4 Key Points Christian Kids Need to Understand About Evolution

By Natasha Crain

The other day, I saw a post on Facebook from a mom who was concerned because her teenage daughter was turning away from God after learning about evolution. The mom was considering pulling her out of public school because she wasn’t sure what to do about it.

It breaks my heart when I see parents who feel unequipped to dialogue with their kids about evolution and age of the Earth issues. These questions are so crucial for parents to be able to discuss with their kids that I devoted 8 of the 40 questions in my book to explaining the scriptural and scientific considerations at stake.

Today I want to bring to light four key points I think Christian parents need to make sure their kids understand about evolution, but are often left unaddressed. This post could easily have been 101 things kids need to understand about evolution, but that would be another book! This is far from comprehensive, but I hope it will get the conversation going.


1. Evolution isn’t necessarily an anti-Christian concept.

A lot of Christian parents think of evolution as a dirty word. They immediately assume it’s the antithesis of Christianity and are quick to state their opposition to everything associated with it.

But the word evolution, in its most basic sense, simply means that a species has undergone genetic change over time (a species is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding—for example, humans are a species and dogs are a species). This basic concept of evolution isn’t controversial at all. Genetic change within species is a well-documented fact that scientists can observe within a human lifetime.

Christians of every viewpoint (young-Earth creationists, old-Earth creationists, and theistic evolutionists) all agree that evolution, in this sense, takes place (sometimes people refer to this as “microevolution”).

What is controversial is whether the same mechanism that drives change within a species is capable of changing one species into another (sometimes called “macroevolution”). Ultimately, evolutionists claim that all species on Earth today descend from a single species that lived 3.5 billion years ago. This is the claim most Christians object to.

When Christian parents negatively overreact to the mere idea of evolution, they can quickly lose credibility with their kids for not understanding and interacting with the issues more deeply. Our kids need us to understand what they are learning and how to process it scientifically and scripturally. If this is an area you don’t feel confident talking to your kids about, it’s important to get up to speed.


2. There is scientific evidence both consistent and inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

I didn’t hear much about evolution growing up, but I do clearly remember my youth group leader laughing it off one day: “Yeah, right, like we all really came from apes!” I chuckled along, because that thought did seem crazy.

But there were two problems with what he said. First, it wasn’t even a technically accurate representation of what evolutionists claim. Evolutionists do not claim that humans descend from modern apes, but that we share a common ancestor with them. That might sound like a fine detail, but it’s clear to me in retrospect that my leader didn’t understand evolutionary theory at all.

Second, it’s not good critical thinking to dismiss something because it sounds weird. It’s weird but true, for example, that we live on a big rock that jets around the sun and we don’t feel a thing.

Unfortunately, I have heard far too many Christians trivialize what evolution is in favor of caricatures like those of my youth pastor. When I eventually learned about the scientific evidence for evolution as an adult, my life-long faith was initially shaken in a matter of hours. No one had ever told me there was actually extensive scientific evidence that could be consistent with evolutionary claims. Based on the light-hearted handling I had seen from other Christians, I had assumed evolution was an idea that could easily be dismissed.

In reality, there is significant scientific evidence both consistent and inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Our kids need to 1) have an accurate understanding of what evolution is and 2) have a thorough understanding of the scientific evidence that is both consistent and inconsistent with it.


3. The age of the Earth and evolution are related but separate scientific subjects that Christians must grapple with.

A common misunderstanding many Christians have is that questions about the age of the Earth and evolution are all part of one issue. They’re related, but actually pose separate scientific (and theological) questions for Christians.

As a basic background, mainstream scientists estimate that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Young-Earth creationists estimate that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, based on a timeline deduced from biblical data on historical events and genealogies. These young-Earth estimates are derived first and foremost from the biblical data, but there are young-Earth scientists who work to support those estimates with scientific evidence and models (called “creation science”). Conversely, to my knowledge, there are no mainstream scientists (Christian or non-Christian) who believe the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old based on scientific evidence ALONE.

