Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Napping]

Evolution is incompatible with Christianity because it does away with the fall

I have seen many Christians who say that they are perfectly fine with evolution, and that the issue of evolution is secondary and not very important. But if evolution is true, then there was no fall. If there was no fall, then what was the point of Jesus?

The Bible says that by one man, sin entered the world, and by one man the world is redeemed from sin. But if evolution is true then we are just primates who have always been warring with each other and stealing and what not. There was never any fall because there was nothing to fall from, if evolution is true. There could not have been an original pair of perfect people through whom sin and death entered the world.

So how do Christians square this? What exactly is the view that reconciles these things? There seem to be problems with every attempt. Some say that Adam and Eve were just figurative. But the Bible has lineages going back to Adam and Eve, so it clearly treats them as real people.

[jimwalton]

I am a Christian who also believes in evolution, so let's talk.

> the issue of evolution is secondary and not very important.

Evolution is important. It's the mechanism of creation God used, so it's significant.

> But if evolution is true, then there was no fall.

Obviously here's where the conversation is. I assume, following both Scripture and science, that God created the world using the mechanism of evolution (progressive creation). If this is the case, there were many hominids on the planet.

When the Bible says that God created humans from the dust (Gn. 2.7), He is saying that humans are mortal—it's part of their nature, as opposed to immortality (Gn. 3.17; Ps. 103.14).

In Gn. 2.15, God takes the humans and puts them in the Garden. Takes them from where? From among the other hominids. Throughout Scripture, God takes Abraham from among his people and sets him apart. He takes Israel out from among other humans and sets them apart. He takes priests out from among the others in the nation and sets them apart. Etc. That's what's happening here. He takes a couple out from among the others and reveals Himself to them. Now they are spiritually capable and morally culpable. They are also historical. We know them as Adam & Eve. They become representatives of all humanity.

God reveals Himself to them, and they choose to disobey, as any human would. That is why God had previously made a plan to redeem humanity from their own disobedience.

> There was never any fall because there was nothing to fall from, if evolution is true.

So you can see it's possible to have evolution and fall, because God revealed Himself to these two and they chose to disobey and they "fell." They refused to acknowledge God as the center of order and wisdom, and instead put themselves in that place.

> There could not have been an original pair of perfect people through whom sin and death entered the world.

I hope that my explanation has helped you see how this is very possible.

> But the Bible has lineages going back to Adam and Eve, so it clearly treats them as real people.

Yes, Adam and Eve were real people. And the fall is real and actually happened. And evolution is true.

[Solid]

This looks like a really good explanation, but I think it has some issues:

> God reveals Himself to them, and they choose to disobey, as any human would. That is why God had previously made a plan to redeem humanity from their own disobedience.

Why would god create humans in such a way if he knew they would disobey? Why pick two to test if he knew they were going to disobey? Why not redeem them immediately from their disobediance?

On the surface it nearly works as a retcon, but when you then think through the implications for the plot it falls down.

[jimwalton]

> Why would god create humans in such a way if he knew they would disobey

God, by definition, is uncreated. Therefore anything created is not God, e.g., less than God. God is perfect and not susceptible to sin. Anything created is therefore susceptible to sin, no matter how well it's made.

There is no notion in the Bible that God created Adam and Eve perfect. What there is notion of is that all humans need a savior. We need God to find life and wisdom. This is no secret nor a surprise. Even though He knew they would disobey, He had already made a plan for their redemption and life.

> Why pick two to test if he knew they were going to disobey?

Two (one couple) was adequate for what was happening. There was no need to pick more than that. With Abraham, He picked one person. With Israel, He picked one nation. With the priests, He picked one tribe. This is not a problem.

> Why not redeem them immediately from their disobediance?

As humans, we learn as a matter of process. Learning takes time. There are reasons God uses historical processes and life lessons to teach us rather than just dumping things on us immediately.

As for Adam and Eve, we can infer that there were immediate actions taken for their redemption. In Gn. 3.15, he mentions one who will come who will crush the serpent's head, and by the beginning of chapter 4 we see Cain and Abel bringing sacrifices to the Lord.

> On the surface it nearly works as a retcon, but when you then think through the implications for the plot it falls down.

It really doesn't fall down. It's just that you need to have more conversation before you jump to a conclusion. After all, learning is a process.

[Solid]

> Anything created is therefore susceptible to sin, no matter how well it's made.

So why make anything?

> There is no notion in the Bible that God created Adam and Eve perfect.

There is the notion though that really their "sin" was getting too close to becoming gods. Why is that threatening to god?

> Two (one couple) was adequate for what was happening. There was no need to pick more than that.

