# It is impossible to be a Christian that accepts the theory of evolution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2009, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044 "2009-01-13T04:53:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/141 "2009-01-14T20:48:52Z")
Haven’t read the whole thread, but I disagree with the OP (and I’m not a “Christian”, as defined). One could perfectly well imagine a God who designed a universe complete with physical laws designed to _allow_ concious life to evolve naturally. For a fictional take on this theme, read Olaf Stapelton’s _Star Maker_. His “god” tinkers with universes of various physical laws, for this exact purpose: [http://www.amazon.com/Star-Maker-Olaf-Stapledon/dp/0486466833/ref=sr\_1\_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231965971&sr=8-2](http://www.amazon.com/Star-Maker-Olaf-Stapledon/dp/0486466833/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231965971&sr=8-2) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/142 "2009-01-14T20:51:04Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Voyager, what do you think of Rand Rover’s definition of a Christian: “someone who believes in a god that intended to create humans”? I think it means that just about anyone who believes in any kind of a god is a Christian. Now if you could just get them to pay dues. 😃 I’m actually with **DerTrihs** on this. Denominations can set minimum standards of belief, but I for one don’t feel like I can reject anyone’s claim to a generic type of Christianity. It’s not like the union of claims would be any more inconsistent than it already is. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/143 "2009-01-14T21:12:30Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I think it means that just about anyone who believes in any kind of a god is a Christian. Now if you could just get them to pay dues. 😃 > I’m actually with **DerTrihs** on this. Denominations can set minimum standards of belief, but I for one don’t feel like I can reject anyone’s claim to a generic type of Christianity. It’s not like the union of claims would be any more inconsistent than it already is. To re-reiterate again once more, that is the definition I used for purposes of this thread. I can’t even think of any other purpose for which that definition would be useful. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/144 "2009-01-14T21:18:39Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > 😕 > > O… kay… > > -FrL- I just sent you a PM. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/145 "2009-01-14T21:36:07Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You are defining evolution in a way that precludes any non-natural impact on it. No, not _any_ non-natural impacts, but _all_ of them. God would have had to intelligently cause the billions upon billions of mutations and select for all of those which will be carried on from the first single cell all the way to humans since he planned for our existence. That goes beyond breeding and is not natural selection. > [@Voyager](#): > > But evolution is descent with modifications, as Darwin called it, and you don’t need to exclude any mechanism for the modifications. No, the mechanism for The Theory of Evolution is natural selection. > [@Voyager](#): > > First, I don’t see theistic evolution as requiring divine intervention in natural selection. It does if you plan on making humans from millions of years of modifications starting with a single cell. > [@Voyager](#): > > Second, the environment can come from an artificial source. Do you consider the adaptation of numerous animals and insects to our artificial environment not evolution? I’m not counting deliberate modifications for domestication. The theory of evolution "stresses a **purely naturalistic (undirected)** “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors **naturally** over time. In a nutshell, as **random** genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival – a process known as “ **natural** selection.” ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/146 "2009-01-14T21:42:05Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Everything. I’m going to need a more specific answer than “everything.” > [@](#): > > Just because humans (or something else) are affecting the environment doesn’t mean the environment isn’t affecting which genes get propagated. If you think that dog breeding works by humans affecting “the environment,” I don’t think you really understand dog breeding. Isn’t speciation a crucial element of evolution? Aren’t all dogs the same species? ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/147 "2009-01-14T21:59:18Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > What about dog breeding is natural selection? Natural selection and evolution are not synonymous. My understanding of evolution is that it is change in a population over time. Period. Natural selection is the primary cause of that. That doesn’t mean it’s the only one. Artificial selection still causes changes in a population. Now, I could be mistaken in my interpretation. But it seems silly to distinguish between evolution caused by natural selection and evolution caused by artificial selection since they’re both gradual change over time. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/148 "2009-01-14T22:26:54Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > Natural selection and evolution are not synonymous. > > My understanding of evolution is that it is change in a population over time. Period. Read the OP (and thread title). We’re talking about The Theory of Evolution and not just “evolution” or change over time. > [@](#): > > Two major mechanisms drive evolution. The first is **natural selection** , a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits.[1][2] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.[3] The second major mechanism is genetic drift, an independent process that produces **random** changes in the frequency of traits in a population. > **[Evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)** > > Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It occurs when evolutionary processes such as genetic drift and natural selection act on genetic variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more or less common within a population over successive generations. The process of evolution has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation. > The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection was c... Read this if you haven’t already: > [@](#): > > The theory of evolution "stresses a **purely naturalistic (undirected)** “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors **naturally** over time. In a nutshell, as **random** genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival – a process known as “ **natural** selection.” ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/149 "2009-01-14T22:57:26Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > Natural selection and evolution are not synonymous. Who said they were? > [@](#): > > My understanding of evolution is that it is change in a population over time. Period. Not period. For one thing, the change needs to be heritable. > [@](#): > > Now, I could be mistaken in my interpretation. But it seems silly to distinguish between evolution caused by natural selection and evolution caused by artificial selection since they’re both gradual change over time. I understood you to be comparing the process (called evolution) that caused humans to appear on earth, with the breeding of dogs. Natural selection is a necessary component of that process. Absent speciation, humans would never have developed. Now, if you take a bunch of different breeds of dogs and let them breed willy-nilly over several generations, you will no longer have a bunch of different breeds of dogs. You will have a bunch of generic dogs. They’re all the same species. I suppose you could argue that those changes are also a kind of evolution, but it seems kind of silly if you are trying to make a point about how humans came to be. And even if dog breeding were evolution, the hand of man is very apparent in it. Where is the hand of God in human evolution? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/150 "2009-01-14T23:02:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I think it means that just about anyone who believes in any kind of a god is a Christian. Now if you could just get them to pay dues. 😃 > I’m actually with **DerTrihs** on this. Denominations can set minimum standards of belief, but I for one don’t feel like I can reject anyone’s claim to a generic type of Christianity. It’s not like the union of claims would be any more inconsistent than it already is. I don’t think you’ll find many Jews or Muslims who even claim to be Christian. It is a stupid definition. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/151 "2009-01-14T23:51:11Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > No, not _any_ non-natural impacts, but _all_ of them. God would have had to intelligently cause the billions upon billions of mutations and select for all of those which will be carried on from the first single cell all the way to humans since he planned for our existence. That goes beyond breeding and is not natural selection. Debating the details of something we both agree didn’t happen is somewhat less useful than debating the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin - but that is what GD is all about, so what the hell. I doubt very much that God would have had to control every single mutation. Say he only had to influence a dozen or so. Would that still be evolution in your book? As for selection, if you are familiar with the mathematical models that Dawkins has written about, you’ll know that very small selective advantages spread very quickly through the genome. Assuming God knew to cause the mutation in an individual not destined to get eaten before reproducing, it is unlikely that he’d need to make any sparrows fall - or keep any from falling. I assume that the deity who took Saturday off is lazy. > [@](#): > > No, the mechanism for The Theory of Evolution is natural selection. No, modification and selection. The modification part, which comes from mutation and which is enhanced by sexual reproduction, produces the pool of characteristics selected from. Natural selection has been called a tautology - those with reproductive advantages reproduce more on average - so I think the modification part is more important. After all, evolution would never happen if characteristics were not passed down, and if every child started off with a random and uninherited set of characteristics. Those who happened to have a reproductive advantage would still reproduce more - but the advantage would not get passed to their offspring. > [@](#): > > The theory of evolution "stresses a **purely naturalistic (undirected)** “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors **naturally** over time. In a nutshell, as **random** genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival – a process known as “ **natural** selection.” That doesn’t address my question. Is it evolution of the environment not natural? I think it arguable that animal husbandry is an example of evolution, but remember that Darwin discussed this quite extensively in the Origin, and clearly got a lot of ideas from human fiddling with the characteristics of species. Whether you call it evolution or not, there is no really significant difference between purely natural selection, selection determined by humans to force the process, and selection unintentionally influenced by humans. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/152 "2009-01-14T23:53:13Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I don’t think you’ll find many Jews or Muslims who even claim to be Christian. It is a stupid definition. That is true by definition - but the Jews for Jesus types would disagree. If something is stupid, you are almost guaranteed to find an example of someone doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/153 "2009-01-14T23:59:38Z")