Here’s the bottom line.

  • Evolution requires billions of years in order to even possibly have the amount of time necessary for small genetic changes to amass into the diversity of species we see today. In that sense, evolution and an ancient Earth do go hand-in-hand.
  • However, the reverse is not true. An ancient Earth does not necessarily mean evolution took place. The scientific evidence for an old Earth is mostly independent from the evidence for evolution. For this reason, there are many Christians who are “old-Earth creationists”—accepting the scientific evidence for an old Earth, but rejecting evolution.


4. Theistic evolution (the belief that God used evolution to create life) has significant theological implications.

While some Christians are too fast to dismiss anything related to the word evolution (see point 1), others are too fast to embrace it without understanding the full implications. For example, I’ve heard many people say, “It doesn’t matter whether God used evolution or anything else to create the world!”

While it’s true that God could have used evolution, many people don’t realize the broadertheological implications of accepting evolution as His creative mechanism:

  • The Bible states that humans are made in God’s image—a very different, morally accountable, creature than animals. If all life evolved from one common ancestor, however, we are biologically no different than animals. (Theistic evolutionists believe that the properties related to God’s “image” are those of a person’s soul, and that God could have imprinted His image on humans at an unknown point in their evolutionary development.)
  • Most theistic evolutionists do not believe a literal Adam and Eve existed. If a literal first couple did not exist, the important question of how and when sin entered the world is left unanswered. Why is that so important? Well, the Bible overall is a story of the problem of sin and God’s “rescue plan” through Jesus. If you’re left without any biblical explanation of how the “big problem” arose, it can diminish the need for the “big solution” of Jesus. (Theistic evolutionists differ in how they address this.)

There are many other implications, but these are two of the most important to understand.

Biologos is the leading organization that promotes theistic evolution (they prefer the term evolutionary creation). Whether you agree with their viewpoint or not, they publish good resources for helping Christians better understand evolution.

Post edited to add: Based on multiple requests from readers of this post, I will follow up soon with a new post dedicated to providing resources for learning more about evolution and age of the Earth issues!

I’d love to hear about the experiences your kids have had with evolution in the classroom. Please share your thoughts in the comments! If there are specific subjects on this topic you’d like me to address in the future, please let me know how I can help.

Visit Natasha’s Site: ChristianMomThoughts.com


Wo6Zl ,";vnqY8 kITI*w{$(97T"yA.ʴd8dJVDO(kY4O?>^ P_?ݍG|6tg?A]l+!Ќ((g),N61)W\wu4?7R/yS,d;Çmy&WJ3Ie( ^إ mf"/ʇ7,-" 9+S bkTͰLb!4DeUSvdΒtiXɇ΂xq :U{84n) ; J)[{+zlIe X V ?~À;`k̓;^N[+ӧmp}rܓ(`e#`D|ަ)+5ZyO6ZsodNQ9z6L)qu?k.1Gjp1^d~&no󿭱 y^RROs\ ķXDL4>ȝ^\AP~C 23RԘ"QaeGyxyyn)[CY"LnhZ :Y{\ZӀj,%4r<^L i&#|YF^5|k/RVbKJbA&qqZĊuy׈ ; >nƼvRd7&g37&Ä>J!6/dFz8FŒ%֞[}rWzT_}j0څj:9+ʔtVTBWƌȘuF0\cADAaXb;׳\Hz}\H273QB)gẋ-.)R<*cQlw)*ć>z)FKP-dt"9U&hǴ'l4'JI_AR{wg`0~c(NsuRsTX#e7wAʬ6M%k+:H̛&% ulhդ ԣp25ǜa r?XC w{m]R]2ly3+\0SϋWF%Uݼa=H`uhOd߈ ZBM&M5'=ST|nn,;Kh51yʳX~ޘq}ɬMd).=(z.{F##ŸN2SNJ6PYB¹͏Z!+}H'0~I_ '3HjUHORI ӜhҺlMv`~,!p:Dh"Џcp s'`/?ob:TKe<wv./>mx8BpSfo2&A`^A^73ȁD\$iA'MAulP$3gu^]]uڷeiPԃ|~`SGoW܋hӣmtͤ1MQ[E]W !_g@2ͅ7ukri1ܚuu~ D" !A#l@@T}d3o:*N}ڜC ibB?: 1f8OQ8Ŏ7}mg]x`+#0'K0p 
51 replies
  1. Don S. says:

