Evolution does NOT preclude Christianity

You bring up some interesting points. I'll do my best to address them. You wrote: “Firstly, you mentioned that Galileo was a Christian but that he proposed the Earth went around the Sun, in which the Church leaders disagreed. Now I would like to clarify. The Bible does not say anything about the Sun going around the Earth. The leaders thought it was true because God made life possible on Earth so they thought our planet was superior over others and that the other planets revolved around us. However, what has that to do with evolution? Here we are not debating whether this fact precludes Christianity. “ You're right, the Bible doesn't say anything about the Sun going around the Earth. However, the church-leaders assumed that the Sun moved around the Earth because the Bible DOES say that the Earth is stationary. “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” -Psalm 104:5 The church-leaders held that the Bible was inerrant, EVERYTHING said in its pages was complete truth spiritually, historically, and SCIENTIFICALLY. To the church-leaders at the time, if a scientific theory contradicted the Bible, it HAD to be false. If the theory were to be proven, it would debase the entire Bible and thus Christianity, in their opinion. To say that the Earth moved around the Sun, was to contradict the Bible. To contradict the Bible (even in scientific matters) was not acceptable because it couldn't possibly be the truth. The more evidence Galileo presented, the larger the threat to Christianity grew. If Galileo could prove the Earth went around the Sun, it would prove the Bible wasn't inerrant and could be wrong. If parts of the Bible weren't true (even in scientific matters) than how could any of it be true? This is what the leaders thought. If the Bible couldn't be trusted, Christianity would unravel. This was not acceptable to the leaders of the Church. They suppressed the idea, ridiculed Galileo, and later imprisoned him. So what happened next? The idea that Earth revolved around the Sun was forwarded by Newton (a devout Christian and believer in God) and was later proven. This blatantly contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible. Does this debase the Bible? Does this disprove God? According to 16th century church-leaders, it really should. But the 16th century church leaders aren't Jesus and aren't God. They ignored the physical work of God in favor of the work inspired by God. Today, it is almost universally accepted (by Christians and non-Christians alike) that the Earth moves around the Sun. All Christians today are able to reconcile the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun (heliocentrism) with the Christian faith. Christians interpret Psalm 104:5 metaphorically, rather than scientifically like they used to. So what does this have to do with evolution? If Earth's revolution around the Sun doesn't preclude Christianity, than why should evolution preclude Christianity? Here's the formula that applies to both situations: The Old Testament Bible says something relating to the physical world > science proves something else > the passage must be re-interpreted to match the true findings of the physical world When a passage is re-interpreted to match the physical world God made, it will likely be truer to God's original intention, because God made the world. If a person does actually believe God is the creator, they must accept the truth about the physical world. They should not fear it (as the Church did with Galileo's findings) because it comes from God, the same presumed source as the Bible. "Science can have a purifying effect on religion, freeing it from beliefs of a pre-scientific age and helping us to a truer conception of God. At the same time, I am far from believing that science will ever give us the answers to all our questions." --Nevill Mott, English physicist, awarded Nobel Prize in 1977 Evolution is fact about the physical world. God made the physical world. Christians must accept the truth about God's work. Here is the next thing you wrote: “Secondly, I would like to point out that the evolutionary theory agrees that one phenomenon leads to another. Christians believe that too, but, they think that it all starts and ends with God. Evolutionists do not think so. They think that another thing that is explainable by science started it. That's why they say that chemical reactions were the first phenomenons that created the world. Christians believe that it is God, as the Bible says "In the Beginning, God created the world." They believe that God created life.” You state that “Christians believe everything started with God, evolutionists do not think so.” I agree that Christians believe everything started with God, but where do you get that evolutionary theory has to exclude any sort of Creator? Berkeley University summarizes the theory of evolution as follows: “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother. Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.” http://evolution.berkeley.edu... This says nothing about how “this process started in a completely physical way without supernatural intervention” or “those initial chemical reactions couldn't possibly have been instituted by a creator.” No, that is not included in the theory. Evolution's tie to religion is cultural baggage originating from a Biblical literalist backlash. Neither theism nor atheism is included in the theory of evolution. Evolution is truth about the physical world, it has nothing to do with the supernatural. "Science is...a powerful way, indeed - to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective...in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other." --Francis Collins, American physician-geneticist and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute Why couldn't God have created human life in a physical way (evolution)? Why would it have to be in an instant? If I sculpt a vase out of clay, I first put a big lump of clay on the wheel. It looks really ugly and lop-sided. I then start to spin the wheel, I push the clay to give it a better shape. I scrape out the inside, so it can hold things. The clay cracks a little. No problem, I'll patch it up and smooth it over. Now it is good! I make it beautiful, but it takes a few hours. Am I not the creator of the vase just because I didn't create the pot in an instant? Should I have just touched the clay, and zzzzing it turns into beautiful vase? Am I a less powerful creator because I don't instantly do it? Does this disprove that I am the creator? No. In fact, I would be a more caring creator if I took the time and effort to make the vase beautiful and functional. Doing things in the physical world takes a little time. It took me hours to make a physical vase, God created the entire physical universe and all it's life (including beings who could comprehend this), why don't we cut him some slack!