Do I have to choose?

(Emily) #1

I feel like I have to choose between Evolution or God. I can’t deny Evolution as the evidence for it is overwhelming.

I can’t adhere to Creationism because all scientific evidence denies their claims. And they’re known to lie, AIG being an example. God loves truth, so I assume He wouldn’t want me to believe people/corporations who are known to lie. And to use my brain to investigate the current evidence and make a conclusion. That He would want me to ask questions, do research.

I’ve been praying to Him a lot about this.

I know I’ve posted a lot recently, but this is a place where I feel I can vent/share concerns, thoughts, etc with likeminded people, and I’ve been having a hard time trying to find like-minded people.


No, you don’t have to choose. God is the author of the truth of the natural world as well as from scripture. This link shows a diagram about that and the website that can help you in your research.

It’s also interesting that @freddymagnanimo mentioned a book today on that subject in the blog topic: How can Genesis be interpreted to agree with Theistic Evolution?
“I’m currently reading Denis Alexander’s Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose, which seems to layout similar scenarios.”


Just a quick not that in reading your post I also immediately thought of the book mentioned by @DougK above. Alexander’s Creation or Evolution was a great read. The plain book title very much undersells it:

From the book (Kindle location 2573):

The purpose of Genesis 2, like Genesis 1, is to teach theology. The literal interpretation of these chapters is to lay the theological foundations for all that is to follow in the rest of Scripture. Unless we understand that there is only one God, who has brought a good creation into being by his divine Word, and who has created humankind in his image to care for the earth and walk in obedience to him, then we will be unable to understand the rest of the biblical message. These chapters represent the opening manifesto of the Bible, setting its parameters and its priorities, and the danger is that if we start interpreting the text as if it were scientific literature, or was intended to tell us how God created biological diversity, then we run the risk of missing the central theological messages.

Location 2294:

By expressing his creative purposes for the earth and humankind in such compressed and elegant theological language, God has ensured that we should focus first of all on what is necessary for our salvation and, as Bishop Wilkins so rightly says, leave the rest for humans to find out for themselves.

Anyway @Celticroots, there are smart and intellectually honest people out there that can help to encourage us that we don’t have to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

(George Brooks) #4


Emily, we make choices every day. And naturally, on a BioLogos board, thee’s a certain amount of drama surrounding the Young Earth position.

But if someone you loved was going blind, do you feel you HAVE to make a choice between letting science cure that person’s vision? …

vs. spitting into a handful of mud and applying the paste, with prayers, on the person’s eyes?

Most people would say that this is an easy choice.

(George Brooks) #5

The dilemma of believing in UNICORNS … or REJECTING that idea?

Deu 33:17
His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: H7214 with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth…

Job 39:9
Will the unicorn H7214 be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Job 39:10
Canst thou bind the unicorn H7214 with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psa 22:21
Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. H7214

Psa 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn. H7214

Psa 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: H7214 I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Isa 34:7
And the unicorns H7214 shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

Andrew White’s “A history of the warfare of science with theology” (Volume 1, page 39), tells us about the terrible dilemma faced a German naturalist:

29 July 1635; Died: Wittenberg, Germany, 28 September 1700) German montanist & naturalist. Kirchmaie

". . . the eminent Prof Kirchmaier [Georg Casper Kirchmaier: b.1635-d.1700], at the University of Wittenberg . . . as to the phoenix, he denies its existence, not only because Noah took no such bird into the ark, but also because, as he pithily remarks, “birds come from eggs, not from ashes.” But the UNICORN he can not resign, nor will he event concede that the UNICORN [was in fact] a rhinoceros; he appeals to Job … to prove that [the Unicorn] really exists, and says, “Who would not fear to deny the existence of the Unicorn, since Holy Scripture names him with distinct praises.”

Do we not, as a modern reader, conclude that the good professor was being OVERLY SCRUPULOUS to be so devoted to written words set down by man?

(Bill) #6

Emily, you don’t have to choose if you can be content as an agnostic. It is a viable and worthy position to say, “I just don’t know” or “I’m waiting for more evidence before I decide.” Christianity, while a good religion, often posits that you have an eternal soul at stake in the matter, which, IMO, adds unnecessary pressure to the situation. For one thing, science has never been able to verify the existence of an immortal soul (as in spirit). For another, even in the Bible the word “soul” simply means “life”. It even says that “the soul that sins, it shall die” which seems to go against the Christian doctrine of an eternal, immortal soul. But if God, who should be the author of truth (reality), wanted us to really know about the origins of the universe in a scientific way, he could have easily had the Mosaic account in Genesis jive with current science. This, he didn’t do. So it seems that the Genesis accounts are either 1) simply the views of the ancient Israelites according to their understanding or 2) God playing around with language in order to be coy or to keep us in the dark from truth or 3) historical truth but God is deceiving us in the natural world via science. For me, I pick view 1. Or one can, as I suggested, just be agnostic on the issue.

(Emily) #7

Hypothetically, if someone I loved was going blind, I would choose the surgery if it helped or cured the person. Because I believe God created those doctors/surgeons who came up with the procedure in the first place. I believe He can work through people.

And, I like the quote that Josh said above, how the Bible is not supposed to be interpretated as literal scientific literature.

(George Brooks) #8

Absolutely, @Celticroots

Which means reading a 2500+ year old book as the guide to understanding the origins of Earth is not advised.

(Emily) #9


I understand better now. Lol

(George Brooks) #10

I found this in an Evangelical’s general discussion on Enns:

  1. Enns claims that Scripture is inspired and inerrant, however the way he describes Scripture seems to counter that belief.

"Enns believes we are wrong to have a preconceived notion of inerrancy into which we must fit the Scriptures. Instead, he believes we should define inerrancy based on Scripture. Enns’ critics claim that he is the one who is allowing extra-biblical sources to define the nature of Scriptural inspiration (for example, by defining the genre of Genesis as “myth” based on the conceptual similarities with other ancient literature)."

Shall we believe in Unicorns because the writers of the Bible BELIEVED they existed?