Who best reconciles the Bible and Evolution?


(Mike Gantt) #1

I think reconciling theism and evolution is relatively easy. However, reconciling the Bible and evolution is much harder. What books, videos, blog sites, posts on this website, or other resources are your top recommendations for reconciliations of the Bible and evolution?

Before you recommend something, I should say that I have been searching for a while and have come up empty. The most common shortcoming I have found is that authors seem to assume that all that is necessary to reconcile the Bible and evolution is to prove that the biblical creation account either can be or must be taken figuratively. This, of course, only enables reconciliation of the Bible and evolution - it does not actually reconcile them. To actually reconcile them requires a specific figurative interpretation, complete with the material points of correspondence between the figures and reality. It is this actual reconciliation that I yearn to find.


What biblical reasons are there to accept the scientific view of the earth as billions of years old?
What biblical reasons are there to accept the scientific view of the earth as billions of years old?
(Phil) #2

I guess my reply would be along the lines of “Why do you feel they should be reconciled?” as we do not have the reconcile the Bible with math, or computer programming or French cooking.
I agree with you that there is nothing out there I know of that will do it very well, but as they speak to different things, that is not surprising.


#3

JPM captured my first thought exactly.

I recently read a scientific paper where the author happened to calculate the number of particles of sand on the planet. It brought to mind God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants would be “as the sands of the sea.” Yet, even after allowing for the differing subsets of the earth’s various kinds of sand, the numbers of sands versus the number of the descendants of Abraham don’t even match as to the scale of powers-of-ten. So how should those two facts be reconciled?

As already stated, they don’t have to be reconciled. They are different kinds of descriptions and they do harmonize in terms of the intention of the Genesis text. Both quantities are impossible for humans to determine by counting.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #4

Nobody is the best but here are a few reads I’ve enjoyed-

Philip Rolnick’s Origins book- he actually addresses the big questions that are often challenges to Christians that are generally more metaphysical in nature then actually specifically scriptural. Scripture is extremely vague on how God brought forth the animals, so I think that addressing big ideas behind it is a noble attempt at integration.

The main challenge that one faces is that for you to really find evolution in the Scriptures, you need to do what Hugh Ross with big bang cosmology. A much easier way to go is free up the text from describing physical creation as John Walton eloquently does in his many books. You can go a little bit farther as many also do and that God was accommodating the scientific understanding of an ancient people group. This idea is definitely not new as John Calvin and others were fans of it.

Much work has been done today as we have more knowledge of the ancient near East and we’ve basically found that creation is described very similarly in the Scriptures as other creation myths. There are a few differences, but that strengthens the hypothesis that the Bible just contains ancient science… In other words God or the writer of the text communicated that in a way they could understand.

I also enjoyed Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution https://www.amazon.com/dp/1556355815/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_CWbtzbX34NN5X. While he doesn’t have all the answers or everything figured out, this was the book that won me over. With his exegetical work plus scientific inquiry I was deeply moved and have grown immensely and my understanding of the Scriptures and science. He’s also got a 2016 which I have not read yet, but would like to get it in a few months when I have more time.


(Mike Gantt) #5

Fair question. I think they need to be reconciled because they ostensibly clash. On the other hand, I see no clash between the Bible and the other three things you mentioned - that is, I see no claims in the Bible about the origins of math, computer programming, or French cooking.

When I say “ostensibly clash” I mean that both give explanations of how the world of which we are a part came to be…and the two explanations differ in several material ways - at least at first glance. For example, evolution says that “creation” is still taking place while the Bible says (whether you take “day” to mean 24 hours or eons of time) that creation has been completed. For another, evolution says that “creation” is one long continuous process while the Bible describes it as multiple discrete processes. For yet another, evolution says that every living thing comes from one original living thing while the Bible says that living things had separate, distinguishable ancestors.

You might then ask, “Well, why can’t you just accept the clash and live with it?” My answer is that creation is not a minor issue in the Bible. It sits right there in, arguably, the most prominent place in the Bible and is referred to throughout the rest of it. I don’t know how to ignore its claims…or the conflict that occurs when compared to the claims of evolution. If the Bible is a record of God’s communications with humanity, and I believe it is, then I have to take as important what it seems to present as important.

If I’ve not answered your question, please address my shortcomings and I’ll respond.


