Evolution does NOT preclude Christianity

You bring up some great questions. You wrote: “Well, here is a quote from the Bible. 'the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:7.' WELL, HERE IT SAYS GOD MADE THE FIRST MAN FROM 'THE DUST OF THE GROUND', NOT MODIFY (EVOLVE) HIM FROM A MONKEY, LIKE WHAT EVOLUTION SUGGESTS. GOD MADE MAN SEPARATELY, BUT EVOLUTION SAYS (ACCORDING TO YOUR QUOTE) THAT WE ARE ALL DISTANT COUSINS. THERE IS A CONTRADICTION HERE.” Yes, your absolutely right. There is a contradiction between the words in the Bible and the theory of evolution (which is truth about the natural world). This is only a contradiction IF you take the Bible completely literally. Here are some other things Christian would believe are scientifically true if the Bible is to be taken literally: Rabbits chew cud - “The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.” -Leviticus 11:6 Bats are birds - “You may eat all clean birds. But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, . . . the stork, the heron of any kind; the hoopoe and the bat.” - Deuteronomy 14:11-18 The earth is stationary, and always will be - “The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” -Psalm 93:1 and “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” -Psalm 104:5 If a Christian does take Bible literal and inerrant in scientific terms, they MUST believe the things I listed above. That the Earth doesn't orbit the sun, that bats are birds, and that rabbits chew cud. Do you know of any Christians that believe any of one these things? If a Christian believes the Earth moves around the Sun, THEY CANNOT TAKE THE BIBLE FULLY LITERAL IN SCIENTIFIC AREAS. If a Christian believes the rabbit is not a cud-chewing animal, THEY CANNOT TAKE THE BIBLE FULLY LITERAL IN SCIENTIFIC AREAS. If a Christian believes the bat is not a bird, THEY CANNOT TAKE THE BIBLE FULLY LITERAL IN SCIENTIFIC AREAS. Therefore, we can conclude that almost all Christians CANNOT TAKE THE BIBLE FULLY LITERAL IN SCIENTIFIC AREAS. So, what does this have to do with evolution? Well, if a Christian doesn't have to take the bible fully literally, than why would 6-day creation have to be taken literally? GOD FORMING “the man from the dust of the ground” (genesis 2:7) COULD EASILY BE JUST AS METAPHORICAL AS THE EARTH “can never be moved” (psalm 104:5). This statement will cause Christians to run around like chickens with their heads chopped off. People (Christian and non-Christian) will ask: “Well, then how are we to know which parts are metaphor and which parts are literal? Could the entire Bible be a metaphor? Could Jesus himself be an allegory for something else? If we're taking any of the Bible metaphorically than how can we take any of it literally? What does evolution mean for original sin or "the fall"? Is Bible completely invalid as a guide to life because we don't know which parts are metaphor or just plain unscientific? Does this mean we should just throw the Bible away?” I'll address these one at a time: Q: How are we to know which parts are metaphor and which parts are literal? A: We can't know for sure, but if a part of the Bible contradicts with God's direct work (CREATION) than that part of the Bible is very probably metaphor. So, 6-day creation is probably metaphor because there is much evidence to support the Earth is billions of years in the making. God making man from dust (and woman from him) is probably metaphor because there is evidence (observed directly from God's creation) that humans evolve from apes. Q: Could the entire Bible be a metaphor? A: I suppose it could, but it isn't likely. There are extra-biblical accounts of many of the figures in it, such as David, John the Baptist, Augustus Caesar, Paul, and (controversially) Jesus. Much of it does line up with history. The further back you go in the Old Testament, the less extra-Biblical evidence there is to prove the existence of those people and events. The New Testament may be more important to take literally (though not completely), because there is MUCH more evidence of its historicity. That's not to say the Old Testament is invalid, it is just more likely to be metaphorical truth. Q: Could Jesus himself be an allegory for something else? A: Though it is controversial, there is extra-biblical evidence in support of Jesus. It is deeply recorded in history that the early days of Christianity caused quite a stir, it seams unlikely that it this was caused by a mythical man. Also, it is more important for Christians to believe in a physical Jesus Christ because he is central to our religion. After all, we're not Moses-ians or Bible-ians, we're Christians. Jesus used a lot of allegory though, he said, "I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures, but will tell you plainly of the Father.” (John 16:25) Q: If we're taking any of the Bible metaphorically than how can we take any of it literally? A: We must decide how to interpret the passages of the Bible based on its context in history, the author's possible intention (science or moral instruction), and its contradiction with history or science. We must also judge how important the passages are in comparison to other passages in Bible (such as the words of Jesus or the Ten Commandments). Q: What does evolution mean for original sin or "the fall"? A: Well, that could be metaphorical. Original sin may represent that we all sin in our lives. For all I know, the "fall" could represent the point at which apes evolved enough into humans that we could be held accountable for our moral actions. I don't know. Q: Is Bible completely invalid as a guide to life because we don't know which parts are metaphor or just plain unscientific? Does this mean we should just throw the Bible away? A: No, the Bible can still be a guide for moral behavior, even if it is isn't scientifically accurate or some parts of it aren't literal. If the Bible is in deed, inspired by God, than it must contain truth in some form. We must figure out what that is. The words of Jesus are the best place start, providing a standard to judge the rest of the Bible. You state, “And as I said above, the Bible clearly records the unique way God created humans. And that method has nothing to do with evolving from apes or monkeys.” Again, the Bible says A LOT of things that CANNOT possibly be true, IF you take the Bible fully literally. Evidence in God's physical world proves that a Christian cannot take the Bible fully literally, because it conflicts with the obvious physical truth. A Christian must IGNORE God's work of creation to accept that the world is stationary as the Bible says. But this Christian only looks at half of the revelation of God, their belief is UNTRUE. In the same way, a Christian must IGNORE God's work of creation to accept the 6-day creation. But this Christian only looks at half of the revelation of God, their belief is UNTRUE. A real Christian must look at both the revelation of the Bible and the revelation of God's physical world. When a contradiction occurs, a Christian must reexamine BOTH interpretations of these revelations. As a general rule, science is usually right about the physical world, the words of Jesus are usually right about the moral issues. There is no reason the think the Bible was EVER meant as a science textbook.