    Hi Natasha,

    I think the fundamental thing that our kids need to understand about what they are being taught about in school science programs is that modern science excludes the supernatural in any way, shape, or form. This is fundamental to understanding evolution,the earth’s age, and the Big Bang. Therefore, as a Christian, and Bible believing person, these theories are all fundamentally unsound. They are the “wisdom of this world”, and they are “folly” in God’s eyes..

    You are correct that there are some truths/facts within evolutionary theory, but the theory is fundamentally flawed in God’s eyes and it should be in our eyes. Christians are willing so often to compromise biblical principles for scientific claims. This saddens me so much. If we are consistent, and we accept scientific claims about evolution, long ages, and the Big Bang, then we must also accept that modern science refutes the miracles in the Bible, prophecies, and most importantly the resurrection.

    Christians should understand that modern scientism is most definitely anti-Christ..This doesn’t mean that there are not christian scientists. It just means that modern scientific philosophies reject the supernatural, so the theories they propose are flawed form their logic (logos). We need to have the “mind of Christ” and love Him with all of “our heart and soul and mind”. We often forget the mind part.

    I have been a christian apologist .for many years and have studied enormous amounts of information about evolution. Most people can’t absorb all of these details, and most teachers do not fully understand the theory themselves. Even the books are flawed when they are printed. But in argumentation, I have found that everyone can understand better if they understand the argument from the foundation. The theories of science are argued from naturalism. The theories of Christians are argued from the “word”…logos. Our kids need to understand the two logics. One is folly and the other is the wisdom of God.

    • Len Johnson says:

      The key to framing the discussion is using the worldview approach. How does each worldview answer the universal questions re origin, meaning, morality, identity and destiny? These are the presuppositions that form one’s worldview. Each of has a worldview that acts like a roadmap that determines how we think, what we say, and our every action, in effect, who we are. Using worldview thinking one can compare, evaluate, and test ideas. For example, every worldview has to address the problem of evil. How does one’s worldview answer the common human needs for significance, meaning, and hope. What are the logical conclusions of a worldview? For example, some of the logical conclusions of the naturalism worldview: There is no basis to assume the ability to reason, to ascertain truth–your brain is simply molecules in motion. There is no such thing as right and wrong. When you die you rot. There is no ultimate justice. Free will is an illusion. There is no ultimate meaning to life. Humans are simply an improbable accident of time and chance. It would all be a cruel joke except there is no joker. Why not shoot yourself and a few others when life takes a bad turn and isn’t fun anymore? Jean Paul Sartre, an atheist philosopher of some renown, said it best: “Nothing finite has any meaning without an infinite reference point.”

  2. Tom Rafferty says:

    Evolution is a fact as much as is gravity. Deal with it. Oh, there is not evidence for theistic evolution. One can live in the deluded world of speculation to support one’s dogma or accept reality. I will always choose reality.

    • Cindy Jennings says:

      It’s a fact? How do you know that? By definition, a scientific “fact” is something that can be done over and over with the same results. As of today, scientists have never been able to produce a different species out experimenting with one. They have tried with the fruit fly, which has the simplest genome known. So they can get a fruit fly that is white instead of brown, one with eight legs instead of six but they can’t make it into a hippopotamus. Every species has its own unique DNA in EVERY one of its cells. DNA is coded to tell that organism just what it is–that’s all it can be.

      So if macro-evolution is a “fact,” please show us the evidence. Please produce an animal that was once a different species with a different DNA that is now something different.

      Simply stating that it is “reality” and a “fact” does not make it either.