(Mike Gantt) #6

Like you, I feel no need to reconcile the number of sand grains with the number of Abraham’s descendants. However, I feel differently when it comes to the subject of origins because it strikes me as far more important.

It’s clear to me that God’s statement to Abraham was a figure of speech for “lots and lots” of descendants. It’s also clear to me that Genesis lays out an account of origins (whether one reads it literally or figuratively) and that the rest of the Bible’s authors took it seriously - and literally at least insofar as the persons of Adam and Eve are concerned.

“Where we came from” seems to be a much more profound and important issue than “the exact number” of Abraham’s descendants. The former certainly is more relevant to how I live my daily life than is the latter.

Help me understand how you are comfortable with two such discrepant accounts of our origins?


#7

Lots of Sunday School teachers ask little children, “Who made you?” The children dutifully answer, “God made me.” And they are correct—even though their parents were also involved. God is the ultimate cause while human parents are the proximate cause.

Likewise, God is the ultimate cause of the universe. Yet, God continues to make all sorts of new things by means of the proximate causes which the ultimate cause created.

Biologos has articles which do a much better job of expanding on this excellent topic that Mike_Gantt has raised. When I was a Young Earth Creationist, I saw the same kind of conflict/clash with the Theory of Evolution. Now I don’t. It was a long process for me. It wasn’t until I studied both Hebrew language and the culture—and the culture of the Ancient Near East in general—that the clash started to evaporate. I had been reading Genesis as if it were a product of modern day Western civilization. I am still in the process of removing anachronistic thinking from my Biblical hermeneutics. And that is despite a lot of years of seminary and graduate work.


(Phil) #8

You are right about the clash of course, if you assume they are talking about the same things. And as you stated in your initial post, you have to look at it figuratively to get away from the conflict. We do that in many other areas of the Bible, such as when Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest seed, but we know that it actually is not, and when the Bible gives multiple verses supporting a geocentric earth, when it is not. And even when God made Eve from Adams rib, we have to assume it is figurative as a rib is a lot smaller than a woman, and doesn’t have the right genes if you get down to molecular level. You can make stuff up to try to reconcile that, but in the end, you are just making stuff up that is not in the Bible.
In any case, it is sort of in same class of questions as “Can God make a square circle?” and if you take a non-scientific interpretation of Genesis, it just does not make sense as much as we would like it to.


(Mike Gantt) #9

Thanks for the recommendations.

I am familiar with Ross, Walton, and Lamoureux and have found none of them satisfying. Ross wraps his exegesis so tightly around big bang cosmology one wonders what might happen with new discoveries in astronomy. Walton doesn’t reconcile the clash; he, of course, sidesteps it by asserting that the Bible is talking about the functions of creation rather than the physical creation. I have interacted with Lamoureux directly and have found that he is so convinced of evolution that he simply makes his interpretation of the Bible conform to it. I think the same is actually true of Ross.

I want to check out the Rolnick book but it is expensive and the sample portion on Amazon is not promising. I say this because - like the authors mentioned above - he seems to be someone who is willing to let the Bible speak about creation clearly and boldly - but only where science is silent. In other words, naturalism has its say, and then the Bible is allowed to fill in details. This to me seems like reconciling two quarreling parties by telling one to do whatever the other one says. It may stop the argument but it does not really nurture the relationship.


#10

Mike, I saw your reply after I had already written my previous followup. I wish I could easily retrieve some of the essays I’ve written on this topic. There was also a 13-episode on Youtube by Gordon Glover that I would often link for inquirers—but the last time I looked, all of his excellent videos had disappeared. (If anyone has seen them back online, I’d be grateful for new links.)

I don’t know anything about your background so I do think that a “big” question like that deserves more than a quick summary statement as an answer. So I would indeed recommend the various Biologos articles and videos. But one analogy I used to use (in terms of “genre” of a sort) was Carl Sagan’s Cosmic Calendar from the COSMOS TV series. It provides an example from our culture of doing something similar: Sagan constructed a way to look at the history of the universe as if it were a single year’s calendar. (If you didn’t see Cosmos, you can look up Cosmic Calendar on Wikipedia.) Sagan talked about months and days, hours and minutes in a timeline of history—but all of those terms were stand-ins for vast periods of time. If I recall, the solar system came in early fall and eukaryotes appeared in November. Dinosaurs appeared on Christmas Day and humans walked upright by mid-evening of the last day of the year!

