Evolutionism [claims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion) that religious beliefs result from their ability to give us a cooperative ability to survive. This, an Evolutionist would argue, would imply that religion comes into existence, not on any truth claim, but from evolution giving us useful, but otherwise untrue beliefs. What is the proper response to this argument? (Here is [another article](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429488818-18/ritual-made-us-human-matt-rossano) on the subject.)

There are several ways that Christians have tried to reconcile evolution with the Biblical narrative of creation. Theistic evolution is one option. Another is C.S. Lewis's way of how while the bodies undergo evolution, there was one historic couple Adam and Eve to whom God breathed "a new kind of consciousness" making the couple to be the one truly made in the "image of God" and that we all biologically descended from that couple thus sharing in their Fall consequences (see [this article](https://www.cslewis.org/journal/cs-lewis-on-intelligent-design/3/) referencing *The Problem of Pain*). Regardless, evolution over hundreds of thousands of years **necessitated many deaths** before the first species (or before 2 special members of a humanoid species) whom God stamped his image, and from whom we descended biologically, which young earth proponents adduce as one of the KEY theological obstacles if we take seriously Gen 1 where God pronounced his pre-Fall creation as "good". One Young Earth proponent said: > God can make use of death, but for it to be one of his primary creative tools paints the character of God in a very different light. with these as Biblical support: 1. Death itself is described as "enemy" (1 Cor 15:26): > The last enemy to be abolished is death. so how could God use death as a means of creation? 2. In the restoration (presumably to the condition before the Fall), there is no death per Isa 11:6-9: > The wolf will dwell with the lamb,and the leopard will lie down with the goat. ... An infant will play beside the cobra’s pit, and a toddler will put his hand into a snake’s den. ... **They will not harm or destroy each other on my entire holy mountain,** ... 3. In Rom 8:19-23 we read > ... For the creation was subjected to futility -- not willingly, but because of him who subjected it -- in the hope that the creation itself will also **be set free from the bondage to decay** into the glorious freedom of God's children. ... But groaning, suffering and decay is usually seen by YECs as referring to the consequences of the fall wrought by God's curse ("because of him who subjected it", see [answer to the question "Who subjected the creation to futility in Rom 8:20-21"](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/159/3849)) . If death is part of the creative process then it's not decay. Thus, my question is: **How do Christians holding some role of evolution defend against Young Earth proponents' charge that the many deaths required by evolution is adding blemish to God's character, or is counter to God's pronouncing creation as "good"?**

When asked "*If there is an omnipotent and good God, why is there suffering in the world?*", the most common response Christians give is something along the lines of "*Suffering is a necessary consequence of free will, and it is more important to God to allow free will than to eliminate suffering. All the suffering is ultimately caused by free will.*". I think one of the most serious problems with that response is that suffering predates free will by hundreds of millions of years. Which all beings have free will? I don't think anybody would seriously argue that non-human animals have free will, in the sense that they should be held responsible for their actions. And human beings have existed for, let's say, two million years. But which all animals are capable of suffering, at least feeling physical pain? It's hard to tell, the general consensus seems to be that it is birds and mammals and perhaps octopuses. The latest common ancestors of birds and mammals existed 300 million years ago. Now, many people think that the ability to feel pain has evolved separately in birds and mammals, so that would push the number of years suffering has existed to lower, but we are still talking about hundreds of millions of years. So, for hundreds of millions of years, there was suffering in the world, but there was no free will. How do the proponents of the "free will" theodicy explain that?

We know from many sources of evidence that life started more than 4 billion years ago, and over the aeons evolution produced a huge range of different creatures. We also know that modern humans originated at least 200,000 years ago, and that for at least 50,000 years humans have had the same cognitive powers as current ones. The theory of evolution also tells us that there never was a "first couple". Instead, the genes that make us human spread through a population of almost-humans, and the change from almost-human to fully-human happened over a period of tens of thousands of years, with no clear speciation point. Among Christians, many accept evolution and the age of the earth as facts. However, most of them also agree that, somewhere along the line, we acquired a soul - which they argue is the final piece that makes us fully human. For example, Catholics believe that "after a long and gradual process of biological evolution, which produced hominins who were highly advanced mentally, there was a sudden transition, in which God raised some of them to the “spiritual” level, i.e. to the level of rationality and freedom" . I can see 2 possibilities here: either God implanted a soul in just one couple ("Adam and Eve"), or He gave souls to all humans alive at the time. Either way I see problems. If all people got souls, how do you explain the original sin, for which Jesus had to die on the cross? Did all those people commit the same sin? In that case, why was God complaining? He obviously built the same mistake into all people. If God built the same mistake into all people, He should not complain about it, and accept His mistake. Which leads me to the other alternative: if only one couple got a soul (or the soulless ones died out), and we are all descended from that one couple, how do you square that with DNA evidence? Our DNA shows no evidence at all of the human species ever having been restricted to just 1 couple. How do Christians reconcile the existence of the soul with the fact of evolution, and specifically the DNA evidence? **EDIT** I just realised there's a third alternative: God gave a soul to Adam & Eve only, and all the "soulless" ones survived as well. That explains who Adam's children had offspring with. However, it also means that the vast majority of people today are direct descendants of the soulless ones, and hence cannot have a soul. That is contrary to all Christian teaching.