        • JThomas2121 says:

          Let me guess … you didn’t actually READ these articles … only did a basic Google search for your choice keywords.

          Even the scientist writing this article fails to supply any clear proof of macroevolution. All these articles discuss is microevolution: changes WITHIN a species.

          One fruit fly becoming another TYPE of fruitfly. One Orca becoming a different KIND of orca.

          What it all boils down to with these comments is that no, you don’t know anything and you assume you know everything.

          Science has proven nothing other than the fact that small changes within species does occur, and the SPECULATE from there that this MUST lead to macroevolutionary changes over time.

          IF you and other evolutionists were right, then life is all there is and when you die, it all goes dark. IF that’s the case, you spending any time trying to convince someone you’re right is such a waste of your precious time … and it’s running out. Fast.

          IF evolution is correct, then there is no moral foundation worth adhering to. Since death is the end, consequences are only manmade and you should go ahead and do whatever feels right … because in the end, it doesn’t matter … according to you and others, humanity is destined to end as will this earth.

          Ah, what a wonderful way to go through life, paying attention to the magic show that is modern science trying to ‘prove’ evolution and failing to see the tricks they use to keep distracting you from the gaping holes that will never be filled in it.

  3. TGM says:

    When discussing ”evolution” what specialists really mean is the ”Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection” or more accurately, the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis that combines Darwin’s work with modern research in Genetics, Molecular Biology, Population Biology, Ecology (and more). The Theory of Evolution is a model that provides the best explanation for the available biological, chemical, physical, and geological evidence regarding the diversity of biochemical processes on this planet. The Theory makes predictions and can be falsified. And, despite claims to the contrary, the Theory and its evidence can be tested repeatedly.

    Now you say…

    ”There is scientific evidence both consistent and inconsistent with evolutionary theory”

    Really? What scientific evidence is inconsistent with the Theory of Evolution. I’m immensely curious, as I am aware of none.

    ”Evolution requires billions of years in order to even possibly have the amount of time necessary for small genetic changes to amass into the diversity of species we see today.”

    This is both logically and historically inaccurate. It is not true that the processes described by the Theory of Evolution necessarily require billions of years. We only have one data point – our own history; it’s unwise to extrapolate this to all possible cases of population diversity. Furthermore, it is not even true that it took billions of years in our case. The tremendous amount of diversity we see in the stratigraphic record has formed in only the last 600 million years. Except for several instances of mass extinction during that period, diversity might have been even greater, and faster. Incidentally, diversity is principally a function of ecologic opportunity, not of time – at least in the case of complex organisms.

    I think it would be a better idea for parents to educate themselves on Evolutionary Theory from an expert in the subject, rather than an apologist. But I will give you credit for one thing… it’s quite true that ”evolution” is Christian-neutral. It’s a wonder that so many Christians are so allergic to it.

    • Rod Vigil says:

      We’re not allergic to evolution, we simply find it illogical. How did unintelligible matter beome intellectual? Evolution theorists always seem to avoid the most obvious fact in front of them. The design factor. Without intelligence, how did anything become something and when did this something develop the intelligence to become something greater without the knowledge that it could improve upon itself. How did it convey this among all the other organisms. When did they begin to build on themselves and what force was driving this.

    • Traci says:

      Could you please provide a single piece of evidence that one kind of animal has changed into another over time through a series of genetic mutations and adaptation? One rule, the evidence may not presuppose that macro-evolution is correct. Thanks 🙂

      • Andy Ryan says:

        Traci, visit the TalkOrigins site – it has a huge wealth of evidence for what you describe.

        Rod, it’s true whether you find it illogical or not, and notwithstanding your effective argument from personal incredulity.

        “What force was driving this?”

        Evolution is driven primarily by natural selection. But when you say ‘this’ I get the impression that you have an inaccurate idea of what evolution actually is. Your question ‘how did it convey this among other organisms’, for example, doesn’t make any sense. So when you say you find it illogical, it seems you are rejecting a straw man of evolution. Have you read any proper scientific books on the subject?