That provides a small taste of the concept. What is often much more difficult for those who haven’t studied Semitic languages and cultures is the ways in which the Ancient Hebrews (and their languages) had a much different view of chronology. Indeed, the Hebrew language of the Old Testament doesn’t even use verb tenses in the ways we English-speakers would expect. And we take for granted that a series of numbered days would (obviously!) imply chronological order. Yet, we CANNOT take that for granted in Hebrew literature. I could give you lots of examples of cultural differences like these which arise in Bible translation—although I’m sure Christy could do a much better job because she is still on the mission field and keeping current on linguistics literature while I’m retired—but all I can do at this point is give a few general examples like these. New Testament scholars comparing the Gospel accounts run into similar cultural issues when the chronologies don’t seem (to us) to match quite like they should.

When I read Genesis 1, I see several levels of chiastic structures, among other things. Yes, there are six YOM but they are a special pattern of 3+3 which upon examination indicates that the author wasn’t just saying “this happened, then that happened, etc etc.” but that a literary FRAMEWORK meant to communicate important underlying meanings was being constructed. I believe it is primarily a REFUTATION of the cosmology and polytheism of the neighboring cultures. The God of Israel is described as sovereign over all of the domains of nature—instead of individual gods and goddesses ruling over the land domain and the sea domain, the fish domain, and the beasts of the field domain and the birds of the air domain. (Think Greek and Roman deities where there is a diverse panoply of rulers.) It is natural for us as modern day westerners to think that Genesis 1 is all about chronology of events—but I would contend that the original author and audience saw it as using the six days merely as a literary device which serves as a theological outline.

As I feared, this kind of summary falls far short of adequately answering your question. It took me many years of study before I realized how “western” was my approach to the text.

By the way, my summary naturally implies a Framework Hypothesis approach to Genesis 1 and I don’t mean to imply that that is the ONLY reasonable way to look at it. But many other approaches are quite similar in how they try to read the text as it would have been understood within Semitic culture.

I should also mention that it is easy for American Christians in our day to assume that six literal days and a strict chronology is the most important and “obvious” understanding of Genesis 1. But anyone who has studied hermeneutical history and theologians who lived before the recent explosion of Gish-Morris-Whitcomb Young Earth Creationism (and “creation science”) realizes that not all Christians have been focused on a 6,000 year old earth and Ussher’s Chronology. Many theologians through the centuries took for granted that the six days of Genesis 1 were not 24 hours days—but weren’t all that concerned about their duration.

Tradition can be a powerful force. (I am among the first to admit that because of my own Young Earth Creationist background.) It took me a lot of years and study to get beyond my own denominational interpretative traditions.

This is a very complex topic. I wish I could produce a better summary. No doubt it sounds even “far fetched” to some who are learning about these topics for the first time. That is how it seemed to me. I had the additional obstacle of having been taught an erroneous understanding of the Doctrine of Perspicuity.


#11

I would encourage to avoid the bias of “naturalism” being something bad. Instead, remember that “naturalism” is letting God’s revelations in his creation have their say—just as we respect what God says in his revelations in the Bible. (Methodological Naturalism in science and Philosophical Naturalism in atheism are NOT the same thing.) God created a “very TOV/good” creation. Creation is true and the scriptures are true. It is not a conflict.

Many Christians lament “I’m not going to let fallible scientists tell me what to think!” Of course, fallible theologians are fallen as humans as well. Humans can and do misinterpret God’s revelations in the Bible just as humans can misinterpret what God has revealed in his creation. Unless both of God’s works of authorship are respected, there is bound to be conflict.

And that is why I have no difficulty trusting what God has revealed in his creation—especially when the Bible says nothing to contradict what I see in creation. Thus, when the evidence is overwhelming that we live on a spheroidal planet, I’m not going to deny that just because the Bible speaks of “a circle of the ERETZ/earth”—which was how much of the Ancient Near East viewed the land on which they lived. (Despite some wishful thinking by some Young Earth Creationist ministries, the Bible doesn’t describe the earth as a sphere. It uses the Hebrew word for circle and applies it to the HORIZON which encircles the land on which all of us live. That is, anyone on the planet can go outside and look in all directions. What do you see? You see a circular disk surrounded by the horizon. That is the circle of the ERETZ in scripture. It is a perfectly acceptable description—and it doesn’t actually contradict a spherical earth, but some Christians used to think it did.)