Are there any Christian creationist books that has evidence to prove all transitory fossils to be fake or hoax? Like archaepthor fraud, piltdown man hoax , there are many frauds done to prove evolution. My question is that are there any book recommendations to prove all fossil (of intermediate species) are fraud or creationist book with real evidence that human coexisted with dinosaurs (not just finding evidence of dinosaurs in random mythology or cave paintings of dinosaurs but evidence above this) ? ***[Note : It would be good if author of book is of recognised biologist like Stephen C Meyer]***

If the [Bible story of the great flood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative) is true, then unless the flood did not kill all human and animal life other than the occupants of the ark, is it Christian belief that all human cultures of the earth such as those in Mongolia, China, Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan and the West are also descendants of Noah and his sons? Making us *all* the chosen people of God? **How does the Christian faith reconcile this problem?** Or are we all descendants of the [Mitochondrial Eve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) as genetic science has determined?

If only humans are "created in His own image" (Genesis 1:27), then why are we so close in DNA to primates - why have we proved that dogs and primates have a theory of mind - among other important things we thought distinguished us from animals? Could this be evidence for theistic evolution?

A question from an atheist here. Many Christians seem to oppose Darwin's evolution theory and specifically the notion that man evolved from apes. You see this in the press, you see this in politics, I also happened to talk with some devoted Christians who consider this idea heresy. Why is that? I understand it is written in the Bible that God created humans. It isn't written, how exactly. What's wrong with the concept that God created the Universe in a way that 13.7 billion years later, the evolution of living species on Earth produced humans? It would have certainly been a huge job, worthy of God, much more grand than creating humans directly? The seemingly random evolution still follows the laws of nature (specified by God) and produces results (that God intended) - what's wrong with this view? The fact that something seems random to us (and even our science can prove it's random) doesn't mean it is random to God, who is not subject to our laws of nature. So why do many Christian oppose the evolution theory?

Human beings are trichromats meaning that they have three color receptors in the eye which enable them to see all seven colours of sunlight. Animals are dichromats meaning that they have only two colour receptors, which restrict their color vision. For instance a human being can easily see a tiger with bright orange colour fur lurking at a distance against green foliage in daylight. On the other hand, deer and other animals which are blind to red-green , can hardly spot the same tiger. Evolutionists fail to explain why nature has given colors to the animals if most of them are sensitive only to a limited spectrum of colors. My question is: How do Creationists interpret the faculty of color perception available to human beings vis- a- vis that available to other living beings.

One could teach Genesis 3 as a description of human evolution from animals along the following lines: - Adam and Eve eating the fruit in Genesis 3:7 makes their eyes open and lets them know good and evil. This describes the evolution of human intelligence, self-consciousness, and metacognition - They notice that they are naked. This can be seen figuratively as well as literally, since at the same time, humans lost their hair compared to other great apes - Additionally, God makes women's childbearing painful (it is not painful for most animals. The painfulness results from a combination of bipedalism and increased brain size) - And He forces them to plow the fields to survive (this can be related to what Yuval Harari calls the Luxury Trap ) In total, major evolutionary differences (high intelligence, nakedness, painful childbirth) are listed, which make humans stand apart from animals. One could suggest, that the humans created in Genesis 1 are still animals, i.e. our latest common ancestor with the other great apes, without high intelligence or human-like self-consciousness. And only in Genesis 3 do they evolve into intelligent humans. This intelligence and self-consciousness (and metacognition) then lead to existential suffering, very much in line with Camu's absurdism. Is there any Christian domination, that teaches Genesis 3 as a figurative description of Human evolution from animals?

Romans 1:18-24 sounds like an argument from [Intelligent Design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) to me: > 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 **For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made**. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and **exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things**. > > 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served **the creature rather than the Creator**, who is blessed forever! Amen. Can Romans 1:18-24 and the Theory of Evolution be reconciled? How do Christians who believe in the Theory of Evolution make sense of Paul's teleological argument? If Paul is arguing for design, isn't Paul arguing indirectly against evolution?

Another user made the comment: > What is undisputed is that the Fathers left no room for evolution. Now, the Church Fathers for the most part believed that Earth was Created some time between about 3,000 BC and 10,000 BC (and certainly not billions of years ago), which is a serious problem for the idea that chance processes are solely responsible for the extant diversity of life. Elsewhere I also asked https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94425 However, while there is evidence to *suggest* that the idea was not unknown (see previously cited question), it is difficult to establish for certain whether it was or was not. Conversely, the more general notion that chance processes are responsible for Creation — that is, the claim that intelligent design played no role — is much more evident, with one author going so far as to claim: > I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated even as far back as the seventh century B.C. (Henry Fairfield Osborn, *From the Greeks to Darwin*) What did the Church Fathers have to say in defense of Providence / Design *specifically* in the context of refuting claims to the contrary? I'm particularly interested in claims that *life* was not designed, but will accept arguments against *cosmological* non-design as well.