        • Bob says:

          There is no evidence of evolution on TalkOrigins — there are plenty of claiims, but no reports of observations showing that, say, two separate families (or orders, classes, etc.) have descended from a given starting interbreeding population. By evolutionists’ own time line such observations are an impossible since humans were not present to observe and report.

          Common ancestry of all or many different types of creatures is a story about prehistory and not observable by humans.

          Fossils are not observed to mate and have offspring. Observations of fossils are observations of similarities and differences among dead creatures, not of descent with modification in live ones.

          This again is a story about prehistory.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            On the contrary, there is a huge amount of evidence on Talk Origins. None of your points show that there is no evidence there – all you offer is variations of ‘you weren’t there’. Try going into a court and claming that forensic evidence isn’t evidence because it relates to events unobserved by humans. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evidence is and how science works.

            “Fossils are not observed to mate and have offspring”

            Non sequitur. My point stands.

      • Andy Ryan says:

        “It’s obvious to me that you are a victim of “Evolutionary Group Think”.”

        Phil, what did TGM say there that you think isn’t accurate or sensible?

        There are plenty of debates in evolutionary circles, so talk of ‘group think’ doesn’t make sense. Unless you think it is group think to accept the basic scientific consensus on evolution. Which is like saying it’s group think for a doctor to accept the germ theory of disease.

  4. Andy Ryan says:

    ‘What is controversial is whether the same mechanism that drives change within a species is capable of changing one species into another”

    It might be controversial in the sense that some theists don’t like the idea, but in scientific terms there is no controversy here at all. Speciation has been observed. To put it another way, it’s a simple fact.

    “If you’re left without any biblical explanation of how the “big problem” arose, it can diminish the need for the “big solution” of Jesus.”

    I think many Christians work backwards here. They NEED there to be the ‘big solution’ so they feel forced to dismiss ‘alternate cures’, or evidence that the ‘big problem’ is something completely different. You sometimes hear the claim that Christianity is about trying to convince people they’re sick so they can sell them the cure.

    • Rod Vigil says:

      No mechanism can start working without a greater force setting it in motion. That is what we know to be true. Evolution can never contradict this fact. That leads to the logic that something greater than the universe itself exists.

    • Louie says:

      “Speciation has been observed.” Andy, I was not aware of this, can you offer a link for me to read up on? Perhaps it depends on how you define speciation?
      Please do not point me to the e-coli bacteria experiment either. Last I read on that, they were over 50,000 generations into the experiment, and they still have bacteria producing more bacteria. I do not consider that speciation.

      • Andy Ryan says:

        Louie, links take ages to pass moderation here (if they ever pass), so just google ‘observed speciation’. I’m pretty sure the very first results take you to TalkOrigins, which is a great evolution resource.

        As for how one defines speciation, it has a clear scientific definition. What meaning are you using when you say speciation doesn’t occur or hasn’t been observed?

        • Louie says:

          It does depend on the definition. Are we talking about information loss or gain? If you are truely Evolving and not Devolving, then the new species should be better than the last, and have more information, not less. Not sure, depending on the definition.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            Louie, your reply doesn’t really make sense. There’s no such thing as devolving. Evolution has no direction – it makes no sense to describe it as going backwards. An animal can evolve to become simpler, or smaller, or slower or less intelligent.

            So when you say speciation doesn’t occur – your claim – you’ve not explained what you mean.

          • Louie says:

            You do not consider mutating and evolving the same do you? If you allow a mutation to be labeled as speciation, then it does exist. The examples you list I would not consider speciation. Since all species have these extremes within their species. Two different species would be genetrically different, and thus could not even produce offspring as I understand it.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “Two different species would be genetrically different, and thus could not even produce offspring as I understand it.”

            By this definition, speciation has been observed.

            What definition of speciation are you saying has it NOT been observed?