We as Christians have a long history of denying science because we thought the scriptures denied some scientific concept. Yet, with the passage of time, each of those conflicts was resolved—in favor of the scientists! Nevertheless, nobody today continues to quote Luther and others in saying that the Copernican Planetary model is bunk—even though theologians in the past were CERTAIN that the Bible denied what the scientists were saying.) Yes, in the centuries of competition between theologians and scientists, the scientists keep winning. (Ken Ham teaches the opposite—but to do so he has to cite examples from BEFORE the dawn of the Scientific Method!)


(Christy Hemphill) #12

Just to clarify, are you looking for something that takes the Genesis account as a completely non-figurative, historical account, but also accepts scientific consensus on evolution?

I understand the reaction to an approach that can come across as “dismissing” things as figurative or symbolic, but are you thinking that any interpretation that assesses parts of the Genesis account as figurative, or at least something other than objective factual history is unacceptable? Or is it a matter of degree to which the appeal to figurative language is made?

For example, there are theologians who affirm Adam and Eve were real people in the history of humanity (i.e. all of the account is not “dismissed” or “written off” as symbolism or allegory or figurative language) and accept evolution. But they don’t see Genesis as describing the evolutionary process, just not necessarily contradicting it. If you want someone who sees Genesis as describing evolutionary origins, I’m thinking you’re going to be disappointed. That isn’t what it’s about.


(Mike Gantt) #13

Christy, thanks for your reply.

Just to clarify, are you looking for something that takes the Genesis account as a completely non-figurative, historical account, but also accepts scientific consensus on evolution?

No. If the Genesis account is to be interpreted non-figuratively then it clashes with evolution so thoroughly that a reconciliation of the two accounts is impossible. I am open to a figurative interpretation of the Genesis account that can be reconciled with evolution. My problem is that, so far, I have been unable to find one that resonates.

I understand the reaction to an approach that can come across as “dismissing” things as figurative or symbolic, but are you thinking that any interpretation that assesses parts of the Genesis account as figurative, or at least something other than objective factual history is unacceptable? Or is it a matter of degree to which the appeal to figurative language is made?

I do not insist that any departure from “objective factual history is unacceptable.” The Bible frequently uses figurative language, so I’d be foolish to reject the possibility of its use in the Genesis account. Where I draw the line - and this may be what you are referring to with your reference to “a matter of degree” - is that there must be at least some points of correspondence between the figurative language and the reality of which it is speaking. I say this because whether it is the picturesque speech of the prophets or the parables of Jesus, there are always some points of correspondence. After all, the purpose of figurative language is to illustrate a point.

For example, there are theologians who affirm Adam and Eve were real people in the history of humanity (i.e. all of the account is not “dismissed” or “written off” as symbolism or allegory or figurative language) and accept evolution. But they don’t see Genesis as describing the evolutionary process, just not necessarily contradicting it. If you want someone who sees Genesis as describing evolutionary origins, I’m thinking you’re going to be disappointed. That isn’t what it’s about.

I am not seeking an intepretation of the Genesis account that shows it describing the evolutionary process. That would be like seeking a unicorn. I am, however, looking for an figurative interpretation of Genesis that is 1) plausible, and 2) that has points of correspondence with evolution rather than points of clashing.

To demonstrate what I mean by points of clashing that the acceptance of figurative language does not remove, let me repeat what I’ve written elsewhere in this forum:

When I say “ostensibly clash” I mean that both give explanations of how the world of which we are a part came to be…and the two explanations differ in several material ways - at least at first glance. For example, evolution says that “creation” is still taking place while the Bible says (whether you take “day” to mean 24 hours or eons of time) that creation has been completed. For another, evolution says that “creation” is one long continuous process while the Bible describes it as multiple discrete processes. For yet another, evolution says that every living thing comes from one original living thing while the Bible says that living things had separate, distinguishable ancestors.

To that I could add in summation that evolution says that the universe has arisen naturally and the Genesis account says it arose supernaturally.

If you can, please point me to someone who gives a figurative interpretation of the Genesis account that removes these points of conflict.


(Mike Gantt) #14

Socratic.Fanatic, thank you for your responses.

I have no problem believing scientists when they tell me that I am living on the upper side of a ball that is spinning upwards of 1,000 mph, circling a bigger ball at 67,000 mph, and that the two balls together are moving through space at over 400,000 mph - all without my flying off…or even getting chapped lips. The reason I have no problem believing them is 1) they know more about the subject than I do and have no reason to lie to me, and 2) I do not see any conflict between what they are saying and what the Bible says. I do not see the Bible trying to describe anything “scientifically.” It would be anachronistic to suggest otherwise.

The problem I do have is the fundamental points of conflict that exist between the Bible and evolution even if one interprets the word “day” as a period of time indefinitely longer than 24 hours. I have stated them twice elsewhere in this topic so I won’t repeat them here.

Let me state the problem in different terms. It is hard for me to imagine a figurative account of creation that would be more in conflict with evolution than the one we have. By contrast, it is easy for me to imagine a figurative account of creation that would be compatible with evolution. Since it would be easy for God to have inspired a figurative account of creation that fit nicely - or at least didn’t clash so strikingly - with evolution once the scientific age arose, why didn’t He do so?


(Mike Gantt) #15

@JPM (Phil), I appreciate your acknowledgement of the clash. However, I draw a distinction between interpreting a passage figuratively and dismissing it. I don’t mean to be pejorative in characterizing your response as the latter, but it’s hard for me to conclude that you are doing anything else when you point to no figurative interpretation that resolves the conflicts. You are not unique in this regard; as I have said, most theistic evolutionists take this approach which is to, practically speaking, end the conflict by declaring that the Genesis account is figurative without going on to show how a particular figurative interpretation is compatible with evolution. It seems to be enough to say, “Any figurative interpretation will do; pick the one you like.” That strikes me more as dismissal of the passage than interpretation of it. Is this unfair of me?

@Socratic.Fanatic,

I appreciate your mention of Sagan’s cosmic calendar because it makes dramatically clear a key point of conflict between the two accounts. It’s not as if the Bible’s authors don’t know how to make reference to a distant or obscure past; why then do they fail to do so with regard to creation when they had ample opportunity to do just that?

To all of you, I appreciate your engagement with my question. You are helping me wrestle the issue. My responses are not meant to shut you down, but rather to draw you out.


(Curtis Henderson) #16

Mike, thanks for your thoughtful opinions and a really BIG THANKS for the way in which you are presenting them![quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:14, topic:36078”]
Since it would be easy for God to have inspired a figurative account of creation that fit nicely - or at least didn’t clash so strikingly - with evolution once the scientific age arose, why didn’t He do so?
[/quote]This is a good question, and although I’m not remotely qualified to give a definitive answer, I can at least offer my opinion. I think the author writing (from divine inspiration) for the audience of his day gave the important messages in a familiar context. I completely agree with the message of the Genesis account. God is Creator and is responsible for the existence of the entire universe. God’s ultimate creation was mankind.

In a more direct response to your question (to which I really don’t have a highly satisfying answer), I would pose one of my own. Since it would be easy for God to have created a world in a literal period of six 24-hour days, why would our observations of His creation tell us something so vastly different?

I wish I had a reasonable recommendation for some writing that would address your questions to your satisfaction, but I can’t do better than the writings already mentioned.


(Christy Hemphill) #17

Evolution only addresses the diversity of life. It doesn’t address the origin of the universe or the origin of life. And, yes, evolution gives an explanation of natural processes involved. But if as Christians we believe that God is sovereign over and constantly working through natural processes to achieve his supernatural goals, then I don’t see how you have more a problem that evolution describes natural processes than you have with any other scientifically describable process that we believe God uses and creates circumstances with (like weather or reproduction and fertility, for example). If you believe the natural is not all of reality, that belief undergirds all your beliefs about natural processes. The supernatural part of reality can’t be made explicit using scientific explanations.

Personally, when I look at interpretations of Genesis, I want to see that the interpreter has done justice to the cultural context and literary structure and genre and stylistic features of the text. I want to see what theological truth is presented as the primary message. Interpreting Genesis is analyzing narrative literature, and narrative literature has a different purpose and different conventions than a description or explanation of a process. I wouldn’t expect to find “correspondence” with a scientific description of a process. But maybe you are saying you find the two different accounts to make mutually exclusive truth claims.