The number wasn't the question. The question is why test if he knew they were going to disobey. And if it was inevitable that we would sin anyway, he needn't perform the test at all.

1. So he doesn't need to perform the test since he knows the outcome
2. And he doesn't need to put Adam and Eve in a specific situation where they might sin since it was going to inevitably happen anyway.

[jimwalton]

> So why make anything?

God wanted more children.

• Rom. 8.16-18 – God’s objective is that his son Jesus might be the firstborn among many others, all of whom should be conformed to his image.
• Rom. 8.29-30 – Jesus is firstborn among many others
• John 1.14 – Jesus was God’s only begotten, but (v. 12) he wanted more children
• Heb. 2.10 – God wanted to glorify more sons

> There is the notion though that really their "sin" was getting too close to becoming gods. Why is that threatening to god?

There actually isn't. The reference is in Gn. 3.22. God is the source of order and wisdom. Adam and Eve ate the fruit to place themselves at the center of order and the source of wisdom. When Adam & Eve choose to take wisdom (the "knowledge of good and evil," Gn. 2.17) for themselves, they simultaneously become like God and thereby inherit the responsibility to establish and sustain order. Consequently, they are sent out in to the larger world and charged with setting it in order themselves, which they attempt to do by establishing cities and civilization, the structures that were thought to establish order in the human world throughout the ANE.

Their sin was NOT "getting too close to becoming gods." The fall is defined by the fact that Adam and Eve acquired wisdom illegitimately (here in Gn. 3.22), thus trying to take God's role for themselves rather than eventually joining God in His role as they were taught wisdom and became the fully functional vice-regents of God involved in the process of bringing order. If humans are to work alongside God in extending order (1.28), they need to attain wisdom, but as an endowment from God, not by seizing it for autonomous use. That's what's going on here. It's not threatening to God; rather it's grasping for themselves what is not theirs to have (the arbiters of order and wisdom in the universe).

> The question is why test if he knew they were going to disobey. And if it was inevitable that we would sin anyway, he needn't perform the test at all.

Without a real situation, the reality of character never becomes known. We only learn through situations that push us.

> So he doesn't need to perform the test since he knows the outcome

Sure He does. I don't know if you have children, but there are times we challenge our kids, knowing that they're still learning, knowing that it will motivate them to learn more, and knowing that failure can actually be the best tutor. People get full of themselves quickly and easily if all tests are designed to be easy and to pass them. Charles Kettering says, "Virtually nothing comes out right the first time. Failures, repeated failures, are finger posts on the road to achievement. The only time you can't fail is the last time you try something, and it works. One fails forward toward success." But I'm confident you know this. John Maxwell says, "There is no achievement without failure."

> And he doesn't need to put Adam and Eve in a specific situation where they might sin since it was going to inevitably happen anyway.

It's difficult to know how specific a situation this is, and for how long they were under the gun before they caved. The text jumps right in, but had there been 100 other occasions of various sorts prior to this? We don't know, and in a sense it doesn't really matter. What matters is that it was going to inevitably happen anyway, to teach us that we are not the center of order, we are not the source of wisdom, and we need God. These are lessons that people need to learn even today. The same "situation" is presented to us almost every day: Are you going to abdicate God's role for yourself and place yourself as the center of order and wisdom for your life? That's where it's difficult to know if this was a specific situation. This kind of thing is a continual situation that plagues humanity. Genesis 3 might be a literary rendering of a chronic temptation that comes to us from the Deceiver. Oh, it actually happened, but maybe we're getting literary version: still true, but not the way too many people take it when they read it superficially.

And there's still no problem putting this narrative in the context of an evolutionary sequence of humankind's development.

[Hezzer]

This would make sense if Eternal Hell was NOT taught and Reincarnation WAS taught. If that is not occurring then this doctrine breaks down completely...irreparably.

The punishment does not fit the crime with the majority of Christian denominations and their doctrines.

[jimwalton]

Not all Christians, you should know, believe in the traditional concept of hell. There are theories about reconcilationism, semi-restorationism, modified eternalism, and annihilationism, all with some kind of scriptural backing. In other words, hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it. It may only be eternal for those who absolutely, stubbornly, and persistently refuse to be reconciled.

What we're told about God's judgment is that it will be perfectly fair. God will not reward people more than what is right, and God will not punish people more than what is justified. We can be confident that God will not do anything in judgment that is unfair or undeserved. There is no need to get tied up in knots about how cruel God is or how unfair, since both are impossible.

