I grew up not believing in evolution and thinking it was something crazy that atheists just believe to reject God, but now that I’m an undergraduate majoring in biology, I’ve learned a lot more about evolution and how nuanced it is. I’ve been trying to work this into my theology, but can’t quite figure some stuff out.
When do humans become humans? Many Christian denominations believe that animals don’t have souls, and as such will not be subject to heaven or hell. Well, when did humans receive this soul when we can’t pinpoint at what point homo sapiens became their own distinctive species? Did God just arbitrarily choose Adam and Eve’s generation to magically have souls?
Many other organisms, like dolphins and elephants, seem to have the same emotions that humans do, like grieving when members die. Maybe they also have a sense of justice, but I’m not too familiar with the evidence. If other species can have these kinds of emotions, are we even that much different than other species? What excludes/includes them from heaven/hell?
Things like greed, envy, slander, malice, fornication, etc., are considered to be sins. However, couldn’t one attribute these things to a more selfish evolutionary strategy compared to altruistic behaviors like sharing, being kind to one another, etc., that we as a society deem acceptable? If these behaviors can be explained biologically and not as a result of Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God, why do we need Jesus’ death and resurrection?
I’m sure I have a lot more in my noggin that I’m not remembering to ask right now, but some clarifications on these points, as well as some book recommendations that has explainations on science and theology would be much appreciated.
There is a lot in your OP, much of which Christians like to gloss over. The establishment of humanity as sentient and “superior” is more a theological standpoint than a scientific one. Trying to combine the causes all sorts of problems and conflicts between what we can see and observe and what we try and asset from Scripture.
For now I will just address the last point.
The Christian view of the resurrection and the Atonement is directly related to the view that God demands or needs perfection for us to be with Him. No matter where or how the Sin comes from Jesus removes it so that we can be with God. That is the simplistic answer. We can delve deeper if you wish, but for now it means that it doesn’t matter whether the sin came from Adam or Nature, The cleansing is still necessary.
I don’t think Jesus’ death and resurrection are needed because God “demands perfection” in a procedural sense. The deeper issue is humanity’s condition: alienation from God, captivity to disordered desires, and subjection to death. Evolutionary explanations may help explain why certain behaviors arise, but they don’t define our vocation or heal the rupture. The gospel claims that in Christ, God reconciles us, liberates us from sin and death, and inaugurates new creation—and the resurrection is essential to that work, not incidental.
Perhaps Jesus was an accommodation for man’s obsession with purity and perfection? It can be argued, that forgiveness of His death is the Ultimate demonstration that it is not about what we do that matters.
It is humanity that is obsessed with Justice and procedures.
I, for one, see no reason to create a situation for God to fix (as in the fall) so as to suggest that God had not already included it it in His creation in the first place. The fall is as much human vanity “we did it”, as it is anything else.
The whole premise behind the Garden narrative is that God must have made the world paradise and we shut ourselves out of it. Surely God could not have intended all the suffering and trials of life!
When I say “alienation from God,” I don’t mean a mere human feeling or a divine squeamishness about ritual purity. I mean an objective rupture in communion expressed in the Bible as sin, idolatry, injustice, and ultimately death.
You seem to be proposing something else: that Jesus is primarily an accommodation to humanity’s obsession with purity/procedure, and that the cross shows “it’s not about what we do.” If that is your thesis, then please say so explicitly. Pray tell, what, in your view, Christ’s resurrection accomplishes beyond validating a human religious instinct. Is anything objectively defeated or healed (sin, death, estrangement), or is the gospel mainly pedagogy?
Also, if Christ is not uniquely necessary but one “accommodation” among others, then give me a concrete account of reconciliation in other theisms. How, specifically, does Allah reconcile anyone to Allah? How does reconciliation to YHWH work apart from Christ—by what means and on what basis? In Hindu traditions, what is the analogue of “reconciliation,” and how is it achieved? I’m not asking for slogans; I’m asking for the mechanism. Without that, “Christian exclusivity is pragmatism” reads like an assertion rather than an argument.
You are assuming that there is a necessity. All your questions are based on that one thing. How do other religions answer the problem Christianity perceives!
If Christ’s work is Universal, as is “for all people” where does that demand that “all people” know and understand it?
Secondly,
All your theology is based on Christian Scripture.
(Perhaps I should not go there)
II am a Christian because I believe it is the right faith for me. I do not impose it onto others. I witness because I think it is the best way to live this life, not because I think it is the only way to live this life, or that God will insist on it.
Your clarification shows where we’re now talking past each other.
Ben’s original question wasn’t “why should everyone be Christian?” It was whether evolutionary explanations of human behavior dissolve the need for Jesus’ death and resurrection. My argument assumes—not dogmatically, but classically—that the gospel addresses an objective condition: estrangement from God, bondage to sin, and death. That’s what makes reconciliation intelligible at all.
You seem to be denying that there is any such necessity—treating the “problem” as something Christianity perceives rather than something God addresses. If that’s the case, then terms like reconciliation, forgiveness, liberation, and resurrection no longer function as claims about reality but as symbols that some people find meaningful. That’s a coherent position, but it’s a different one from what the New Testament appears to be claiming.
Also, universality doesn’t require universal awareness. Gravity is universal without everyone understanding physics. In the same way, Christ’s work could be universal in scope without requiring universal cognition or assent.
Finally, I think this discussion has drifted beyond Ben’s question into a broader debate about religious pluralism and personal faith preference. That may be worth having—but it’s no longer addressing whether evolutionary explanations undermine the gospel’s claim that something real has gone wrong, and that God has acted decisively in Christ to set it right.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.