IBAC logo
International Bible Advocacy Centre
English|Français|Español

Affirming the place of the Bible in today’s world

  • Home
  • What is the Bible?
  • Our Work
    • About us
    • Who we are
    • What we do
    • Politics
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Media
    • Global Advocacy Exchange
  • Research
  • News & Blog
    • Engaging digital natives with the Bible
    • Give Us Peace – But Not Yet
    • Faith in ‘the people’? How a biblical vision can renew democracy
    • Bible advocacy in the global context
    • The Glory of the Smile: A Biblical Perspective
    • Story-telling as a tool of advocacy
    • Icons, Identities, and Christian faith
    • No note, no comment? The genesis and future of Bible advocacy
    • The future of Bible advocacy in the UBS fellowship
    • ISIS criticised in Westminster debate
    • Boundless creativity for Bible advocacy
    • Is the Bible a bridge or a barrier to democracy?
    • Colours of the Bible
    • That Man: Bringing the story to life for new audiences in Costa Rica
    • Faith at work: equipping the next generation in Romania
    • Bible Exhibition in the European Parliament prompts Bible distribution
    • The role of the Bible in combating corruption: the case of Malawi
    • Does the Bible speak for itself?
    • Finding wholeness, restoring the soul: Bible advocacy through living arts
    • The Bible and culture: how should we read?
    • A look back at IBAC in 2015
    • Democracy, Conflict & the Bible - now on sale
    • The book of a minority or the book for society?
    • Bible museum as an advocacy tool: the experience of Pakistan
    • Planting hope in the wilderness: Reflections on Asian journeys’ Green Desert project
    • Leadership crisis - The bane of Africans' woes
    • Bible mission and Bible advocacy: a Balkan perspective
    • Reimagining Bible Advocacy in globalised youth cultures
    • Advocating for the Bible in sports
    • Four reasons why secularisation is good for international Bible advocacy
    • What does the Bible say about migration?
    • How to do effective Bible advocacy in academia
    • How to profile the Bible in inter-religious dialogue
    • On judging and the Bible
    • Has the Bible got the X Factor?
    • 5 things to help take Bible advocacy to the next level
    • Pitching the Bible in the world of young film-makers
    • Church and State: biblical view on their relationship
    • A Christian view of the Internet and new media
    • ‘Theistic Evolution’: is it biblical?
    • 6 ways the Bible is changing the conversation among Africa’s leaders
    • Leading civic engagement for biblical transformation
    • 5 biblical entrepreneurship principles to teach your kids
    • Imagining the Bible in Donald Trump's world
    • Speaking sculptures
    • Bible advocacy as a tool of reshaping young minds in Argentina
    • 7 reasons why the marketplace is a great place for Christians
    • Trauma, transformation and the Bible
    • Get ready for ABLI 2016
    • Conversation with Hon. Paul Yoane Bonju: Part One
    • Conversation with Hon. Paul Yoane Bonju: part two
    • Ending religion won’t end the conflict
    • Islam and the Western Christianity: facing conflict for mutual gain?
    • Jesus teaches us to love even Donald Trump
    • Interview with Honourable Anne Linno
    • Christianity ‘in line with the Chinese Dream’ conference told
    • Christian values at heart of Chinese academic seminar
    • Why work in the arts? Bible advocacy and the imagination
    • Faithful compromise: The lost art of brokered effectiveness in our public life
    • Eating as discipleship
    • How to survive the apocalypse: zombies, Cylons, faith and politics at the end of the world
    • Bible advocacy and secularism today: the role of IBAC
    • Event: Faith and Citizenship: A divided allegiance?
    • What Does it Mean to be Human? Blade Runner, Babylon, and the Bible
    • Church well-placed to help bring peace to Africa, says Lord Boateng
    • East - West Church Dialogue Resource Publication
    • “Open Sesame” – Integrity and Courage in Christian-Muslim Encounter
    • Conference aims to support Christian communities under pressure in the Middle East
    • Bible Society conference feels the pain of Middle East church
  • Contact us
Our website uses cookies to improve your online experience. Accept | Find out more
‘Theistic Evolution’: is it biblical?
< Back

Dr Andrew Loke (PhD, Kings College) is Research Assistant Professor at The University of Hong Kong. He has published articles in leading academic journals such as Religious Studies. 

Many Christians today accept macroevolution, but many others reject it. In this article, I shall examine a number of common objections. While I am not fully committed to the theory of evolution, I shall show that there are various ways by which theistic evolutionists can defend the theological acceptability of their case.

Macroevolution refers to the process, involving the mechanisms of genetic variation and natural selection, by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from a common ancestor. Thus understood, this process is compatible with the view that God created the universe, fine-tuned its laws, brought about the first life, controlled the mutations of genes which appear to be random and the natural forces such that certain biological traits are selected (perhaps by acting at the quantum level), and (as explained below) specially created the first human in his image. Such a view would imply the possibility of perceiving both the evidences for creation (e.g. intelligent design) and the evidences for macroevolution in biological organisms. Thus, creation and macroevolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive, rather God could have chosen to use the process of macroevolution to bring about various organisms.

Creation and macroevolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive, rather God could have chosen to use the process of macroevolution to bring about various organisms.

