means that there are at least three acts of special creation. One involves God creating from nothing (bārā’). A second points to other acts of creation where God’s hand guides the continued development of the earth according to the laws of nature that he had established (dāshā’). And in a third, ‘āśâ, God is directly and personally involved in his creative acts.
| Creation Event | Hebrew Verb | Meaning of Verb |
|---|---|---|
| Creation of the heavens and earth | Bārā’ | Creation ex nihilo (out of nothing, only God can do) |
| Creation of sea creatures and birds | Bārā’ | Creation ex nihilo |
| Creation of humans (Adam and Eve) | Bārā’ | Creation ex nihilo |
| Creation of vegetation | Dāshā’ | God’s guidance through natural processes |
| Creation of land and sea | Dāshā’ | God’s guidance through natural processes |
| Creation of creatures of the land | Dāshā’ | God’s guidance through natural processes |
| Creation of light | ‘Āśâ | Direct personal involvement of God |
| Separation of waters | ‘Āśâ | Direct personal involvement of God |
| Separation of day and night | ‘Āśâ | Direct personal involvement of God |
We can see this principle (of God’s intervention) demonstrated by findings in the fields of chemistry, biology, physics, and astronomy. A special hand of intervention from a Designer was needed to get the necessary elements for life (such as hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen). From there, other basic chemical structures would appear.
As revealed in geology, paleoanthropology, and biology, creation’s response to God’s divine action resulted in the proliferation and complexity of life. Otherwise, it would be impossible to get the diversity of creatures we see today in a short (from an evolutionary perspective) time.
Creation and evolution (God’s hand guiding continued development) together are fulfilling God’s plan. Evidence reveals the literal “spark” of creative action from God and the guided outflow of natural processes that continue his work. The result is an exquisitely designed, flourishing universe.
Also, Genesis speaks of the personal nature of God’s creation of humanity. The creation of humans is the only time that God creates “in his own image” (1:27) and with his “breath” (2:7). God then gives humans a commission (1:28). This account presents a significant challenge to the evolutionary paradigm since it implies that humans were a special creation, not a continuation of other evolved forms. For more information on the creation of Adam and Eve and the insufficiency of the evolutionary explanation, we recommend Who Was Adam?
How Should I Talk About Evolution with My Friends and Family?
Evolution is a complex subject with a long history and a variety of definitions.
Great conversations start with curious questions. Start by figuring out what your family or friends think “evolution” means and what categories they’re aware of. (For example, some people have no idea that microevolution and macroevolution are two very different concepts.)
Always define your terms—it helps everyone stay on the same page. And recognize that, as truth seekers, we want to follow the evidence.
If you express skepticism toward evolution, you can introduce a discussion based on wanting the “best evidence.” That approach will go much further than a hard statement or closed-minded attitude. If we believe “all truth is God’s truth,” we can be confident in this approach.
And remember, your friends and family may believe the rumor that the conversation is about evolution vs. faith. But you can help uncover the hand of God and separate fact from fiction.
To help you even further in this conversation, download our free ebook What Darwin Didn’t Know, where you’ll learn how 150 years of scientific advancements have impacted Darwin’s theory. Or, if you’re ready for a comprehensive deep dive into this topic, check out our online course, Creation vs. Naturalism, through Reasons Institute.