          • Louie says:

            Andy, my bad. With this definition of species – “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.” I agree that speciation exists. I certainly agree that all species of canines can originate from one set of canines. That is all just microevolution. I was mislead by the use of the word in this sentance …
            ‘What is controversial is whether the same mechanism that drives change within a species is capable of changing one species into another”
            I thought they were hinting at macroevolution, but they can’t be, with the use of the word species. So I don’t even know what to make of that sentance? There are many different species of canines, and they certainly can be bred with one another with some success, creating new species of canines. But, in the end, we are still just left with a species of canines. Glad we had this exchange.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            Louie, are you sure all breeds of canines can breed with each other? A few thousand years ago they were all basically wolves. Are you sure a Pekingese, Chiawauwau, Great Dane, St Bernard and a wolf can all interbreed with each other? I think you’d struggle to get fertile offspring out of them. And then you’ve got ring species of birds…

            And you still haven’t answered the question – what definition of speciation is it that you’re saying hasn’t been observed?

          • Louie says:

            Is it “breeds” or “species” of dogs? I’ve seen it stated both ways, but it complicates discussion. We must be careful about the “fertile offspring” requirement, since there are humans that cannot reproduce with other humans, but they are still humans. Same with dogs and every other life form. The nuts a bolts of the definition is this, does “speciation” mean macroevolution or microevolution? If macro, then no, I don’t know of any observed macroevolution. It if means micro, yes, we see it all the time. K9 + K9 = K9, perhaps a screwed up K9, but a K9 with K9 DNA. Thanks for the discussion.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            Louie, a species is commonly defined as meaning that two fertilie members can produce a fertile offspring. So although a donkey and a horse can produce a mule, because mules aren’t fertile we don’t class donkeys and horses as the same species. This is unaffected by your point that some members of a species are infertile.

            The term ‘dogs’ is a human construct. We invented the term, just as we invented the names for all the different breeds of dog. Saying ‘They’re all still dogs and whatever animals they give birth to are still dogs’ is a bit meaningless as dogs are what we define them to be. If we wanted we could give the term ‘dogs’ to any number of different species. The bottom line is that once two breeds of the same animal can no longer breed with each other to produce fertile offspring, they’re no longer part of the same species.

            “The nuts a bolts of the definition is this, does “speciation” mean macroevolution or microevolution?”

            There’s no scientific distinction between macroevolution and microevolution – it’s like saying ‘micro-erosion’ and ‘macro-erosion’ – these aren’t scientific terms.

            “I don’t know of any observed macroevolution”

            You’ll need to explain what exactly you think doesn’t occur.

          • Louie says:

            Okay, thanks for the clarification of terms. All agree that both micro and macro erosion exist (can be tested and observed as fact, over and over again), therefore they can generically be called erosion. I have to break up evolution into micro and macro, because we can certainly watch changes within the human family, K9 family, ect.; these are small changes and labeled micro. When it comes to critters jumping families, I do not see it. I don’t deny that there are all these families of critters out there, that is fact. With the lack of fossil links and observed macro changes, I find the historical narrative of biblical creation to account for this variety a much simpler solution. Perhaps in time, we’ll dig up something that will alter my thoughts or observe a family jump, but until that time I will hold my position, as I am sure you will too. I’ll give you that last word, again, thanks for the info.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “All agree that both micro and macro erosion exist”

            Louie, the point is that there is no distinction between the two, just as there is no scientific distinction between between so-called ‘micro-evolution’ and ‘macro-evolution’. There’s just ‘erosion’ and ‘evolution’.

            “these are small changes and labeled micro”

            Labelled by who?

            “When it comes to critters jumping families, I do not see it”

            That’s the great thing about science, Louie – it’s true whether you ‘see it’ or not!