Theistic evolution sounds similar to Old Earth Creationism . Both ideas start with the premise that God created. After this, I've heard tale of wars fought between the two camps. What is the gist of the differences between these two ideas?

Another user made the comment: > What is undisputed is that the Fathers left no room for evolution. I'm aware that the Church Fathers for the most part believed that Earth was Created some time between about 3,000 BC and 10,000 BC (and certainly *not* billions of years ago). I'm also aware that "evolution" is a poorly defined term, but for this purpose, I think it's safe to use the sense of humans being descended from non-humans, i.e. Common Descent. It may need to be pointed out that "evolutionary" ideas are not new. Lucretius (b. 98 BC) wrote "the earth deserves the name of mother which she possesses, since from the earth all things have been produced" and "of herself she created the human race" (*On the Nature of Things*). Galen wrote that "certain things are impossible by nature [...] God does not even attempt such things at all but [we say] that he chooses the best out of the possibility of becoming" (*On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body*), which strongly suggests an early expression of directed evolution. **Which Church Fathers and/or Apostles, if any, specifically wrote against the idea that humans somehow arose from non-human animals?** Note that I am not interested in *implicit* denials arising from assertions that Earth is only some thousands of years old (which are trivial to find). I am looking for instances where Common Descent (or an equivalent concept) is *specifically* denied.

I haven't really decided what to think about the creation of the world. I'm very familiar with the concept of evolution, scientifically, and if I didn't believe in God I'd certainly believe in evolution. However I'm not sure about the theological aspects of evolution. I consider the Fall of Man to be very important in Christianity. If man didn't fall, the "sinful" behavior would have actually been built into us by God (or God's mechanism). It would be difficult to explain how we're responsible for our actions, then. At least that's the way it feels to me. Now, I'd like to know a few things from a theistic evolutionism point of view. If there are many different views, please tell all that fit with the assumption of evolution. 1. Was the Fall of Man a historical event? 2. Is the description of the Fall in Genesis 3 literal? 3. (\*) How come we are accountable for our deeds? 4. (\*) Where did original sin come from? (or does it not fit with theistic evolution) (\*) *If you think the Fall wasn't historical* **EDIT:** question number 4 was added afterwards.

**Q: Have any Protestant Biologists who don’t believe in evolution posted real research papers showing how evolution is not likely or possible?** I think I heard a famous atheist say creation and evolution are incompatible. (Let me know if I need to edit question/post)

Does the church agree with some kind of Darwin evolution and big bang theory? If so, from when does human exists? If we think of human as we have soul, did Neanderthals had one? Was it like this individual does not have soul yet but from now, his children do have a soul and are the first people that could go to heaven?

As I understand, many Christians nowadays accept evolution. There are such Christians in most major denominations and inside these denominations exist different traditions and groups of believers, so I understand that there may be different theories in those traditions for how to combine evolution with Christianity. Those theories may broadly be called Theistic Evolution. There may also be individual ideas which are not part of the teaching of a specific denomination, but are plausible theories in which some of the Christians believe, which I am also ready to explore. Do those who are Christians and accept evolution at the same time, think that there was no Adam and Eve? If so, does this mean that there was no original sin? What are the main modern theories how to understand Original Sin (The idea that the humankind changed after the first sin and that people as children of Adam and Eve bear the consequences of this first sin) when believing in evolution at the same time?

Reverend Paul Kottke, of the United Methodist Church, has preached that Christian faith and science, including Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, are not incompatible. This seems to be in accord with the views of other denominations such as the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church, but what is the official position of the United Methodist Church. Wikipedia ranks the United Methodist Church as the third largest Christian denomination in the United States, and the largest denomination within the wider Methodist movement, worldwide.

I understand how the creation narrative in Genesis can be interpreted to fit within an Evolutionary Creation perspective. In such a paradigm God used Evolution to beautifully create the biodiversity that we see in nature as well as create sufficiently intelligent beings (us humans) to enter into a growing relationship of responsibility and trust with. I can see how the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil can represent both humanities willful disobedience to God’s revealed will (Sin) as well as an image of humanity choosing to determine morality for ourselves, and in the process alienating ourselves from God and suffering spiritual death as the result. Yet, in Genesis 3:22-24 God seems to be afraid of Adam and Eve reaching out and eating of the Tree of Life because they would live forever. So my questions are as follows: What does the Tree of Life represent in the Evolutionary Creationist interpretation of Genesis 3? Why would God be afraid of Adam becoming immortal? Is God not able to prevent such an event? Physical immortality seems to run counter to natural selection and the cycling of resources and space that is required for evolution to work. If the Tree of Life is what it seems (an antidote to physical death) was it part of God’s plan for Humanity to never suffer physical death? If so why create with a method that requires physical death to begin with? If the Tree of Life is the antidote to the death that Adam suffered after sinning and that death is Spiritual death then why would God be afraid of him partaking of such a tree? Isn’t this exactly what Jesus is/does for us? Thank you for your insight. This question is one of the only ones keeping me from feeling that my Biblical faith is compatible with the truth of evolutionary biology. *cross-posted in Biologos Forum