I thought of a way to kind of test for theistic evolution. We understand the natural mutation rate, and given that we can model the amount of time expected to cross the search space to get from molecule to man. Now, if God were intervening, wouldn’t we expect a much higher useful mutation rate? That would correspond to less time to get to us. If there is a significant variation in expected times, we’d be able to determine which is closer to what happened. I’d suspect purely natural evolution would win. This won’t prove anything, since that god is darn tricky, and can be said to have built a universe that looks like he’s not home. But it is at least a somewhat testable hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/154 "2009-01-15T00:14:26Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Who said they were? > > Not period. For one thing, the change needs to be heritable. True. However, that definition still doesn’t have anything to do with why the changes occurred. > [@](#): > > I understood you to be comparing the process (called evolution) that caused humans to appear on earth, with the breeding of dogs. Natural selection is a necessary component of that process. > > Absent speciation, humans would never have developed. Now, if you take a bunch of different breeds of dogs and let them breed willy-nilly over several generations, you will no longer have a bunch of different breeds of dogs. You will have a bunch of generic dogs. They’re all the same species. I suppose you could argue that those changes are also a kind of evolution, but it seems kind of silly if you are trying to make a point about how humans came to be. > > And even if dog breeding were evolution, the hand of man is very apparent in it. Where is the hand of God in human evolution? I was referring to humans breeding wolves into dogs, which is speciation. If humans weren’t actually responsible for that, then I propose a hypothetical, in which we take a species, and breed it until it is a new species. Regardless of whether or not it did happen, it could and we are capable of it (if we can keep the project going long enough). So, speciation by natural causes is evolution. I say speciation by artificial causes is also evolution. It seems a kind of silly distinction to me. No, there isn’t any evidence for any outside entities guiding evolution. I don’t think any outside entities did. But I don’t think such guiding makes it not evolution. Really, this whole thing is a problem of definitions. Does evolution require these changes to be a result of natural causes? If so, then “guided evolution” is an oxymoron. If not, then there’s no problem with it. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2009, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/155 "2009-01-15T00:18:03Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Once again, what we know and don’t know is irrelevant. If God fixed it so mutations aren’t random (as random is explained in evolutionary science) and that nature isn’t an unguided process, then natural selection is an illusion. No, I’m sorry, but it is not. _God’s perspective is irrelevant to scientific description unless God intervenes in altering the rules of the universe._ Indeed, for all you or I know, God simultaneously created a hundred quadrillion universes, all with different physical laws, and allowed them to all progress, some of which randomly created humans and some that did not. Since the other universes are unknowable to us, it’s irrelevant to science how many universes God created to ensure at least one would pop us out, but there’s no limit to how many recipes he put together. God is not subject to any limitations, not even logical limitations. We are. Science can only describe what occurs in the known universe. I’d also be a little careful about what definitions you find on the Internet for “theory of evolution,” when the one you picked appears to imply that evolution is a movement from simple to complex. That is, obviously, wrong. Evolution is not necessarily a movement towards complexity. > [@](#): > > I understand that. Really. It’s irrelevant to my points. My points rest on whether an intelligent being planning our existence rules out natural selection as I quoted. Well, if you’re basing your entire definition of the theory of evolution on one sentence you picked off the Internet that has at least one glaring error in it, I suppose you can make any point you like. But that doesn’t really defend the OP’s claim. > [@](#): > > As I already explained, the Christian God as I understand Him did more than see the future, He highly manipulated all events as to render natural selection as explained an incorrect explanation. That’s not the way a lot of Christians, if not most Christians, understand it. So unless you define them away as not being Christian, Rand Rover’s point isn’t being defended. ---