Many people think that embracing theistic evolution would mean accepting that we came from monkeys, which is objectionable. Aside from pointing out the scientific misconception — evolutionary theory does not say human bodies evolved from monkeys, but from common ancestors of apes and humans — this objection seems to assume that our physical bodies are all that ‘we’ are, which is false. Theistic evolutionists can say that only the physical aspect of humanity came from the common ancestor. The spiritual aspect, however, was directly created by God (this is one way to understand the phrase ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’ in Genesis 2.7). Given that God is a spiritual being (John 4.24), the image of God in humanity should not be understood as asserting that our physical body is similar to God. Rather, it should be referring to our spiritual aspect. Based on scriptural passages such as Genesis 1.26-8, 2 Corinthians 4.4 and Romans 8.29, the properties of (i) having the potential for a unique kind of dominion that could extend to the whole world and over all kinds of creatures, (ii) having the potential for a sense of responsibility for this kind of dominion, and (iii) having the potential to be made to become conformed to Christ would be some of the properties that differentiate humanity from animals which do not have the image of God. It could be the case that these properties were directly and specially created by God on a pre-existing physical body of the hominid species, resulting in a new, originally sinless person (Adam), who would be the first ‘human being’. In this way, human uniqueness compared to animals is affirmed, and whether the physical aspect came via macroevolution or not is of no theological importance. Other scholars have argued that passages such as ‘according to their kinds’ (Genesis 1.11, 20) and Genesis 2.7 can be shown to be consistent with macroevolution.

Despite the destructions and sufferings, God still brought about many kinds of beautiful and amazing creatures.

Many people are troubled by the existence of animal suffering prior to Adam’s disobedience on the theistic-evolutionary view.  In reply, this is not a problem for the theistic-evolutionary view only. It is also a problem for Old Earth progressive creationists (e.g. Hugh Ross) who reject macroevolution. Ross argues that God allows pre-human suffering to occur for his good purposes, and theistic evolutionists can argue similarly. For example, Ross thinks that carnivores are created prior to Adam’s disobedience and argues that ‘carnivores appear to be optimally designed to maximally benefit the health and population levels of the herbivores they prey upon by selectively weeding out the sick and the dying. In fact, carnivores appear to be optimally designed to benefit all life-forms, including human beings.’ In response to whether Genesis 1.30 implies that all animals were vegetarians prior to Adam’s disobedience, it can be replied that Genesis 1.30 may be referring only to creatures in the Garden of Eden rather than creatures on the entire earth. Likewise, the cursing of the ground by God because of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3) can be understood in functional terms, i.e. the ground was cursed with respect to Adam. In other words, after his creation Adam was placed in a divinely protected environment (Eden) which occupied a limited geographical area on earth, and after he sinned the ground on which he lived was cursed in the sense that it no longer had that divine protection Theistic evolutionists might also point out that Genesis 1-3 is not intended to be a complete record of everything about creation. For example, why was the earth formless and void near the beginning of chapter 1 (Genesis 1.2)? And why was the snake evil? The text of Genesis 1-3 itself does not answer these questions. It is in other scriptural texts (e.g. Revelation 12.9) in which the snake is identified as Satan and the angelic disobedience mentioned (Jude 1.6; 2 Peter 2.4). Genesis 1.2 hints that something was not right prior to the creation of humans. Other scriptural passages indicate that there have been cosmic battles going on between good and evil angels which can affect the history of the world (e.g. Daniel 10.13), and that Satan is capable of inflicting suffering on God’s creatures (Job 1). While Young Earth creationists regard animal suffering as a result of human sin, theistic evolutionists can likewise regard animal suffering prior to humans as the result of angelic sin. It is noteworthy that Adam and angels are both called ‘son of God’ in the Scripture (Luke 3.38, Job 38.6-7), indicating their special relationships to God. The objection ‘why would God create so many amazing creatures such as dinosaurs and allow them to go extinct before humans could appreciate them?’ neglects the possibility (suggested by the Bible) that parts of creation might have been created for the appreciation by angels; cf. the angels’ shouting for joy at God’s creation in Job 38.6-7. Disobedient angels, however, would be motivated to destroy God’s work rather than appreciate them. On the basis of these scriptural hints, theistic evolutionists might suggest the possibility that certain blundering mutations were caused by the destructive work of Satan, and that God might have chosen to use an evolutionary process to create — during which he also worked out his purposes for other creatures such as angelic beings — so as to demonstrate that he is able to bring good out of suffering (cf. Romans 8.28). That is, despite the destructions and sufferings, God still brought about many kinds of beautiful and amazing creatures; from this perspective, God saw that it was good (Genesis 1.25).

 While the Bible does not say that the Creator used an evolutionary process to create various living organisms, the Bible also does not say that he did not use an evolutionary process.

Some might ask ‘If God created humans to take care of the earth, why create humans after the earth had existed for such a long time?’ In reply, this question is based on fallacious assumptions. God did not need a gardener to help him take care of the earth; God could have done it himself if he wanted, or he could have assigned angels to do it. God assigned humans certain roles (Genesis 1.28; 2.15) not because God needed humans to serve him (Acts 17.25); rather this assignment should be understood as an act of grace that allow humans to express their gratitude, love and worship to him.

 While the Bible does not say that the Creator used an evolutionary process to create various living organisms, the Bible also does not say that he did not use an evolutionary process. Hence we must remain open to various possibilities, be charitable to Christians who might want to accept macroevolution, and not let this issue be an unnecessary obstacle to Christian unity nor to seekers coming to Jesus. 

Published: 20/06/2016

Although IBAC exists to foster conversations on Bible advocacy-related issues, the views or opinions represented in this blog are solely those of the author

Bible Society
Copyright
Privacy policy
Cookie Policy
Bible Society, Stonehill Green, Westlea, Swindon, SN5 7DG.
Charity reg number: 232759