Can we believe in evolution?

I find it troubling that some Christians are more likely to get worked up about the age of the earth or whether evolution took place than about how to live holy lives, feed the starving or witness to their friends. There’s a desperate need in the Church to ensure that the main things remain the main things.

Evolution is a hot topic so in thinking about it, I’ve picked the brains of Christians who are professional scientists. The result is the recognition of three separate and very different ideas of evolution which should not be confused. Let me call them Evolution 1, 2 and 3.

Evolution 1:

Microevolution... has been observed in both the laboratory and nature in everything from viruses to birds.

This can be summarized as "The small-scale genetic shift of organisms over time." This is microevolution. It has been observed in both the laboratory and nature in everything from viruses to birds and, given that it allows organisms to adapt to changing environments, is an essential process. It is clearly scientific, a proven fact and has no conflict with Christianity.

Evolution 2:

This can be summarized as "The gradual emergence of all living things through an unbroken succession from a common ancestor over several billion years." This is "geological" or "historical" evolution: the idea that, over countless generations, something like bacteria have progressively developed into all the complex multicellular plants and animals of our world.  

Vast amounts of data on fossils with DNA studies has given a generally consistent account of how plant and animal groups developed over time.

This definition of evolution is still science but not "observational science": it happened in the past and cannot be tested in the lab. Nevertheless, the integration of vast amounts of data on fossils with DNA studies has given a generally consistent account of how plant and animal groups developed over time.

Although this Evolution 2 is simply a description of events and says nothing about an ultimate cause, some might say it conflicts with religion. For a start it seems to replace God’s supernatural action by chance. But if you take the view, generally associated with Calvinism but in fact thoroughly biblical, that God oversees every event in the universe, then there is no such thing as real chance; it’s only apparent.

(Note Proverbs 16:33, "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.") 

Interestingly, God’s control of natural selection whereby "unfit" animals or plants are removed is anticipated in Jesus’ comment in Matthew 10:29: ‘"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care."

The fact that an event can be both natural and supernatural is something we take for granted.

The fact that an event can be both natural and supernatural is something we Christians take for granted. So when a child recovers from a deadly infection, we don’t see any conflict between the doctor’s report that the antibiotics worked and the parent’s gratitude to God that their prayers were answered. 

A view of God working to bring the natural world into being through this strictly defined evolution could be termed either Theistic Evolution, Guided Evolution or my preference, Continuous Creation.

For the Bible-believing Christian I think there are three issues here.

1. The first is whether the Creation account in Genesis 1 demands six literal 24-hour days. After research I have concluded otherwise. 
2. The second is whether it conflicts with Genesis 1, and here I would suggest that this is only the case if you see the Bible’s statements as some sort of scientific text.
3. The third is how it fits with the scriptural emphasis that human beings are made in God’s image and thus, in some meaningful way, separate from the animal kingdom.

Well, the physical links between humanity and the animal world are undeniable: humans and chimpanzees have something like 95-99 per cent of DNA in common. Nevertheless, the gulf between humanity and even the highest apes remains enormous.

We alone have complex language, possess analytical thought, make advanced tools, have intricate social structures and engage in complex rituals.

We alone have complex language, possess analytical thought, make advanced tools, have intricate social structures and engage in complex rituals. One image that may help is to remember that although a desktop computer today may look broadly similar to one built thirty years ago, it is enormously more powerful in its ability and potential.

In the same way, although we have similar biological, let's say, "hardware" to other apes, it could be said that God has given us vastly different and much more powerful mental "software".

Evolution 3: This can be summarized as "Evolution is the only creating force in the universe. It is the mechanism through which all things have come into being. There is no supernatural God or higher powers, only evolution."

Although rarely put so starkly, it is this view that underlies most of the many problems with the word evolution; here normally capitalized as Evolution and sometimes termed Evolutionism. It is a philosophical view of the purpose or mechanism behind the universe.

Indeed, precisely because it pronounces (negatively) on the existence of God, it is a religious opinion and based on faith. Of course, this is in total opposition to Christianity or indeed any other religion.

So where does this leave us?

We must always make clear our belief that running through it all is the supervising hand of God.

The limited microevolution of Evolution 1 gives no problems, whereas the third definition has nothing but problems and can instantly be rejected. Cautiously expressed and thoughtfully understood, the "historic evolution" or "continuous creation' of Evolution 2 seems reasonable. But in discussing it, we must always make clear our belief that running through it all is the supervising hand of God.

In making these definitions let me point out a trick, employed by skeptical atheists, which is to say that because Evolution 1 is proven and Evolution 2 is probable, therefore Evolution 3, Evolutionism, automatically follows. It doesn’t.

Can a Christian believe in evolution?

My cautious verdict is that, carefully defined as an account of how God has worked, it’s a reasonable position. What is much less reasonable is for the non-believer to see the glory of the natural world and attribute it all to nothing more than the interaction of time and chance. The beauty and wonder of the creation point us to a Creator.

Originally published by Philo Trust. Republished with permission. This is a sample from a chapter taken from J.John's latest book "Will I Be Bald in Heaven? And Other Curious Question"

J.John is an evangelist, minister, speaker, broadcaster and writer. He has been in ministry for four decades. He has spoken in towns, cities and universities in 69 countries, establishing Philo Trust in 1982 to organize his various evangelistic ministry offerings. J.John’s weekly podcast, The J.John Podcast, features a range of interviews with Christians from all walks of life and talks by J.John. Click here to listen. J.John’s books are available to order via jjohn.com or through other online or physical bookshops.