**Author:** ![wsbenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b38774/32.png) [@wsbenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wsbenge)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2009, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/156 "2009-01-15T02:13:42Z")
I have always thought this was the classic apples and oranges problem. “Who” did what is the question of God “How” is the question of evolution. There is no conflict between the two. I have no problem being Christian, and accepting evolution, as a genetic mechanism. The argument is usually “When”, when they mention the necessity of earth being only 6000 years old. I think that problem revolves around translation of “Days” to mean 24 hours, rather than just periods of time, eons, or what ever transition. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/157 "2009-01-15T03:35:47Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I don’t think you’ll find many Jews or Muslims who even claim to be Christian. It is a stupid definition. You are being wilfully obtuse at thia point. Do you really not understand why I used the term “christian”? Do you also not realize that you are the only person who doesn’t understand what’s going on here? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2009, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/158 "2009-01-15T13:31:19Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > I am receiving regular visits by some Jehova’s Witnesses, and we touched on some of this (but not exactly in this way). > > The answer was that God wanted us to have free will. The pre-Noah folks chose poorly. > > Apparently, God created something (free will) that even _He_ couldn’t control, nor predict. More fun for all, I guess. 🙂 > > (I could be misunderstanding their reply. Heh.) If a person has free will there should be no consequence for his action, except for the natural reaction, such as: if a child is told not to touch a hot stove and he does, then he could learn a lesson, but a good Father doesn’t let his child stab himself with a knife knowing it would kill him(or her). Saying my way or the highway isn’t free will. God is supposed to know all things, future and past, so if He knew the persons He created were going to go bad, He punished them for something He knew was going to happen and is at fault, more than His creation. Why would an all knowing being play such games unless he is a Sadist? The babies and children would all be innocent as they had no free will as to what the adults did. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/159 "2009-01-15T13:50:48Z")
> [@wsbenge](#): > > I have always thought this was the classic apples and oranges problem. > > “Who” did what is the question of God > > “How” is the question of evolution. > > There is no conflict between the two. I have no problem being Christian, and accepting evolution, as a genetic mechanism. > > The argument is usually “When”, when they mention the necessity of earth being only 6000 years old. I think that problem revolves around translation of “Days” to mean 24 hours, rather than just periods of time, eons, or what ever transition. See, here’s the problem. Some of the posts upthread made me accept the fact that one can believe that god somehow either set the ball in motion just right or poked and nudged all along so that evolution worked out exactly the way it did (or, for Liberal and others, at least in a manner such that some intelligent being was created). However, when someone says what wsbenge just posted, I have no confidence that he (i) understands that evolution is a process of descent with modification and natural selection in response to environmental stimuli (and not just the idea that “one type of thing turned into another type of thing over time”) and (ii) believes in the ideas discussed above (i.e., the setting in motion and/or the poking and the nudging). Rather, it just looks to me like he doesn’t fully get what the theory of evolution is all about and thinks about it in a rather simplistic way. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2009, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044/160 "2009-01-15T13:51:14Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Well, I’ve attempted to somewhat hijack a couple of threads with this topic, so I thought I would try to give it a full airing. > > Point the first: The theory of evolution does not have a goal or an endpoint. Rather, new species are created through descent with modification, and those that fit best in their environment live (until the environment changes). It is possible that dinosaurs could have been the dominant land animal for earth’s entire history (i.e., no humans ever) if the environment had always remained optimal for dinosaurs and had not changed so that the mammals took over. I think that to “accept the theory of evolution” means to believe all of the above is true. > > Point the second: A Christian must necessarily believe that God intended to create humans. A Christian need not necessarily believe in the literal truth of one of the creation stores in the Bible (or anything else really). Therefore, the defining characteristic of a Christian for this purpose is one who believes in a god that intended to create humans (I know this definition includes lots of other religions, but Christian evolutionists are the ones I run up against). > > So, it is impossible to be a Christian that accepts the theory of evolution because it is not possible to believe the points discussed in both paragraphs above. At best, Christians can believe in “evolution light” or something, which is a theory that one type of creature changed into another until humans popped out as the pre-planned endpoint of the process. Well, I’m a Christian who believes in evolution, and I disagree. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-impossible-to-be-a-christian-that-accepts-the-theory-of-evolution/481044.md?page=9)