What other truth claims (besides the idea that evolution relies purely on natural processes and creation is a supernatural process) do you see as clashing?


#18

Hi Mike_Gantt,

I’m curious about what you wrote:

" I have interacted with Lamoureux directly and have found that he is so convinced of evolution that he simply makes his interpretation of the Bible conform to it."

What are the features of being “so convinced of evolution” in the manner you describe?

I would agree, if this is what you are hinting at, that there is a danger in this conversation of tracking into a double truth doctrine, as Lamoureux does, and which may be what you are asserting in Ross and Walton. Enns’ plunge into apparent Adamic heterodoxy isn’t inescapable for the “theistic evolution” position. But a general tendency towards this is easily noticeable.

Missing at this BioLogos site, of course, are usually all or most of the Catholic and Orthodox Christian views of human origins. So you may be asking for more than they can functionally deliver, don’t you think, Mike?


(Mike Gantt) #20

@cwhenderson (Curtis), thanks for your input. I am completely intimidated by Microbiology and Molecular Biology, but I’ll trust that we can communicate as one man on the street to another. As for your question:

Since it would be easy for God to have created a world in a literal period of six 24-hour days, why would our observations of His creation tell us something so vastly different?

Are our observations just observations or are they a combination of observations and assumptions? When we observe a rock, we can only observe it as it is now - not as it was at the beginning. I don’t see how you and I looking at the same rock at the same time could observe something different, but I do see how you and I could be assuming something different about how the rock came to be and thus “see” it differently. The difference would not be in our observations per se, but in the assumptions that shape our observations.

To further answer your question, I’m forced to say that I don’t know how creation is supposed to appear different today based on whether it arose instantly or over eons of time. If God created Adam in an instant as an adult and not an infant, and we had the opportunity to see him, would we say that God had created him with “the appearance of age” or would we be making an unwarranted assumption of age? Our assumptions arise from our experiences…and none of us has experienced a creation by fiat. We don’t even know what assumptions we should adopt; we’re just guessing.

But remember that I am not arguing for a six-day creation in this discussion. I am willing to accept a figurative interpretation of the Genesis creation account that involves billions of years. I just need an interpretation that is reasonable and that fits with all the other Scriptural references to creation. It is this interpretation that I’m finding illusive. Moreover, my quest feels lonely because most theistic evolutionists (TE’s) I have encountered - by no means limited to those I’ve encountered here - seem content with regarding Genesis as figurative without going into much more detail than that. If Genesis is figurative I am looking for the same sort of explanation we seek when we encounter figurative language elsewhere in the Bible. That is, we look for points of correspondence to teach us about reality. This brings me to Christy’s question.

@Christy,

I don’t have a problem with evolution describing natural processes for the very reasons you suggest. And, like you, I want an interpretation of Genesis, or of any Bible passage, to be mindful of cultural contexst, literary structure, and so on. Moreover, like you, I do not expect to see in the Genesis account a scientific explanation or even a quasi-scientific explanation. What does jar me, however, is a clash in truth claims. This brings us to your question:

What other truth claims (besides the idea that evolution relies purely on natural processes and creation is a supernatural process) do you see as clashing?

To name some obvious ones:

  • Evolution says “creation” is still taking place; Genesis says it’s over.

  • Evolution say “creation” is one continuous process; Genesis says it was a multi-stage process.

  • Evolution says all living things have a single ancestor; Genesis says living things have distinct and differentiated ancestors.

I don’t see how any of these truth claim conflicts are removed by merely saying that Genesis should be interpreted figuratively. The length of “day” has nothing to do with these conflicts. Moreover, if evolution is true, I see no reason why God could not have inspired a figurative, non-scientific, non-concordant account - suitable for both ancient and modern humans - that allowed for a single ongoing creative process that began with one living ancestor. Would that have been so difficult to do?


(Mike Gantt) #21

@Al-Khalil,

I came to BioLogos because of their stated mission:

BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.

I am identifying for them where I personally am not finding harmony between biblical faith and evolution. Perhaps they can help me find it. Everywhere else I have searched it seems that the harmony is achieved by turning up the volume on the scientific evidence for evolution and tuning out the discordant notes that are coming from the Bible. Perhaps I am being unfair in saying that. If so, these people should be able to help me see that and correct it.