4 Theological Objections to Evolution

Does evolution make the Christian God irrelevant or malevolent?
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/4-theological-objections-to-evolution
1 Like

God is no more malevolent in a universe WITH EVOLUTION than without.

Most Christians see God as necessary to give life meaning, or purpose … and - additionally, for many - to provide atonement for the imperfection of human nature and/or nature in general.


Fergusson didn’t address Adam and Eve (though of course BioLogos has repeatedly). Besides that, do you think there are other theological objections to evolution that should be addressed besides these?

@jstump **
"…consistent with orthodox theology to say that at some moment in the development of the species, God “breathed his breath” into the creatures and endowed them with his image. Others think this could have been a more gradual development within the species, just like the development of moral responsibility occurs gradually within each individual."

At the present time even agnostic/atheist scientists (e.g. J. Diamond, R. Dawkins) agree that the current evidence supports the appearance of humankind was as a Great Leap Forward–Dawkins expressing it ’as if the human brain were suddenly programmed." Of course, neither I nor Dawkins expects it to remain “as if”–in other words to remain as a “God of the Gaps explanation”. Indeed, there is already a glimmering of evidence that DNA methylation in the brain has a special function in maturation of neurons in the process of development [Gabel & Greenberg, Science V341, 626-627, 2013]. In other words, this may be the mechanism by which the brain ‘hardware’ is being altered, i.e. ‘programmed’ by information acquired directly from the environment (in utero to old age) and by language from other humans so endowed.

Thus moral responsibility, and with it the creation of an immortal soul, may have appeared upon the scene rather suddenly (in an evolutionary sense). In my opinion these lends more credence to the stories of Genesis 1 & 2 than many scientists presently want to give them.
Al Leo

1 Like

One of the creationist websites has the best theological objection to theistic evolution, delightfully circular: “The idea that God would use the atheistic process of evolution is the ultimate oxymoron.”

1 Like

Enjoyed the article. It did strike me as telling that you would never see an article titled " 4 Theological Objections to Young Earth Creationism" on the AIG website, even though it would be difficult to limit it to 4.

1 Like



You mentioned the objection to evolution based on “no death before the Fall” and Romans 5. I have recently posted a topic here asking YECs to explain how Romans 5 can mean physical death, when Paul clearly means spiritual death in Romans 7 (In which he says that he died, and death came to him). I have not gotten any answers as yet.

As for the objection based on th insignificance of humans, I agree with your analysis as to why that is non issue, but there is a complication here. Many atheists (not all) do seem to buy into the currently popular notion that human beings really are nothing special, and in fact we need to acknowledge our species inherent mediocrity. I think this strange philosophy might be related to an argument against the concept of imago die, as well as some distorted environmentalist and apocalytic views of humanity and the planet. So, I can understand why some YECs might conflate this idea with evolution, which is indeed unfortunate.

This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.