People get so hung up on hell. As you read the Gospels, Jesus spoke often about hell, but no one ever asked him about it. Isn't that odd? Nobody said, "Hey, whoa, rewind. What happens to people who don't believe? What happens to people who never heard? Isn't eternal judgment for temporal crime unfair? Explain this to us." Very interesting. Here's the real deal about eternity, what the Bible is SO emphatic about: God will be perfectly fair with everyone. There is no need for anxiety that God has created a system of horror, that people will be judged unfairly, that injustices will be done and people will be sent inappropriately somewhere, or that God will somehow go against his attributes just to torture people.

Your comment suggests that you think hell is un-good (that God can't be benevolent in that case), but that's a refutation of all the teaching of Scripture. Scripture is clear that God is both omnipotent and benevolent, so it erases the possibility that anything about hell is contrary to those attributes. Whatever concept of hell you have in your mind, if it negates God's omnipotence or His benevolence, it's a misunderstanding of hell. You can count on the fact that God will always do what's fair and what is the right thing to do.

[Napping]

The biblical lineages have individual people living for several hundred years. How do you explain that?

After the fall God said he would make the woman's childbirth really painful. Was it not painful before? How?

After the fall God said the ground was now cursed and it would produce thorns and thistles. What does that mean? Didn't those things already exist? God said Adam would have to toil to get food. Weren't humans already toiling to get food?

What's the deal with the soul and the afterlife? Presumably, Adam and Eve either went to heaven or hell. What about the other humans outside the garden? What about the previous generation of humans? At what point did early humans count as "real" humans to God, such that they had an afterlife?

[jimwalton]

Great questions. I'm glad we can talk.

> The biblical lineages have individual people living for several hundred years. How do you explain that?

Interestingly, archaeologists have dug up a Sumerian kings list, a completely outside-the-Bible account, also with "outrageous" lifespans—the same lengths as the years recorded in the Bible. Things that make you go hmm. It seems to confirm the idea that people really did live that long. As far as explaining it, there are a few maybe possible explanations.

1. The composition of the atmosphere was different enough to allow longer lives. In our age we are abusive pollutants.
2. We know there has been considerable genetic breakdown through mutation as the generations progress.
3. We know that the more history we go through, the more mutant viruses and diseases show up. Just one small example, in the 1960s there were 2 STDs: syphilis and gonorrhea. Today there are over 25. That's just a 60-yr gap. Today the world is scrambling to contain the corona virus. Sure, it's been around (it's not new), but we know that viruses are mutating into new forms. We just don't have reliable records to know what it was like 8000 yrs ago.
4. We know that previous eras had different climates (like us finding tropical fossils in the mountains).
5. We are told by paleontologists that some dinosaurs lived for several hundred years.

It's all interesting, but difficult to pin down. It just may have some tentatively possible explanations.

> After the fall God said he would make the woman's childbirth really painful. Was it not painful before? How?

Yes, it was painful before. The text specifically says "increase," not have pain for the first time. The word that is used for pain in this place in Genesis indicates more emotional pain than physical. Given that sin was now in the world and people were being accountable for it, the idea of birthing the next generation and the next would be more emotionally traumatic than it had been previously.

> After the fall God said the ground was now cursed and it would produce thorns and thistles. What does that mean?

The ancient world was concerned about order, disorder, and non-order. In Genesis 1 we can see that God is bringing order to a non-ordered cosmos (Gn. 1.2). When Adam sinned, his sin was that he was making himself the center of wisdom and order. The thorns and thistles are archetypes of disorder. God is showing Adam that he (Adam) is incapable of being the center and source of order. A symbol of that disorder would be the proliferation of negative environments that Adam would struggle to control. He will quickly learn his inadequacy at being the center and source of order and learn the error of his ways.

> God said Adam would have to toil to get food. Weren't humans already toiling to get food?

In the ancient Near East (ANE), well-watered gardens with produce were planted next to temples as an extension of the temple and a symbol of the deity's fertility and fruition. Archaeologists have found many examples of this, particularly in Assyria and Babylon, but in other places as well. Kings boasted of large parts of their cities housing the temple as devoted to parks and the abundance of plants and animal life. Genesis 1-2 is a temple text, the author is describing the functionality and order that God is bringing to the cosmos and the Earth. Just as is common in the ANE, the Garden was a place of plentiful food supply (Gn. 2.8-9). When God banished them from the garden (3.23), you'll notice the text says now they'd have to actually work the ground for their food. They were going from a rich, easy agricultural environment to a hostile, difficult one.

> What's the deal with the soul and the afterlife?

These are great questions.

In Gn. 2.7, the humans weren't given souls; it says they became souls. Once they were spiritually capable (God ensouled humanity and revealed Himself to them), now there would be heaven/hell in their future. Any being ("human," homo erectus, homo neanderthalensis, Australopithecus, etc.) prior to this we assume is treated more like animal life than human life. There was a distinct change when God revealed Himself to A&E.