            “With the lack of fossil links and observed macro changes”

            What fossils do you believe we’re still waiting for? The fossil record is huge, and I can only assume you’ve either not investigated what there is, or you don’t understand what there is, or you are waiting for something that wouldn’t actually prove evolution anyway (such as a half monkey / half man hybrid). We’ve got fossils showing many gradations between ape and man, where it’s impossible to pick a point where a specific fossil is one or the other. We’ve got a huge number of fossils for the evolution of the horse. And there are countless other examples. Whatever you’d be looking for, trust me it exists. In fact, don’t trust my word for it – go ahead and look for yourself, they’re all out there.

            And by the way, what ‘macro change’ would you expect to observe in real time? That’s like saying until you see a seed physically grow into a 200 year old tree you are going to refuse to believe that it can happen! And when someone shows you dozens of trees at different stages of development, you still claim that there are still ‘intermediary’ stages to observe.

  5. Linda says:

    If you accept evolution you violate the Biblical doctrine of NO death prior to sin, death and suffering occurred after Adam sinned. Also The doctrine of thru one man sin entered… by one man Jesus Christ salvation is provided for man. An evolutionary process destroys the Bible. Jesus himself referred to Adam, as well as other old testament events in as actual literal events. Choose God’s word or Man’s reasoning? I choose God’s Word.

    • Antonio Figueiredo says:

      I wont argue god exists (even though he doesn’t) But say he does the story’s of the bible are meant to teach the readers a moral standard the bible is not meant to be taken literally and jesus was here as gods son he was here to teach and preach these morals because people were ignoring morals and were stealing and raping

  6. Phil Walker MD says:

    Hello Natasha,
    You need to let us know your personal position concerning the idea of “evolution”.
    I think that is a very fair and justifiable request.

  7. Ian Panth says:


    While we likely disagree on particulars, this article was a breath of fresh air in often divisive and viscious debate. If all of us Christians adopted the tone and made the effort to understand one another in the manner that you have modeled in this brief article, then, I think, our conversations and witness would bear far more fruit than it currently does.


  8. David says:

    Robert, it would probably be a good idea to stop relying on or citing anything from the Answers In Genesis website. They believe that Noah’s flood occurred in approximately 2348 BC. Just near the end of the 5th Egyptian Dynasty. Here’s an excerpt from their article on the subject:

    “Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM [anno mundi] or 2348 BC”. https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/

    If your interested in factual information check out Chris Massey’s humorous article over at Cognitive Discopants, “What If God Threw A Flood And Nobody Came?” https://cognitivediscopants.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/what-if-god-threw-a-flood-and-no-one-came/

    • Charlie says:

      Hi David – I read your post to Robert where you recommended against using AIG’s website because they’re young-earthers.

      You’ve just committed a logical fallacy (red herring I believe) by changing the topic. The article Robert linked for us to read has to do with how one can be saved, not the age of the earth.

      But if you’re interested in the age of the earth – check out http://www.icr.org/fresh-fossils

      Thanks – have a great day and God bless you!


  9. David says:

    Why do the authors of your posts so rarely join in the conversations? And why do you turn on “comment moderation” when the bulk of the posts are trending toward skepticism?

  10. Jennifer DeFrates/Heaven Not Harvard says:

    I’m homeschooling my daughter. She is in kindergarten and loves dinosaurs and science. She is also passionate about God. I want to know how to teach her so she can God and pursue scientific pursuits. So far, I’ve tried to say things like there are things about how God works that we can’t explain. God told us enough in the Bible, but he didn’t include everything about His infinite, omnipresent self. We couldn’t understand it all if we tried. He wants our trust even in the face of questions we can’t answer. At one point, scientists considered the idea that the Sun was the center of our galaxy ridiculous or that germs existed ludicrous. Today’s scientists have today’s answers. They don’t have God’s answers.

    • Andy Ryan says:

      To be fair, Jennifer, it’s a long time since anyone denied the sun was the centre of our solar system (it isn’t the centre of our galaxy, so don’t teach your daughter that!) and the principle objection to that idea was mainly religious, just like the objections today to evolution.

      Science today works on the best current information. It works pretty well – it enables us to have this conversation online!

    • Louie says:

      We home school also, and it is a challenge all the way around. Don’t ever give her the answer of “Just believe in Jesus and don’t worry about it.” Be honest, present the FACTS and why you believe what you do, and why others believe what they do. You will be surprised as you dig for truth, just how much garbage you were fed in school, and innocently swallowed as truth. Dinosaur bones cannot disprove the existance of God. Especially bones with soft tissue still on them. We are here by chance or by choice, where does the evidence point?

  11. Roberto Pena says:

    God speaks to us to the language of man’s understanding. Man speaks to his two year old in the language of the two year-old understanding. Pick up an ant and ask the ant: “Mr. Ant, please explain to me “The Theory of Relativity” in twenty five words or less”. What do you expect?
    Once upon a time there were three blind scientists who were assigned to examine — to their unknown comprehension, understanding or experience – a full grown elephant.
    One dendrologists hugged the leg of the elephant and declared, “According to my evolutionary dendrological scientific facts, without equivocation, This is a Tree.”
    One ophiologist grabbed the tail of the elephant and declared, “Appling all the laws of evolutionary ophiodiological science, without any doubt, “This is a snake.”
    Another ended up pulling on the elephant’s ear, “Listen old boy, with a PHD in evolutionary ecology , this is a leaf of a plant.”
    The Dendrologist said, “Look, all of you’ll come here and gather around and hug the Tree.”
    “Why, old boy, you are right the elephant is a Tree. But how can that be,” cried the Ecologist. “Look, all of you’ll come here and gather around and put your hands on this and see the elephant is a plant.”
    “Why, I must be barking off the wrong tree,” lamented the Dendrologist.
    “Nay Ecologist, you are the chip-off the old block of the denrologist. Both of you have to be wrong,” ragingly contradicted the ophiologist.
    The evolution ophiologist scientist steadfastly proclaims, “Look, all of you’ll come here and gather around and put your hands on this and you will most undoubtedly agree the elephant is a snake.”
    No matter whatever evolutionary scientologist’s philosophy is, their scientific facts do not change the elephant. The elephant is still an elephant no matter what their facts are telling them. A Tree exists and so it does — A plant exists and so it does — A snake exists and so it does — An “-ologist” exists and so it does — their philosophy exists and so it does — only to the extent that the elephant doesn’t move, but that does not make an elephant neither a Tree, a plant, a snake nor does it evolve to the scientist’s ideological philosophy.
    You are just in God’s hand and He laughs and He laughs and He laughs.

    • Andy Ryan says:

      Alternatively, it’s a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian etc all blundering into a dark – and empty – cave looking for a God and all mistakenly thinking they’ve found him. Anyone can compare people they disagree with to blind people not seeing the bigger picture. Talk is cheap – if you have better evidence than the scientists then present it.

  12. Don Weiss says:

    My big problem with evolution is it’s connection to racism…I do not believe in 4 different races of homosapiens. Also I question what you are calling genetic changes in our species….I think, as many do, that many people are considered experts that really don’t know anything. You can sit under the finest teachers, but can you objectively think for yourself?
    They say….

    • Andy Ryan says:

      “My big problem with evolution is it’s connection to racism”

      How do you make that leap? Biological science shows that the DNA differences between so-called races is virtually non-existent. And 19th century slavers justified their trade with reference to the bible, not biology.

      ‘Survival of the fittest’ as a phrase originated to describe laissez faire capitalism. Does that mean capitalism is ‘connected to racism’.

      At any rate, the veracity of evolution is unaffected by what it is ‘connected’ to. Even if you could show that eugenicists were directly influenced by evolutionary theories, it has no more relevance to the truth of the matter than the existence of God being affected by Hitler’s influence by the writings of Martin Luther.

      • Anon E Mous says:

        Hitler repudiated Christianity, so the claim he was influenced by Luther is questionable. The Germans were more influenced by American “Progressives” and their attempts to prevent the less desirable members of society from reproducing.


Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Source: 4 Key Points Christian Kids Need to Understand About Evolution […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *